Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I just watched a episode of Curiosity on the discovery channel. Stephen Hawkins a cosmologist, was giving his thoughts on God not existing. He based his theory on modern day science. The conclusion that he came up with was that the universe started from nothing. So everything within the universe, even down to our perfect condition planet which supports an abundance of life is all just a coincidence. He also said if there's not a god then the chances of life after death is slim to none. KMC what's your take on the matter?

just not the universe but every thing smallest and the greatest at earth at heaven and between them visible and invisible all are created by Almighty GOD.
_________
Tie Downs

I believe that he did. Some people don't. But creation makes more sence then anything else I had heard.

The problem with the media's portrayal of the creation/evolution debate is that it seems to intentionally keep the sides as polarized as possible. So for example, the only advocates for evolution that you hear from are people like Daniel Dennett and Stephen Hawking who say forthright that there "is no god" and that "everything is an accident." And on the other end of the spectrum you get people like Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, etc. etc... who say that everything was created in full in 6 days. Now, neither ONE of those options makes any damn sense!! It's no wonder we can't reach a half-reasonable consensus!

But in fact, the two sides are completely compatible (why can't they be??) and much more nuanced and subtle than media wants it to be. The REAL Evolution Debate is a good link for breaking it down into a much more nuanced issue. Now, obviously the world is older than 6,000 to 10,000 years old (or whatever the current fundamental Christian number is), otherwise we wouldn't even be able to see star light! It wouldn't have reached us yet. And on the other hand, WE are intelligent, living, breathing beings, so we can't be the product of a mechanical and meaningless universe (I shall site Alan Watts on that note). So as you can see, neither side on it's own makes sense. There has to be a marriage of the two.

Now, the problem comes when people make an unwarranted jump into thinking that the "GOD" that they sense exists is the God of the Bible. Which is ludicrous. Just because there's a God, does that mean he's got a big white beard and is judging everything you do and say? Hell no. No sensible person actually believes that. God is spirit and much more subtle and personal than that.

It is time to EVOLVE our understanding of GAWD.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Now, the problem comes when people make an unwarranted jump into thinking that the "GOD" that they sense exists is the God of the Bible. Which is ludicrous. Just because there's a God, does that mean he's got a big white beard and is judging everything you do and say? Hell no. No sensible person actually believes that. God is spirit and much more subtle and personal than that.

Actually, the problem is, because God is almost certainly a fictional entity, there is much room to define it as ambiguous or however else it isn't defined in the Bible.

When a scientist says god does not exist, they are more than likely speaking of the God that the vast majority of the Jewish/Christian/Muslim population of the world believes exists, that is, physical manifestation of a higher body directly involved in the world of man.

These "God as some abstract spirit entity" definitions are specious for their own reasons, but largely go unaddressed by scientists because people rarely try to force science and science education to conform to its ideals. God-as-spirit is essentially no different, in terms of effect on the world, than is nonexistant God, so to scientists, there is almost no need to even address it as a concept. In general, scientists are happy to let people believe nonsense so long as they are free to do their research. People like Hawking and Dawkins become outspoken on the issue because religious communities take umbrage with their work, not because of any inherent desire to fight against religion, for the most part.

Originally posted by inimalist
Actually, the problem is, because God is almost certainly a fictional entity, there is much room to define it as ambiguous or however else it isn't defined in the Bible.

Really, now?

I see it like this:

"Actually, the problem is, because God is almost certainly a real entity, there is much room to define It as ambiguous or however else it isn't defined in the various religious texts."

Originally posted by inimalist
God-as-spirit is essentially no different, in terms of effect on the world, than is nonexistant God, so to scientists, there is almost no need to even address it as a concept. In general, scientists are happy to let people believe nonsense so long as they are free to do their research.

Yeah, that's a good point. I see what you're saying, but research could be conducted on religion! The great debate is really whether or not Science and Religion are compatible. And they are. They just have to make some concessions in order to get along (which neither is willing to do). For example, Religion needs to stop believing ludicrous things like walking on water and science has to recognize an inner depth that could only be defined as some supernatural entity and there would course be ways to measure it scientifically, because with anything going on in the brain there is a physiological component. It could be the most fascinating research.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Yeah, that's a good point. I see what you're saying, but research could be conducted on religion! The great debate is really whether or not Science and Religion are compatible. And they are. They just have to make some concessions in order to get along (which neither is willing to do). For example, Religion needs to stop believing ludicrous things like walking on water and science has to recognize an inner depth that could only be defined as some supernatural entity and there would course be ways to measure it scientifically, because with anything going on in the brain there is a physiological component. It could be the most fascinating research.

