This....is God..

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Deano
God is Now Here
God is Nowhere

What is God? Is God a giant man who once incarnated as his own son 2,000 years ago through the womb of a woman in the Middle East? Certainly not. Is God a man who created everything we see? Wrong again. These stories are just perceptions filtered through the limited human mind. They are not ultimate truths. Is God male? No way. This notion is an erroneous interpretation by the male ego.

"God" is the Life Force

One can think of God as the life force or sentience that permeates the cosmos - gravity or levity, it matters not. As an example of such an energy, one can take a plug and stick it into an electrical outlet - this "zapping" is what becoming spiritual is all about. One becomes plugged into "God." But think about that electrical life force: It has no form. In other words, it's not a human being. It has no gender; it's not a male. It has no color; it's not white. It has no size and no container. That life force, or "God," is not a giant white man, as we have been told, who can mysteriously incarnate himself through the womb of a virgin of any particular ethnicity. Rather than being historical, these are myths that are merely symbolic for the creation of matter out of spirit.

click link for more


http://truthbeknown.com/god.htm

Shakyamunison
You are on the right path, but God is something we humans cannot ever understand. Therefore, whatever analogy is made to convey God is wrong at some level. Calling God electricity is also wrong just like calling God a white man on a cloud, but it is better in many ways.

SpearofDestiny
I like the idea though, it kind of reflects what I have percieved to be God for the past year or so.

Grand_Moff_Gav
...seems like part of the anarchist's dream.

Deja~vu
It is similar to the kabalion in teaching the ancient science that was know everywhere at the time and is now becoming known again. It's HERMETIC - ESOTERIC - MYSTICAL PHILOSOPHY! Pretty good reading too.

http://www.plotinus.com/

Deja~vu
Oh this is the link that I meant.

http://www.ihpusa.org/la_ensenianza/02_siete_principios.html

The 7 Principles of Nature. Hermetics.

DigiMark007
This really isn't anything more than another "here's what I believe and the other stuff is wrong" thread. Not that there's anything intrinsically wrong with such threads (we have many of them) but this doesn't seem particularly "new."

Reinterpreting the idea of "god" as some sort of "force" rather than the more traditional anthropomorphic deity is intuitively pleasing to many. But all it does is reframe the definition so that it isn't so at odds with reason and science. Though I'd still press the issue to such adherents to show any evidence of a "life force" that doesn't include our natural biological processes and actions/emotions, since it's just vague enough for most that it doesn't need a clear definition or evidence. Handy for spiritualists, since they can dodge the question, but not logically tenable.

I'm reminded of the trite but true phrase: "The invisible and the non-existent look the same." Believe that God is a "life force" if you must, but know that it's tantamount to saying that He doesn't exist. I realize that one can believe in "something" without a God (the "spiritual but not religious crowd"wink but both lack solid ground upon which to stand. We can transcend ourselves in a variety of ways, but we don't need the paranormal or something that is logically baseless to achieve it.

...

Hopefully that general statement captures my thoughts well. I'd address more specific points (for example, consciousness permeating the cosmos? A deliciously New Age idea, but wrong on numerous counts without something new in the form of evidence). But it would obscure my main point, stated above.

Mindship
I thought This...is...Jeopardy.

ushomefree
Is God Male or Female?

anaconda
is god a god?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by ushomefree
Is God Male or Female?

The bible is just a book.

anaconda
and god/s are inventions

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by anaconda
and god/s are inventions

More like a reflection. They (gods) are a way for us to know those things we can never know. Like, how did the universe begin?; God made it. Why did the Earth shake?; God did it.

One day the human race will grow up, but for now, we are just children.

ushomefree
Shakyamunison-

Lay persons and scientists assume a transcendent casual agent--an intelligent Being--created the cosmos--and all within--because a naturalistic explanation is unavailable and inconceivable. This has nothing to do with ignorance, but noting the obvious.

Check out the video I made:

NiLz3-Qi2ws

anaconda
or in other words inventions to avoid to explain the unexplainable by makng a god/s the answer

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by ushomefree
Shakyamunison-

Lay persons and scientists assume a transcendent casual agent--an intelligent Being--created the cosmos--and all within--because a naturalistic explanation is unavailable and inconceivable. This has nothing to do with ignorance, but noting the obvious.

