What do you get if you divide science by God?

The reason why we reject ID, at least why I do, is that "intelligent design" is a dead end. It adds nothing and predicts nothing. It can't be used in the scientific method and has no technological applications.

Even still it adds complexity to the problem by introducing a whole new immensely complicated variable . . . and that violates Occam's razor.

However, the basic principle of evolution is the continual growth of complexity from simple origins through incremental changes. This principle goes beyond biology.

This growth from simple origins is seen in astrophysics through simple hydrogen and helium stars creating heavier and more complex elements through fusion, which in turn become more complex through the various number of chemical reactions as seen in chemistry.

This basic premise of expanding complexity from simple origins is seen in mathematics under fractal dimensions as well as genetic algorithms, both of which have many real world applications.

Genetic algorithms, in particular, is a very powerful branch of mathematics modeled after evolutionary theory and it is incredibly useful in engineering.

Here is one engineer at a TED talk that used genetic algorithms in the development of new and cheap solar technologies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSMzKg6fwJ8

Also, the principle of adaption to the environment can even be seen in human history, of all things, as the evolution of human societies were the result of environmental and geographical influences.

("Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond, I can't recommend this book enough . . . it should be required reading in Senior HS history classes)
http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0393317552

All that without even mentioning that the principle of evolution is the backbone of microbiology which in turn is responsible for modern medicine . . . and then there's always genetics.

So, the basic principle of evolution is being used all across the board with very tangible and very useful results.

Meanwhile, ID offers nothing except an unconstructive philosophical interpretation that has no business in the realm of science to begin with . . . that is why it is so readily and easily rejected.

Well... I still think that it takes just as much "faith" to believe there is no creator, than to believe that there is.

Really, you think this is all an accident??

I don't think it is, and certainly if there is a creator, he's a mathematical being beyond our comprehension...

Either way you have to have faith... accident or divine creation? Science cannot prove either.

BTW... you completely ignored the fact that this post was discussing a SCIENTIFIC and MATHEMATICAL study that has very possibly disprove or at least put into question whether the universe is expanding or not. That has nothing to do with ID, yet it is unfairly rejected because it simply QUESTIONS the original theory.

This is bias no matter how you cut it. Bias in science is probably the most nonconstructive thing imaginable... how can you progress if you refuse to even question things that are still considered theory?

I won't debate over the mathematics regarding the expansion or contraction or even the stasis of the universe. It's not in my area of knowledge.

I'd certainly agree that the science community can be stubborn and is slow to move, which can very much be to the detriment of the community. Einstein was almost ignored. Feynman's diagrams were almost written off. If you want to be recognized by the scientific community in regards to a game changing idea, you have to be relentless. So yes, in that regard you are right, there IS a bias to the status quo for what is already accepted.

However, you would be wrong to presume it requires faith to live with the assertion that there is most likely no creator. Everything in my world-view is subject to change.

However, I'm personally 99.9999999% certain that there is no creator that is currently in control of the universe. I'm also about 95% sure that there is no master-architect deist creator (who is 100% in line with science) that spawned the universe and let everything go from there, evolution and all.

And then I'm effectively 100% certain the sun isn't the wheel of Apollo's chariot. =)

I think the whole god thing is mostly just humans anthropomorphizing a personal view of the universe, and I think such a view would be inherently false. I think many project what they want to see out into the world and do not see what is actually there.

For me personally, the logic behind the god-person idea just doesn't add up to what I think and see . . . and the concept of evolution makes the most sense to me, as I see that principle of growing complexity from simple origins in every spectrum of the universe.

But, evolution or no, I really do recommend that book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond. I think it has very far reaching implications about idea diffusion, among other things. I think there is a real truth in that book about humanity that has gone unrecognized for far far to long.

Btw, evolution isn't even necessarily at odds with a god-person view, only the certain god-person views that describe how the universe and life came to be. So, I guess evolution actually does demonstrate that at least some versions of the god-person are indeed false.