There are OBE researchers (real scientists...not quack crystal doctors or some stupid shit) that honestly believe we can study the "Transcendent" and are trying their best to do so. They think that they can scientifically study the realm of "God"...so to speak. I find that humorous, silly...and somewhat humbling. Some of these scientists are just genuinely interested in science regardless of what it is. "What, there might be an afterlife? Let's study it, measure it, quantify it, and publish our work." WTF?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Really, now?

I see it like this:

"Actually, the problem is, because God is almost certainly a real entity, there is much room to define It as ambiguous or however else it isn't defined in the various religious texts."

real things have observable qualities

the fact that God almost certainly isn't real is one of the reasons that so many interpretations about what it might be like are able to exist without there being any real evidence to claim one is superior to the other

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Yeah, that's a good point. I see what you're saying, but research could be conducted on religion! The great debate is really whether or not Science and Religion are compatible. And they are. They just have to make some concessions in order to get along (which neither is willing to do). For example, Religion needs to stop believing ludicrous things like walking on water and science has to recognize an inner depth that could only be defined as some supernatural entity and there would course be ways to measure it scientifically, because with anything going on in the brain there is a physiological component. It could be the most fascinating research.

much of this research has been done, the religious experience located generally in the superior temporal lobe. This is also where significant experiences looking at art or the stars tend to be located, is a region of great importance for regulating emotions, and is involved in something called temporal lobe epilepsy, which often has the result of people feeling as though they are God.

To this date, and after extensive testing over many decades, there is not even a suggestion of good evidence for anything supernatural, ESPECIALLY in the brain. Most people, in my experience, find neuroscience to actually be too materialist in how it explains human behaviour, because they become uncomfortable with the idea of the "self" or the inner dualist being an entire fabrication of inter-connected systems within the brain. I've left lectures and overheard students in the class vehemently deny that they might not have the volitional control they thought they did. Studying the brain is likely to present far more mechanistic explanations for human experience than it is to produce evidence of the supernatural.

How familiar are you with modern neuroscience research, as you do seem to be making a fairly strong claim against it...

Yeah, well that kind of thing is perhaps a bit silly. But I'm thinking more along the lines of measuring and looking at the brain as people meditate, give thanks, love, show compassion... etc. And I think to some degree studies have been carried out on such things. I do know that research is done on meditation at least.

Originally posted by dadudemon
There are OBE researchers (real scientists...not quack crystal doctors or some stupid shit) that honestly believe we can study the "Transcendent" and are trying their best to do so. They think that they can scientifically study the realm of "God"...so to speak. I find that humorous, silly...and somewhat humbling. Some of these scientists are just genuinely interested in science regardless of what it is. "What, there might be an afterlife? Let's study it, measure it, quantify it, and publish our work." WTF?

and their research is full of terrible methodology and statistics, and even then, proves to be entirely inconclusive.

they should take a page from homeopathy or social psych and just fabricate the data.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Yeah, well that kind of thing is perhaps a bit silly. But I'm thinking more along the lines of measuring and looking at the brain as people meditate, give thanks, love, show compassion... etc. And I think to some degree studies have been carried out on such things. I do know that research is done on meditation at least.

sure, they find entirely mechanistic explanations for the changes in conscious experience associated with meditation, and further research is almost certain to expand our understanding of the mechanisms as opposed to discovering something supernatural

I don't mean to make any claims against modern neuroscience. I'm just merely trying to suggest that science and religion could collaborate if they so wished.

Originally posted by inimalist
real things have observable qualities

I agree, which leads me to believe there is a higher probability of God existing than not.

Originally posted by inimalist
the fact that God almost certainly isn't real is one of the reasons that so many interpretations about what it might be like are able to exist without there being any real evidence to claim one is superior to the other

The "fact" that God almost certainly is real is one of the reasons that God has a vast amount of commonalities in almost all religions, even if it is necessary aggregate between multiple gods. The fact that humans squabble over which technicalities are right and which are not just shows us that humans can be contentious.

My favorite rebuttal to what I said is this: "That or belief in mystical beings that explain the unexplained is the natural process of development in an intelligent, highly social species."

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I don't mean to make any claims against modern neuroscience. I'm just merely trying to suggest that science and religion could collaborate if they so wished.

how would this benefit science at all?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree, which leads me to believe there is a higher probability of God existing than not.