Check out the video I made:

NiLz3-Qi2ws

People can, and have assumed wrong in the past. You are assuming there was a beginning.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
People can, and have assumed wrong in the past. You are assuming there was a beginning.

And also that everything can't be explained by natural causes. But we've been down that road with him before.

ushomefree
Shakyamunison... get real! Everybody and their mother knows that the cosmos had a beginning--even those with extreme bias views. Einstein didn't like the idea of a "beginning" either; but he later excepted observational data and dismissed his biases. The cosmos are not eternal.

RocasAtoll
*accepted

And Multiverse is a viable theory that is accepted by many. Just because YOU feel absolute in your idea doesn't mean every other theory is automatically idiotic.

ushomefree
What data is available to help support the "multi-universe" theory?

DigiMark007
Originally posted by ushomefree
What data is available to help support the "multi-universe" theory?

M-theory is one possible interpretation of the particles that disappear when a quantum superposition is observed. The math checks out on it, so it's entirely possible, though scientists haven't been able to frame a test that could prove such a theory....which is still a lot closer to empirical evidence than "magic man did it!"

I can post a video on it for you if you're interested....I know you enjoy posting them yourself.

In any case, even if the universe had a beginning (my own thought is that it did) the christian god is far from a necessity even then (or any supernatural intervention for that matter). A priori arguments that it could only have been God, your God no less, are just silly.

ushomefree
Why so?

DigiMark007
Not the usual overload, is it?

Maybe I'm getting sentimental, but it's been a while since the both of us convinced the other of nothing, so I'll bite...

Someone just posted a fun website that had a quote that sums this up kinda nicely:
The difference between science and faith is science bases it's conclusions on evidence, faith simply attempts to find evidence for it's preconceived conclusions.

There's plausible naturalistic explanations for everything in the known universe, and all are backed with ample evidence. This includes the creation of the universe from nothing, of which shakya's "eternal matter" hypothesis is only one plausible explanation. Pointing out what science can't prove (no one can prove anything about anything, technically), or what holes remain to be filled with empirical evidence, then inserting God as the answer, is obviously biased because it's taking zero evidence and assuming that the explanation fits. It's not an "A or B" scenario. It's, "the evidence points to A, but B/C/D/E/etc/etc. might be right as well if there is evidence to corroborate."

You mentioned in an earlier post that lay people assume a creator. Of course they do, because it's very intuitive and appealing on an emotional level. But if there is no evidence behind it, what good is intuitive appeal?

Numerous times I've been witness to you either ignoring legit scientific inquiry or perverting it to your purposes. Whether it's ignoring the fact that most of your challenges against evolution are actually met in full by data (thermodynamics, macroevolution, take your pick), or posing an endless string of answerable but unending questions to the point that no one could possibly do anything but assume there's no point to answering you. Or assuming God's intervention without once showing how to test for such a thing (if God intervenes, there is a physical outcome, and thus is testable...whether it's ID, creation of the universe, or any other paranormal claim that people use to justify belief) or even an explanation of how or why it happens.

Science works with the data. Period. Religion interprets data to suit their purposes, or changes it, ignores it, etc. If there actually WAS legitimate scientific reason to believe in supernatural intervention (whether at the creation point of the universe, evolution, or other aspects) scientists would be all over it...hell, they'd fight to publish it first so that they'd get the fame and money. But they can't because it isn't there, and they'd ruin their credibility by trying to find it. Thus, the only people making such claims are on religious payrolls, freed from such empirical constraints. And religious scientists exist, but they believe for one reason or another but like anyone else they can't provide a means for putting their beliefs to the test, or legitimizing them with anything other than blind faith. If one could actually find a way to test for any sort of paranormal intervention, it worked and could be repeated, it would revolutionize the universe as we know it. Unfortunately for us, and specifically for theists/ID advocates/paranormalists/etc. we have yet to find such a method, and won't likely ever find one. The invisible and the non-existent look the same.

Most at least realize the limitations of a theistic approach to scientific matters. It's faith-based certainty without evidence. Science is evidence without certainty.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by ushomefree
Shakyamunison... get real! Everybody and their mother knows that the cosmos had a beginning--even those with extreme bias views. Einstein didn't like the idea of a "beginning" either; but he later excepted observational data and dismissed his biases. The cosmos are not eternal.