However, there is still the deist version, or a personal god version that works through science . . . if you really want to salvage the god-person view and put it in agreement with science. I know people that have said the god-person used evolution to create everything, I disagree with them of course as I feel they are stretching . . . but it's a remote possibility I guess.

ok so i'm back:-)...lucid i find you soo interesting because you truly seem to find it very logical that we came from nothing.Still refusing to understand consciousness...which is a very real subject would you not agree...God is a word which comes from the sankrit word hu...which is believed to be the 1st sound...the term god is confusing because of its innate ability to force the mind into thinking of a supreme being or creator...when in fact from my POV neitha exist...I do believe that it is ridiculous to believe that their isn't a source.So if we talking stats i'm 100% positive that there is a source...and 100% sure that the source was conscious.You ask how?and i tell you to search from within...you say fuck that...i say continue game..lol
much love

namaste

"you say fuck that" lol! true, and well put. =)
I personally don't trust the "look inside" method, I think it's to subjective and that one will find only what one wants to see. I really do think that "looking inside" ultimately blurs the vision to what is outside.

My biggest problem with subjective philosophy, is that it is personal by nature and in turn it is not constructive among a community of people that could verify it's validity and build off of it. That's why the scientific community grows and builds so rapidly . . . and that is why abstract philosophy does not.

To put it in an analogy:
Abstract philosophy is like a kite with no string. It can dance a beautiful dance as it is swept away in the currents of the void . . . but it knows no up or down, having no objective bearings.
Science coupled with logical thought is the string that keeps the kite grounded to an objective reality.

The thing is though, is that I think I actually do understand consciousness as a localized phenomenon that is the product of a complex mind. I don't think that consciousness exists in the surrounding universe, I think it exists only inside the mind . . . I have about 95% confidence in that idea anyway.

As for the source, I don't know what happened at and before the singularity of the big bang. Perhaps string theory is correct, perhaps not . . . I can work and live without having a conclusion on that, but I'm confident it wasn't from a god-person that is directing the universe like a symphony . . . I just don't buy that.

I had a friend once who told me what he believed. He believed that before the universe there was a god entity, and then that entity exploded out into the universe in the form of the big bang and became the stars, the asteroids, the comets, the planets, the moons, the water, the plants, the animals, and us. He believed that everything was god, but being spread out and self destructed to form the universe . . . the god entity had no power other than to just be.

That's my favorite explanation of the god world-view. I find it beautiful and appeasing; but, I still see it as just another creation myth, albeit a beautiful one.

If there is a creator, he's laughing at scientists trying their damnedest to understand what he has created and still denying the possibility of a creator or grand designer of this magnificently and beautifully complex reality that we take for granted. To such an entity, science would seem a feeble attempt to rationalize, understand, and control our world. We don't even understand the very consciousness that makes us ask questions in the first place...

I'm not pretending to know the answers.

Thank you Lucid for being fairly balanced in your responses. You make good points, thank you. It's a rare thing in this particular debate.

Well you blocked off further development when you believe consciousness can only live in the mind...Again my experiences and your's differ alot as i can tell but i shit you not that consciousness exist in energy form...outside of the mind...thats like saying you are only a body and when you die...whoops let me stop:-)

much love

To: simplecj

I kind of have a simple philosophy in life, that the honest truth should never fear the question . . . simply put: it is what it is. =)

It was definitely nice to discuss the questions and the possible answers, and I very much enjoyed the conversation.

to: iamfree

I'm going to have to review that idea closer, about ambient conscious energy.

I've looked at it before years ago and I think I still have an idea of where it will lead; but, I have a different world-view since the last time I looked at it, making it something worth thinking about again . . . so thanks. =)

An atheist is someone who does not accept the claim that there is a god. There are probably some that are certain, but I am not. Most atheists do not literally mean "I know there is no god." More often than not, it is more like "I do not believe there is a god."