The "fact" that God almost certainly is real is one of the reasons that God has a vast amount of commonalities in almost all religions, even if it is necessary aggregate between multiple gods. The fact that humans squabble over which technicalities are right and which are not just shows us that humans can be contentious.

actually, if it were simply choosing a flavour between Jesus, Allah and Moses, I'd be with you, but my point was made to someone presenting the "God-is-the-undefinable-abstract-spirit", which is different in kind form these other interpretations.

In fact, Leech's specific point was about how limited that interpretation of what a "God" is actually is. The only definitional quality we know about his God is that it is, specifically, not the same kind of thing you would see in the major monotheisms.

Originally posted by dadudemon
My favorite rebuttal to what I said is this: "That or belief in mystical beings that explain the unexplained is the natural process of development in an intelligent, highly social species."

maybe, however, the earliest forms of religion were not monotheistic or in fact, contained few "Gods" as we would understand them. It might be true that the brain we evolved with seeks to connect events, and a meta-explanation that transcends all events may increase what is known as "secondary control", however, I would never argue that a God is the only thing that could fill that or even the most obvious. Further, observing that a belief in God is what we ended up with does not mean it was necessary given our brains in early evolution. It might be more that belief in a God makes one more violent toward those who do not (basic ingroup/outgroup stuff) and as a consequence only God-believing tribes succeeded, not because the explanation of God served any purpose, but because of some other thing that is only somewhat related to the belief. Its like a cultural-evolution version of a "just so" statement.

Originally posted by inimalist
and their research is full of terrible methodology and statistics, and even then, proves to be entirely inconclusive.

they should take a page from homeopathy or social psych and just fabricate the data.

Really?

So you know exactly which researchers I'm referring to? You must be psychic which indicates you have supernatural powers. Something that you would claim not to believe.

Out of curiosity, which researchers did you think I was referring to?


Originally posted by inimalist
actually, if it were simply choosing a flavour between Jesus, Allah and Moses, I'd be with you, but my point was made to someone presenting the "God-is-the-undefinable-abstract-spirit", which is different in kind form these other interpretations.

In fact, Leech's specific point was about how limited that interpretation of what a "God" is actually is. The only definitional quality we know about his God is that it is, specifically, not the same kind of thing you would see in the major monotheisms.

I disagree. That type of abstract "complex" God/Spirit is the very thing that the majority of Christians believe in. It is THE primary reason many of them call Mormons "not Christians" because we don't believe God to be an abstract spiritual entity as they do.


Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I don't mean to make any claims against modern neuroscience. I'm just merely trying to suggest that science and religion could collaborate if they so wished.

Transhumanists are technically that amalgamation that you seek. 'Spiritual', but hope in science.

Science is their God.

Originally posted by inimalist
sure, they find entirely mechanistic explanations for the changes in conscious experience associated with meditation, and further research is almost certain to expand our understanding of the mechanisms as opposed to discovering something supernatural

Perhaps "supernatural" wasn't the right word. Of course it would lead to greater understanding of the mechanisms within the brain. But even still that would NEVER lead to a scientific understanding of what LOVE, HATE, EMPATHY, etc (emtions) are... they're experiential. And that is where religion/philosophy comes in. You have to have the WONDER and AWE to be a good philosopher or spiritual guide.. because life is meant to be an experienced.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Perhaps "supernatural" wasn't the right word. Of course it would lead to greater understanding of the mechanisms within the brain. But even still that would NEVER lead to a scientific understanding of what LOVE, HATE, EMPATHY, etc (emtions) are... they're experiential. And that is where religion/philosophy comes in. You have to have the WONDER and AWE to be a good philosopher or spiritual guide.. because life is meant to be an experienced.

Well, I disagree, there.

We most certainly will be able to fully understand love, hate, empathy, etc (emotions). In fact, we have fairly well defined scientific reasons for those: from evolution to neuroscience. They may appear as subjective experiences but they are common and we can gather statistics from those seeming subjective experiences.

We WILL replicate it with Artificial Intelligence...short of some sort of a catastrophic event that destroys our ability to expand our technologies further.

I don't think being able to simulate it or replicate it is really quite the same as knowing what it is... the only way to know it is to feel it. It's subjective by it's very nature.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I don't think being able to simulate it or replicate it is really quite the same as knowing what it is... the only way to know it is to feel it. It's subjective by it's very nature.

that argument is essentially the same as "how do I know what I see as blue is blue to you?"

which is almost entirely moot.