Einstein's theory does not say there was a beginning. The theory of Relativity will not allow for a static universe. The universe must be expanding or contracting. That has nothing to do with a beginning. The truth is not determined by the number of people who believe one way or the other. At one time the human race believed that the Earth was flat, but that did not make it flat.

leonheartmm
multiverse theory is supported by basic quantim mechanics and also by time dilation in reletavistic physics.

in quantum mechanics, probability alone is responsible for where particles and space will be in relatin to time. have you heard of the photon/electron difraction double slit experiment. basically it states that all particles{real and virtual} are in phase states, simultaneously existing in multiple places and states and where they will end up in the future is based solely on probability. one consistant future occurs when the system is observed, this is called wave function collapse. however, the alternate possibilities ALSO occur, its just that evry time, our timelin branches off into almost infinite other slighlty different timeline, and hence, different universe.

also, have you ever wondered what would happend if you travelled faster than light and went back in time{theoretically possible in reletivity} and killed your ownparents before you were even born???? it gives rise to a paradox doesnt it, if you never existed to begin with, than how did you go back in time to kill your parents??? the answer is given my multiverse theories. you basically end up in ANOTHER universe where you never existed to begin with. another example would be the twins paradox. if out of two indentical twins, one went on a journey in space in a spaceship at near light speed. from the point of view of the space traveller, events on earth would slow down a lot, and when he came back o earth after a while he would be much older in comparison to his twin as time passed slower on earth form the space traveller's perspective. however, since reletivity applies, fromt he point of view of the twin on earth, things on the spaceship would slow down and after a while when the other twin comes back to earth, the EARTHBOUND twin would be much older than the one that went to space. so which scenario is true, the one where the space bound twin is older or when the earthbound twin is older???? simple answer, they are both correct, it is simply that both twins ended up in different universes because of their different perspectives on the events. kinda makes you wonder how impermanent and sweeping reality and all that is aorund you really is actually.

ushomefree
DigiMark007 and Leonheartmm-

For decades scientists of all disciplines recognized exquisite fine-tuning in the laws governing the universe in order to permit life. If the individual strengths or ratios of the four fundamental forces of nature observed today--gravity, electromagnetic force, and the strong and weak nuclear forces--were minutely stronger or weaker, life becomes impossible. The same constraint also applies to the fundamental parameters of the universe, such as the mass of the electron, the number of large space dimensions, or the expansion rate. Nontheistic scientists' responses to such fine-tuning generally fall into two categories.

One response is to hope and search for some physical principle that forces these fine-tuned quantities to assume the values they do. For example, it takes fine-tuning to make a long, thin rod stand on its end and not fall over. However, if the same rod is held at the top so that it cannot tip, the appearance of fine-tuning disappears because the position of the rod can only assume one value. To these scientists' dismay, this "solution" to the fine-tuning "problem" seems increasingly unlikely.

The second category of explanations, growing in popularity, invokes the idea of a multiverse. Naturalistic scientists posit that instead of this universe being all that exists, there also exists a multitude of other "universes"--each exhibiting different laws and fundamental parameters. These different universes never contact one another, so it is impossible to detect or to directly measure any of them. However, if this multitude of universes exists, scientists argue that the required fine-tuning for life in this universe could simply be a consequence of life arising in the universe where it is possible. As summarized by the Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP), this universe must appear designed for life or else we would not be here to observe it.

While at first glance the multiverse proposal sounds ad hoc, scientists point to two lines of support. First, recent evidence strongly points to a period of hyperexpansion--dubbed inflation--very early in the universe when the universe grew by a factor of 1030 in an infinitesimal fraction of a second. Some speculated theoretical modeling suggests that the physics causing inflation results in many different inflating "bubbles." One bubble contains this universe, but other bubbles could contain other universes.

Second, the two most tested and verified scientific theories, general relativity and quantum mechanics, are mutually exclusive if only four space-time dimensions operate in the early universe. How could both be true? As scientists currently understand the universe, string theory provides a superior model that successfully incorporates both general relativity and quantum mechanics. However, the possible solutions to the equations of string theory are about 10500, each with different laws, dimensionalities, and parameters. Cosmologists point to this plethora of possible solutions as possible universes for inflation to populate. Interestingly, none of the explored solutions match this universe, indicative of the fine-tuning exhibited by the universe.