Sure, science will never be able to describe what anger is like for every individual person in each possible context. That is not its goal or scope or even desire. The same way that science will never be able to describe the perception of blue that makes you know what blue is like for everyone. But who cares? Why is that an important question in the first place?

Regardless of what it feels like to be angry to you, there are huge amounts of information we can say, such as what is active, how connected areas may impact your explicit feelings or behaviours, etc. I can't really think of something less interesting than whether your experience of happiness differs from mine, similarly, whether your perception of the wavelengths that comprise blue is the same as mine.

Additionally, this view I feel puts far, FAR, too much emphasis on the conscious experience of things. There are many behaviours that are of trivial difficulty to elicit from people without their conscious knowledge. You can learn, feel, perceive and even do more complex things like problem solve or become motivated using systems whose information processing never becomes conscious in the first place. Conscious experience is, in fact, a secondary epiphenomenon that arises from these systems, often completely unaware of what and why it is doing or experiencing what it is. There is far less information that could arise from studying people's moment to moment conscious experience than studying their neuronal activity compared to explicit research tasks.

Originally posted by inimalist
Additionally, this view I feel puts far, FAR, too much emphasis on the conscious experience of things. There are many behaviours that are of trivial difficulty to elicit from people without their conscious knowledge. You can learn, feel, perceive and even do more complex things like problem solve or become motivated using systems whose information processing never becomes conscious in the first place. Conscious experience is, in fact, a secondary epiphenomenon that arises from these systems, often completely unaware of what and why it is doing or experiencing what it is. There is far less information that could arise from studying people's moment to moment conscious experience than studying their neuronal activity compared to explicit research tasks.

I agree, mostly.


However, many millions of people will want to share their subjective experience with each other if technology can facilitate such a desire (it should...eventually). Humans want to share. We are extremely social. So I don't think enough emphasis can be placed on "subjective experience".

Being able to relive the thoughts and feelings someone experiences will be super duper wicked awesome (scientific terms, I swear).

Originally posted by dadudemon
Really?

So you know exactly which researchers I'm referring to? You must be psychic which indicates you have supernatural powers. Something that you would claim not to believe.

Out of curiosity, which researchers did you think I was referring to?

I suppose you are right, I don't know presciesly which research you are talking about. That being said, this isn't a topic that is altogether new to me.

I'd first fall back on the story of Sue Blackmore, who recieved the first parapsychology degree in the UK and spent years doing research in the field. She said she left it when she realized that people were more driven to find the results they wanted rather than to do good research, and the quality of the experiments and methods were terrible, hence why replication and meaningful theories that explained multiple lines of results didn't exist.

I've been through this with Deadline on numerous occasions, and in the situations where his resources do talk about methods and stats (often the "papers" are just summaries of other "papers" done years ago, themselves containing more anecdotal justifications for psi than any statistics or methodology) they are often at such a low level that even I can see them with little scrutiny. The most recent posts of his described numerous experiments where significant results were reported at a p<.05 even though the 95% confidence interval contained the null .

The most recent psi research I've seen (I don't know if it had OBE stuff) was a review of thousands of trials by Bem, which after having a Baysean statistical analysis applied to it turned out to be largely insignificant.

Then there is the fact that even in social psychology and in top rated journals almost 50% of psych research has major statistical errors, 15% of which actually change insignificant results into significant ones that support the thesis of the researchers. Even when there aren't explicit errors, social psych often uses so many variables and co-variates that they are statistically more likely to find false positive results than they are actual effects. Also, there is fraud. In this regard, psi research stands out as a field where methods and statistics are atrocious but is part of a field where such problems are endemic anyways.

That being said, if you have some good work you want me to look at, I will. My expectations being what they are, I'll still try to give it a fair go.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree. That type of abstract "complex" God/Spirit is the very thing that the majority of Christians believe in. It is THE primary reason many of them call Mormons "not Christians" because we don't believe God to be an abstract spiritual entity as they do.

surveys disagree with you

people believe, in iirc shocking majorities, that God is a being who is actively involved in most people's lives. This "abstract entity" thing didn't even come into the mainstream until the 60s. Evangelicals would disagree point blank, and the idea of an abstract entity is not really congruent with catholic "trinity" beliefs.

In Islam, the only sect that would be close to "abstract" in these terms would be the Sufis, a small minority in the faith. Even some Hindu followers interpret Brahma as a much more "skyfatherly" character than abstract energy.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree, mostly.


However, many millions of people will want to share their subjective experience with each other if technology can facilitate such a desire (it should...eventually). Humans want to share. We are extremely social. So I don't think enough emphasis can be placed on "subjective experience".

Being able to relive the thoughts and feelings someone experiences will be super duper wicked awesome (scientific terms, I swear).

yes, but so long as there are actual physical differences in the brains that people use to perceive, experience and feel through, the question of whether the same thing is experienced in different ways in either brains will still be a question.

Its like one of those questions that is designed to not ever have an answer so people can justify to themselves never having to come up with satisfactory answers yet still convince themselves how clever they are.

Originally posted by inimalist
I suppose you are right, I don't know presciesly which research you are talking about. That being said, this isn't a topic that is altogether new to me.

I'd first fall back on the story of Sue Blackmore, who recieved the first parapsychology degree in the UK and spent years doing research in the field. She said she left it when she realized that people were more driven to find the results they wanted rather than to do good research, and the quality of the experiments and methods were terrible, hence why replication and meaningful theories that explained multiple lines of results didn't exist.

I've been through this with Deadline on numerous occasions, and in the situations where his resources do talk about methods and stats (often the "papers" are just summaries of other "papers" done years ago, themselves containing more anecdotal justifications for psi than any statistics or methodology) they are often at such a low level that even I can see them with little scrutiny. The most recent posts of his described numerous experiments where significant results were reported at a p<.05 even though the 95% confidence interval contained the null .

The most recent psi research I've seen (I don't know if it had OBE stuff) was a review of thousands of trials by Bem, which after having a Baysean statistical analysis applied to it turned out to be largely insignificant.

Then there is the fact that even in social psychology and in top rated journals almost 50% of psych research has major statistical errors, 15% of which actually change insignificant results into significant ones that support the thesis of the researchers. Even when there aren't explicit errors, social psych often uses so many variables and co-variates that they are statistically more likely to find false positive results than they are actual effects. Also, there is fraud. In this regard, psi research stands out as a field where methods and statistics are atrocious but is part of a field where such problems are endemic anyways.

That being said, if you have some good work you want me to look at, I will. My expectations being what they are, I'll still try to give it a fair go.

I was obviously being a smartass. I also would not consider the shitty work of the obviously bias researchers to be among those I was not talking about. For instance, my favorite (shitty) argument is "all of the memories are created when they wake up". That's such a shitty argument not supported by science. Another favorite is, "zomg! none of those memories could have formed while they were asleep for almost all of the people!" That's such a shitty argument not supported by science.

Additionally, "replicating" results is hardly the goal of some science. That's a dishonest approach to some types of research. However, there are some efforts to influence the OBE and NDE experiences which is awesome. That would be the replication. But there are those skeptics that think replication is futile from the onset.

Edit - I looked for the work of this one gent. He seemed genuine. He was the one I was referring to when I talked about "researching the afterlife" in a serious manner.

And I don't have any research for you.

If I run across his name, again, I'll put it up. He works with others. Their focus is more on explaining how shit works in the brain to cause the NDE's or OBE's but he also thinks that some of the rare examples defy our current understanding of science. He believes we can "research" the supernatural at some point. I agree. I think everything "supernatural" is only supernatural to us because we do not yet understand it. It is all "natural". It could lead to great stuff. Maybe it all IS in the head and we have different "things" going on in there even after death. Maybe it isn't and subjective experience is not localized to the brain at 100%? Maybe? Maybe?


Originally posted by inimalist
surveys disagree with you

people believe, in iirc shocking majorities, that God is a being who is actively involved in most people's lives. This "abstract entity" thing didn't even come into the mainstream until the 60s. Evangelicals would disagree point blank, and the idea of an abstract entity is not really congruent with catholic "trinity" beliefs.

In Islam, the only sect that would be close to "abstract" in these terms would be the Sufis, a small minority in the faith. Even some Hindu followers interpret Brahma as a much more "skyfatherly" character than abstract energy.


Uhhhh...you show a fundamental lack of understanding what Christian beliefs are if you think that the concept of the Trinity is not an abstract concept of God. It is literally considered a "Mystery" (capital M, lol).

You're also focusing on the very aspect that I obviously excluded: how involved or not involved such an abstract entity is in our universe. I never contended or commented on that.



But, I will allow you to define what you mean by "abstract entity": please proceed.