Part of the favor that multiverse proposals garner derives from the notion that strictly natural theories are inherently more scientific than those which include supernatural causation. However, all multiverse models can be recast in terms of a single universe. Although possible, the multiverse proposal rests completely on speculated theoretical calculations--to date, no experimental or observational data exists that differentiates between a single, finely tuned universe and any of the multiverse speculations.

Talking to many members of the scientific community, one easily gets the impression that the multiverse model is a done deal, the ultimate reality. Undoubtedly the growing popularity of the multiverse idea will spill over into the popular culture.

It is important to realize that the multiverse proposal rests entirely on theoretical calculations. Although theoretical calculations play an integral role in developing successful scientific models, many models that look good on paper end up in the trash bin when confronted with hard experimental and/or observational evidence. Even given the theoretical modeling, the multiverse concept relies on additional speculation.

One currently testable aspect of the multiverse model provides further reason to doubt its validity. In a multiverse, the geometry of this universe will be open. In more technical terms, the total density parameter, Ω, of an open universe will be less than one. However, the best measurements for our universe have Ω total = 1.02 +/- 0.02 (in other words, one or greater).

Multiverse supporters believe that this marginally negative result will disappear as more precise measurements are made, but it is not encouraging when the first tests of a model tend toward falsification. Beyond this one test, no experimental evidence exists that would distinguish a multiverse from a universe. Until such evidence exists, nothing should compel a scientist--or a nonscientist--to accept a multiverse model as the final word.

On a more philosophical note, the reason many in the scientific community gravitate toward multiverse explanations is because they view completely naturalistic models as inherently more favorable than models invoking supernatural causation. This motivation appears to drive multiverse thinking because all multiverse models can be recast as a single universe. However, since multiverse models seem to provide a naturalistic explanation for the tremendous fine-tuning evident in this universe, some scientists tend to favor them over universe models.

Interestingly, it appears that many multiverse models redefine the term natural. Not too long ago the natural realm encompassed all space, time, matter, energy, and the physical laws associated with this universe. Anything beyond, by definition, was considered supernatural. However, all multiverse models assume a reality beyond the space, time, matter, energy, and physical laws of this universe. Thus, while multiverse enthusiasts would characterize their models as naturalistic, these models actually invoke supernatural or metaphysical features.

Those gravitating toward multiverse models commit a form of the gambler's fallacy. Upon seeing the immense fine-tuning of this universe, they assume the existence of a large number of universes beyond ours which exhibit no fine-tuning. However, the scientific community currently has no way of knowing whether these alternate universes exist or if they differ from this universe. A better approach would be to look more closely at this universe and see if the evidence for fine-tuning increases as scientific understanding advances. If so, that increased evidence would argue more powerfully for a Designer who created and maintains this universe. Unfortunately, many people would rather gamble than embrace the evidence.

Mindship
Originally posted by ushomefree
Those gravitating toward multiverse models commit a form of the gambler's fallacy. Upon seeing the immense fine-tuning of this universe, they assume the existence of a large number of universes beyond ours which exhibit no fine-tuning. However, the scientific community currently has no way of knowing whether these alternate universes exist or if they differ from this universe. A better approach would be to look more closely at this universe and see if the evidence for fine-tuning increases as scientific understanding advances. If so, that increased evidence would argue more powerfully for a Designer who created and maintains this universe. Unfortunately, many people would rather gamble than embrace the evidence.

While it's true that "currently" scientists can't test for other universes; if we have to "see if the evidence for fine-tuning increases as scientific understanding advances," then clearly, that approach has current limitations as well.

That said and done...

My understanding is, multiverse theory is empirically testable once we have the technology capable of generating the magic energy level of 10^19 gev. This energy level - called the Planck mass - is important because it relates to the gravitational constant. Beyond that, specifically how it would prove the existence of other universes with different constants, is way over my head. The point is, direct evidence for other universes is theoretically accessible.

On the other hand, divine fine-tuning will always be indirect evidence. No matter how finely-tuned our universe ends up appearing, this is not direct experiential evidence of an Intelligent Designer. In fact, even if a transempirical God does exist (and I like to think "He" does), empirical evidence will always be, at best, inferential.

DigiMark007
All ushome did was outline the Anthropic principle, which does nothing to show evidence for a god. The leap in logic from constants of the universe to the Christian God is so monumental as to defy credulity.

Then he erroneously grouped scientists into two categories, neither of which describes most peoples' feelings on the anthropic principle well, and they also aren't the only two scientific possibilities.

Then he posted what I can only assume is a copy/paste article from a Christian website (possibly paraphrased to ensure deniability) that calls into question M-theory. Which is about all Christian "scientists" are good for....knocking down possible theories then inserting God as the default answer without evidence.

Btw, M-theory isn't generally accepted...it's simply being looked into mathematically and scientifically. Saying it isn't currently testable is entirely true, but no one denies that. Or would you have us give up theorizing as well if it has the potential to harm your religion?

...not gonna debate him further. Just wanted everyone to know what that is. Believe what you need to ushome...it's not able to persuade anyone who doesn't let their faith override their reason.

chickenlover98
Originally posted by leonheartmm
multiverse theory is supported by basic quantim mechanics and also by time dilation in reletavistic physics.

in quantum mechanics, probability alone is responsible for where particles and space will be in relatin to time. have you heard of the photon/electron difraction double slit experiment. basically it states that all particles{real and virtual} are in phase states, simultaneously existing in multiple places and states and where they will end up in the future is based solely on probability. one consistant future occurs when the system is observed, this is called wave function collapse. however, the alternate possibilities ALSO occur, its just that evry time, our timelin branches off into almost infinite other slighlty different timeline, and hence, different universe.

also, have you ever wondered what would happend if you travelled faster than light and went back in time{theoretically possible in reletivity} and killed your ownparents before you were even born???? it gives rise to a paradox doesnt it, if you never existed to begin with, than how did you go back in time to kill your parents??? the answer is given my multiverse theories. you basically end up in ANOTHER universe where you never existed to begin with. another example would be the twins paradox. if out of two indentical twins, one went on a journey in space in a spaceship at near light speed. from the point of view of the space traveller, events on earth would slow down a lot, and when he came back o earth after a while he would be much older in comparison to his twin as time passed slower on earth form the space traveller's perspective. however, since reletivity applies, fromt he point of view of the twin on earth, things on the spaceship would slow down and after a while when the other twin comes back to earth, the EARTHBOUND twin would be much older than the one that went to space. so which scenario is true, the one where the space bound twin is older or when the earthbound twin is older???? simple answer, they are both correct, it is simply that both twins ended up in different universes because of their different perspectives on the events. kinda makes you wonder how impermanent and sweeping reality and all that is aorund you really is actually. ive always pictured multiple universes as splitting at every moment. such as that for every event a new universe is created with a differing timeline. for instance in this universe i brush my teeth, but in another i didnt. the event may not effect much or effect anything, but the point is that there is a change. ive thought about the theory like that for a long time. itd be good for us to be able to enter other universes(if they exist) for multiple reasons. just for what if situations and also for resources

ushomefree
Hmm....

ushomefree
DigiMark007-

It is obvious that you and I lack the capacity to reach common ground, and that is fine; no harm done. But do not attempt to simplify or undermine views that I present (by labeling them Christian propaganda and/or rhetoric). That is not fair, not to mention false! Change the record, already. It is a lame defense.

You act like a conspiracy is unfolding and all truth is being distorted and/or destroyed by so-called "Creationists" (ha ha ha)! It is laughable.

You and I once talked about the validity of genome information increasing in organisms--which, by the way, has never been documented--and you argued tooth and nail. Amazing! Richard Dawkins once said, "That is the kind of question only a Creationist would ask." Hello Mr. Dawkins... it is the kind of question someone being "critical" would ask! After all, it is the only outlet for Natural Selection to be remotely possible, and yet, Creationists are mocked.

The cell is more complex than any man-made machine on the face of the planet. It repairs and reproduces itself for crying out loud; but I need not make the mistake of assuming that something more--other than nothingness and chance--created it. No... that would be against all logic and scientific knowledge.

Point being, DigiMark007, I'm not your enemy. We are supposed to be talking about the truth (and what is practical). You are just a uneducated and/or bias as anyone else on this forum, and do not pretend not to be otherwise. You do not know when to shut up and when to speak.