I define it as the Trinity. The Trinity represents an abstract Spiritual entity in the most direct way possible. Just because Catholics refuse the label of "abstract spiritual entity" does not mean that it isn't abstract. It is such a muddy and absurd concept that refusing to call it for what it is, is just ridiculous. This is how I define "abstract spiritual entity". That much is obvious. You know that is how I am defining it. So why do you still contend against it with definitions that I am obviously not using? In fact, I still do not know exactly which definition you are using.

Originally posted by inimalist
Additionally, this view I feel puts far, FAR, too much emphasis on the conscious experience of things. There are many behaviours that are of trivial difficulty to elicit from people without their conscious knowledge. You can learn, feel, perceive and even do more complex things like problem solve or become motivated using systems whose information processing never becomes conscious in the first place. Conscious experience is, in fact, a secondary epiphenomenon that arises from these systems, often completely unaware of what and why it is doing or experiencing what it is. There is far less information that could arise from studying people's moment to moment conscious experience than studying their neuronal activity compared to explicit research tasks.


QFT. This is good posting people.

Originally posted by heru
I just watched a episode of Curiosity on the discovery channel. Stephen Hawkins a cosmologist, was giving his thoughts on God not existing. He based his theory on modern day science. The conclusion that he came up with was that the universe started from nothing. So everything within the universe, even down to our perfect condition planet which supports an abundance of life is all just a coincidence. He also said if there's not a god then the chances of life after death is slim to none. KMC what's your take on the matter? So...KMC much?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I was obviously being a smartass. I also would not consider the shitty work of the obviously bias researchers to be among those I was not talking about. For instance, my favorite (shitty) argument is "all of the memories are created when they wake up". That's such a shitty argument not supported by science. Another favorite is, "zomg! none of those memories could have formed while they were asleep for almost all of the people!" That's such a shitty argument not supported by science.

Additionally, "replicating" results is hardly the goal of some science. That's a dishonest approach to some types of research. However, there are some efforts to influence the OBE and NDE experiences which is awesome. That would be the replication. But there are those skeptics that think replication is futile from the onset.

Edit - I looked for the work of this one gent. He seemed genuine. He was the one I was referring to when I talked about "researching the afterlife" in a serious manner.

And I don't have any research for you.

If I run across his name, again, I'll put it up. He works with others. Their focus is more on explaining how shit works in the brain to cause the NDE's or OBE's but he also thinks that some of the rare examples defy our current understanding of science. He believes we can "research" the supernatural at some point. I agree. I think everything "supernatural" is only supernatural to us because we do not yet understand it. It is all "natural". It could lead to great stuff. Maybe it all IS in the head and we have different "things" going on in there even after death. Maybe it isn't and subjective experience is not localized to the brain at 100%? Maybe? Maybe?

maybe? sure, it is possible, but I think almost certainly not, as even the most valid models of quantum consciousness are specious and offer no real theoretical explanatory power that isn't already covered with much more mundane understandings of how information processing in the brain works.

but ya, don't let it be said that I wouldn't look at new or challenging data. Some of the most interesting stuff I've learned has come from looking into psy results.

On replication though, I can't imagine what kind of science you are talking about that doesn't require replication... While it isn't practiced enough in most fields, and issues like being unable to publish null results do make it, in practice, less practiced than it should be, at a philosophical level, you aren't actually doing science if you don't think your experiments can be replicated. It is fundamentally one of the most important issues behind objectivity and empiricism.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Uhhhh...you show a fundamental lack of understanding what Christian beliefs are if you think that the concept of the Trinity is not an abstract concept of God. It is literally considered a "Mystery" (capital M, lol).

You're also focusing on the very aspect that I obviously excluded: how involved or not involved such an abstract entity is in our universe. I never contended or commented on that.



But, I will allow you to define what you mean by "abstract entity": please proceed.


I define it as the Trinity. The Trinity represents an abstract Spiritual entity in the most direct way possible. Just because Catholics refuse the label of "abstract spiritual entity" does not mean that it isn't abstract. It is such a muddy and absurd concept that refusing to call it for what it is, is just ridiculous. This is how I define "abstract spiritual entity". That much is obvious. You know that is how I am defining it. So why do you still contend against it with definitions that I am obviously not using? In fact, I still do not know exactly which definition you are using.

I think we are getting hung up here, mainly because we are now arguing a distinction between sort of ephemeral and abstract that is not the same as the distinction that Leech made. In fact, I think you have a point, given where this is going, no, totally, these religions don't necessarily have sort of Pagan God-beings.