Your a tool.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by ushomefree
Point being, DigiMark007, I'm not your enemy.

Really? Good to hear.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Your a tool.

Oh wait.

erm

I attack points and counterpoints, positions and opinions. Not people. You're right that we'll probably never reach common ground, but to resort to overt bashing is just plain immature (and this cut the majority of the bashing for space purposes). Because I'm not so concerned with what people believe as how they act toward others, regardless of those beliefs. A lot of us disagree with a lot of others on these forums, but we can remain genuinely respectful through it. But you fail even at this. Grow up a little, learn to take criticism of your ideas, and to treat others like human beings...not for me or for KMC, but for yourself. It'll do you a world of good.

ushomefree
Right.

ushomefree
Let me ask you something Digi: Do you think man will ever be able to travel by means of worm-holes?

Devil King
Originally posted by ushomefree
DigiMark007-

It is obvious that you and I lack the capacity to reach common ground, and that is fine; no harm done.

I don't know, burning in hell FOR EVER! is pretty harmful...I think.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Maybe I'm getting sentimental, but it's been a while since the both of us convinced the other of nothing, so I'll bite...

That was funny.

Robtard
Originally posted by DigiMark007
This really isn't anything more than another "here's what I believe and the other stuff is wrong" thread. Not that there's anything intrinsically wrong with such threads (we have many of them) but this doesn't seem particularly "new."

Reinterpreting the idea of "god" as some sort of "force" rather than the more traditional anthropomorphic deity is intuitively pleasing to many. But all it does is reframe the definition so that it isn't so at odds with reason and science. Though I'd still press the issue to such adherents to show any evidence of a "life force" that doesn't include our natural biological processes and actions/emotions, since it's just vague enough for most that it doesn't need a clear definition or evidence. Handy for spiritualists, since they can dodge the question, but not logically tenable.

I'm reminded of the trite but true phrase: "The invisible and the non-existent look the same." Believe that God is a "life force" if you must, but know that it's tantamount to saying that He doesn't exist. I realize that one can believe in "something" without a God (the "spiritual but not religious crowd"wink but both lack solid ground upon which to stand. We can transcend ourselves in a variety of ways, but we don't need the paranormal or something that is logically baseless to achieve it.

...

Hopefully that general statement captures my thoughts well. I'd address more specific points (for example, consciousness permeating the cosmos? A deliciously New Age idea, but wrong on numerous counts without something new in the form of evidence). But it would obscure my main point, stated above.

Yea, but from a logical standpoint, thinking of God as a abstract "force" is far more sound than thinking of God as a virgin born Jew who died for you, no?

ushomefree
Digi, will man ever be able to travel by means of worm-holes?

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Robtard
Yea, but from a logical standpoint, thinking of God as a abstract "force" is far more sound than thinking of God as a virgin born Jew who died for you, no?

Absolutely. I just think both are standing on thin ice in terms of supporting evidence. So it's clearly more logical, but not necessarily "logical" imo.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Digi, will man ever be able to travel by means of worm-holes?

How would I even begin to guess at something like this? And if this is your attempt to drag me back into a pointless debate, you can save us both the time and stop now.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by ushomefree
Digi, will man ever be able to travel by means of worm-holes?

Hmm sounds like a tricky question...is he an astrophysicist?

ushomefree
Relax everyone; the answer is no. Just like black-holes, worm-holes have a gravitational pull so strong, that it would destroy man-made craft and passengers immediately. Aside from the craft, the human body would be stretched to mere atoms (much like a pearl necklace)--immediate death.

Deano
theres nothin hard to understand. god is everywhere..god is you

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Deano
theres nothin hard to understand. god is everywhere..god is you

Saying god is everywhere is equivalent to saying god is nowhere. You can acknowledge and be in awe of the wonder and beauty of creation without needing to label it as "god."

Originally posted by ushomefree
Relax everyone; the answer is no. Just like black-holes, worm-holes have a gravitational pull so strong, that it would destroy man-made craft and passengers immediately. Aside from the craft, the human body would be stretched to mere atoms (much like a pearl necklace)--immediate death.

So glad you could enlighten us. Of course, unlikely as it may be, saying "no" and nothing else neglects possible scientific advances of teh future. Ask a person 4000 years ago if we'd ever fly. Same thing. Now, I agree that it probably will never happen (almost certainly not, in fact) but your smug dogmatism here is not only off-topic and pointless in this context, but condescendingly sure of itself.

roll eyes (sarcastic)

Now try to stay on topic.

ushomefree
So glad we agreed, except for staying on topic, of course. Have a good one Digi and take care all; going out to dinner. thumbup

DigiMark007
Originally posted by ushomefree
So glad we agreed, except for staying on topic, of course. Have a good one Digi and take care all; going out to dinner. thumbup

Cool, thanks.

Originally posted by ushomefree
You are just a uneducated and/or bias as anyone else on this forum, and do not pretend not to be otherwise. You do not know when to shut up and when to speak.

Your a tool.

...only I somehow doubt the quick 180 is completely legit.

My point stands. You don't have to like someone or agree with them to be respectful. Keep it in mind for future dealings, both on KMC and otherwise.

chickenlover98
Originally posted by ushomefree
DigiMark007-

It is obvious that you and I lack the capacity to reach common ground, and that is fine; no harm done. But do not attempt to simplify or undermine views that I present (by labeling them Christian propaganda and/or rhetoric). That is not fair, not to mention false! Change the record, already. It is a lame defense.

You act like a conspiracy is unfolding and all truth is being distorted and/or destroyed by so-called "Creationists" (ha ha ha)! It is laughable.

You and I once talked about the validity of genome information increasing in organisms--which, by the way, has never been documented--and you argued tooth and nail. Amazing! Richard Dawkins once said, "That is the kind of question only a Creationist would ask." Hello Mr. Dawkins... it is the kind of question someone being "critical" would ask! After all, it is the only outlet for Natural Selection to be remotely possible, and yet, Creationists are mocked.

The cell is more complex than any man-made machine on the face of the planet. It repairs and reproduces itself for crying out loud; but I need not make the mistake of assuming that something more--other than nothingness and chance--created it. No... that would be against all logic and scientific knowledge.

Point being, DigiMark007, I'm not your enemy. We are supposed to be talking about the truth (and what is practical). You are just a uneducated and/or bias as anyone else on this forum, and do not pretend not to be otherwise. You do not know when to shut up and when to speak.

Your a tool. and you are full of yourself, not to mention a pompous ass, who spreads propaganda through nice and big words, and uses a viel of modesty. frankly digi is one of the only members on the religion forum who is informed to every position or tries to be. and yes it does appear you too ARE enemies although you refuse to admit it. your just being illogical now

chickenlover98
Originally posted by ushomefree
Relax everyone; the answer is no. Just like black-holes, worm-holes have a gravitational pull so strong, that it would destroy man-made craft and passengers immediately. Aside from the craft, the human body would be stretched to mere atoms (much like a pearl necklace)--immediate death. because you've been to one right wink

Jbill311
Originally posted by ushomefree
Let me ask you something Digi: Do you think man will ever be able to travel by means of worm-holes?

I don't understand. Why does this matter?



I'm still confused. are you saying that this is a problem that we need to overcome? Or is this supposed to be an illustration of humanity's supposed insignificance? Neither of these options make any sense to me, but the question was far enough off topic that even I couldn't find a valid path back. (and I have rationalized tangents from global warming to bringing the conversation to hamster wheels)

Deja~vu
Originally posted by Deano
theres nothin hard to understand. god is everywhere..god is you Now you sound like me. eek!

We are all parts of a bigger whole, a microcosm of a macrocosm and so on. Like one cell in a whole body of everything that is parts of a whole, yet seperate. Each influencing the others in either a positive or negative way. Cyclical....creating and dying...Universes are born and die just as people do and seasons change....round, round, and round...

queeq
Sounds very trying.

Deja~vu
Okay, I'll make it easy. God/force/spirit is a circle within circles. And endless and producing spiral of events both manifested and not.

http://www.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_pages/0218-0610-0622-4627.html

Deja~vu
Oooooooooo


I always wondered why I'd always make circle with my fingers and stuff....


IT WAS A DIVINE SIGN!! I KNEW THE TRUTH! eek!

Isn't god pretty? happy

BTW, it's the concept that matters, not my words...you understand right?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.