Leech made the distinction between God of the bible, specifically, and the type of God that might exist. I was taking this to mean the nebulous God of the "can't know" agnostics, which I think we can both agree is a different thing entirely from the "Mystery" interpretation. I might have been assuming too much, but Leech didn't disagree, when I characterized his God as being such that there would be no difference between its existence and non-existence, which I do know is not how Catholics define "Mystery", though we did get away from that...

Originally posted by inimalist
maybe? sure, it is possible, but I think almost certainly not, as even the most valid models of quantum consciousness are specious and offer no real theoretical explanatory power that isn't already covered with much more mundane understandings of how information processing in the brain works.

but ya, don't let it be said that I wouldn't look at new or challenging data. Some of the most interesting stuff I've learned has come from looking into psy results.

I should probably state where I stand on the subject: I think almost all of it can be explained by science. There might be stuff that appears to be supernatural but eventually we can know of those, too. Our "soul/spirit" has little to no direct influence on what happens in life. It functions as a perfect harddrive of our life and a transceiver for God to communicate with our brains. I'm highly skeptical of OBEs and NDEs as almost all of them seem like dreams rather than legit experiences (bear with me on the words I'm using). I just find it awesome that some scientists even approach the seeming supernatural as something else that can be studied. This goes with what Leech was saying: why do they have to be different? What IF there was a way to artificially induce "death" and then explore the Afterlife (if there is one), research it, measure it, etc? Sounds awesome. Some Christians consider this type of research to be Satanic and blasphemous (not kidding...but I'm sure at this point in your life, you're not surprised by some of the things Christians believe or say). But I don't: if God doesn't want us researching his realm, He'd put a stop to it...cause he's God, yo.

Originally posted by inimalist
On replication though, I can't imagine what kind of science you are talking about that doesn't require replication... While it isn't practiced enough in most fields, and issues like being unable to publish null results do make it, in practice, less practiced than it should be, at a philosophical level, you aren't actually doing science if you don't think your experiments can be replicated. It is fundamentally one of the most important issues behind objectivity and empiricism.

Not all research requires replication, however. We "argued" about this before. Some science is simply observation. It is every bit as scientific as anything else we do.



Originally posted by inimalist
I think we are getting hung up here, mainly because we are now arguing a distinction between sort of ephemeral and abstract that is not the same as the distinction that Leech made. In fact, I think you have a point, given where this is going, no, totally, these religions don't necessarily have sort of Pagan God-beings.

Leech made the distinction between God of the bible, specifically, and the type of God that might exist. I was taking this to mean the nebulous God of the "can't know" agnostics, which I think we can both agree is a different thing entirely from the "Mystery" interpretation. I might have been assuming too much, but Leech didn't disagree, when I characterized his God as being such that there would be no difference between its existence and non-existence, which I do know is not how Catholics define "Mystery", though we did get away from that...

Okay. In that case, my bad.

So he's arguing for an indifferent God? The "agnostic" God? A God that is apathetic towards Its creation? This God confuses me. It makes no sense. Why create it if you'll be apathetic towards it? Maybe an "anthropomorphizing" that God too much with human feelings/thoughts?

It also gets into pantheism which I also dislike/think is pushing it. I'm okay with an abstract spirit God. I can accept the Trinity or concepts like it...it just doesn't seem to be the most reasonable.

Originally posted by heru
I just watched a episode of Curiosity on the discovery channel. Stephen Hawkins a cosmologist, was giving his thoughts on God not existing. He based his theory on modern day science. The conclusion that he came up with was that the universe started from nothing. So everything within the universe, even down to our perfect condition planet which supports an abundance of life is all just a coincidence. He also said if there's not a god then the chances of life after death is slim to none. KMC what's your take on the matter?

It doesn't take a God in order to be something after death. Ask Buddhists.

Yes. Prove me wrong.

I am more inclined to say that God IS Universe rather than God creating Universe...

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I am more inclined to say that God IS Universe rather than God creating Universe...
How could you tell the difference between a universe that is also God, and a universe that is just a universe?

Pantheism is nonsensical. The universe has quantifiable properties tested by empirical methods. If God and the universe are one and the same, then calling the universe God is foolish. None of the properties we know about the universe are even remotely close to the various properties assigned to deities. Pantheism is just an attempt to try and inject nebulous spiritual nonsense into something that has no need of it.

I'm more inclined to say that God created the universe then f*cked off afterward.

Metapanentheism ftw.

Originally posted by King Kandy
How could you tell the difference between a universe that is also God, and a universe that is just a universe?

Because noone really knows what God is nor is there an agreed definition of it. The closest we came to defining it is giving it human attributes, sometimes human form, sometimes animal form.
What is indeed attributed to the deities could be metaphorical, or it couldn't.

Since God is almost always understood in terms of Judeo-Christian views, which evolved from other pagan views of God(s) and such we tend to be unable to imagine God as anything other than that.

In fact, this is so engraved into our understanding that it is almost ludicrous to imagine God as something totally different and unrelated to the general understanding of God.

Totally AGREE! Well said.

Originally posted by King Kandy
How could you tell the difference between a universe that is also God, and a universe that is just a universe?

There would be no difference.

I have this book that some religious group gave me on the street, its one of those mini books called, Proof about why god is real and how he created the universe and all I can remember is that one example was, look at the fruit banana, its so perfect in its shape and it opens up... basically at this point I started to laugh but you get my point.

Originally posted by rudester
I have this book that some religious group gave me on the street, its one of those mini books called, Proof about why god is real and how he created the universe and all I can remember is that one example was, look at the fruit banana, its so perfect in its shape and it opens up... basically at this point I started to laugh but you get my point.

It's the old fine tuning argument. Why are things in nature fine tuned to their environment? Even the laws of physics are fine tuned. This is still a difficult question.

If the being god lives he was never born or you say he was created what started him or it? Because the measure of time before universe infinite.So existences was never a start but universes die and get born. itself never ending numbers of measures.There stuff out side of creation too.If god was powerful It seem we are nothing important to god because there no communication.Do we see him in death but not in life?Do you know how long we was unborn for before life ?There was nothing to know what was happening to us in the never born yet state for the never ending time without a body and senses .We humans don't know nothing until we are born in this world to learn it.I don't believe in a god because I don't think a being can create all existence of all universes and every place in time.not measurable: without any finite or measurable limits of space.All living things in existence there a big number of life that know nothing of word god man invented .God is man made but most would say the stuff that made us made it.People who worship something that not there We can scream into the empty silence trying to call it to us but nothing there for us.True freedom is better without acting like a god got plans for us. Because no one would really know that god is the thing they will encounter it could be a alien to us and something That was never was in contact with us.There only nothingness and silence. .We don't need to be saved.Pass the point of death we know no unknown place in the afterlife to truly be really what will happen to us.heaven or hell or back in the blank emptiness of no senses to reawake in as new birth again without knowledge of before or this is the one life we got that mean no new birth in existences too. God a being that powerful is so selfish and we are not important to it.It don't help us to impove the survival of our kind.I don't think existence made the being god.Because something can't be giving powers of everything.To make anything with what magic. what is the origin of what make this power or magic to do it.Because what made him can make another.being born in this world people don't know nothing of god.Until they come in contact with other people or make some form of what they think of the place around them to invent the thought of it.We human are the makers of the words and knowledge of putting something like that in place to explain the unknown.another thing is if existence made god it would not be one they would be more of them.Because of the stuff that created it and there nothing because.What the unknown element that make stuff of that god.there Multiple Universes with Multi births of Existences too and space a endless place it go on for infinite time.If there was a wall to a universe what that made of because breaking through go for a never ending path.What ever did it to created god can happen any where or you will say it happen at the birth of universe too.There no start or end to all existence outside creation being outside existence is another existence but some would say absense of existence is absense of space .If a universe died it still something to think about.heaven and hell would not be places that are not real to me but god believer say it to be.The other means we will die as this life is over in future we will come back as a new lifeform in birth of no knowledge of before in a unknown place in universe or multiverse or different space of time.Some even think we become ghost but the last one I said was meaning stuff that made the body that made us.Meaning the senses of the body after that gone we offline and What I mean we can't be place in a new birth after death but it a mystery of the unknown.no start or end of a god being no birth or death of it.no beginning of god or end and they say he everything in existence.The uncreation or creation of that makes god or gods.Making of god or the unmaking of god inside existence and outside existence.Pop in space and pop out of space there absence space.The nonuniverses are there too.the anti god the antiuniverse the antiexistence and anti space anti creation.most think god got a body or don't have one making him space and that empty.If spirit or energy of it is made of something and that would mean what made that stuff.Could make others.Most can't say there not more gods then one but no way of telling if it there.

Yes!