Take me for example. I do not hold a belief that there is a god, although I cannot deny the possibility. I consider that possibility to be very low. I am an atheist.

In reality nobody is sure, so everyone is agnostic, but in practice we place probabilities on these beliefs. Atheists place a very low probability on the existence of god. Agnostics are closer to a 50/50 chance, and theists place a high likelihood on the existence of a god.

It's really just semantics, but in my view which term applies to you would depend on the likelihood you place on the existence of god.

As for evolution. Yes you are right, we have no account for the beginning of life, but that is not part of evolution, as evolution makes no claim as to the beginning. The origin of life is tackled by other theories (such as self-replicating carbon molecules, etc)

I am also versed in physics and other sciences (I'm a computer programmer, but I started out in pre-med). I love math and I read physics books for fun.

Science does not claim to know everything. If you read 'science' that claims that, rest assured it is pseudoscience. The quantum world is definitely something we don't know everything about. There is more than one theory (which disagree with each other). Thus, we cannot use quantum theories to justify the existence or non-existence of god.

Also some claim to be both agnostic and atheist. It depends on the definition you use. You could define agnostic literally, which translates to "without knowledge" (of the existence god in this case). Atheist means "without belief in god". If you define it that way, they are not mutually exclusive.

... thanks for diluting the term agnostic to be all-inclusive.. real nice.

Anyways, by your own argument, nobody should be able to discredit intelligent design any more than they credit theories like the Big Bang. Yet that's exactly what I get from almost every athiest as well as alot of modern science programs that bluntly present the Big Bang as FACT.

Why is it that ID is, sometimes violently, attacked as pure stupidity, and at the same time claim Darwanism and the Big Bang as truth and/or fact?? Shouldn't the debate at least still be open? Why are teachers constantly forbidden from even mentioning ID or presenting it as an equally plausible theory as the Big Bang?

I actually happen to know, that the math behind the main support for the Big Bang, red/blue-shift, is flawed. My wife is a math major, physics minor and did a very enlightening mathematical study of the classical method used to say that the universe is generally expanding. I can explain if you would like, but there's no way to do it in just a few sentences... and to be sure that I'm siting her work correctly, I'd have to read over it again.

I discredit ID because it doesn't answer anything. It takes a complex question and adds more complexity to it. IF the main idea behind ID is that things are so complicated, they require a designer. Then the designer must be more complicated that the design, and it leaves the question open, "Who designed the designer" ad infinity.

The defense to that is to give god the power to exist outside of time and space, which adds even more complexity and is merely a guess. There is absolutely no evidence for it. There is enough evidence for evolution to convince me and nearly 100% of life scientists. The universe is not only expanding, it is accellerating. Why? We do not know, but for now there is the dark matter theory.

I get your point that we don't know everything, but in my opinion ID is nonsense. No offense to you. There is no absolute proof that there is no designer, it's just a big leap of faith and is not science. It just isn't.

@noxidereus: Agnostic can't include everyone. It has a specific definition:

a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

You could tell people that they qualify as an agnostic based on the fact that they probably have some kind of opinion, but I'm sure they will disagree. Would you really call a devout Christian or a hardcore atheist an agnostic? I sure as hell wouldn't.

Agnosticism (to me) means that someone probably doesn't care either way whether or not God actually exists, but will neither discredit nor acknowledge God. I myself am an agnostic atheist. I don't think god exists, I really don't, but since there isn't any way to prove he exists (or doesn't exist) that gives me no right to tell those of faith that their god doesn't exist. I accept religions without judging or making assumptions about those people. It is what it is.

Thank you nettle.

@noxidereus

How do you KNOW that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate? If the mathematics that are used to determine whether an object in space is moving towards or away from you is flawed, then so is the theory that it supports.

With the classical red/blue-shift mathematical theory, the direction is only considered in the normal direction (directly at or away, no sideways movement). What my wife found is that when she reworked the math to include vectors of varying direction (360 degrees) and varying speed (zero to c), she found that a randomly generated sample of over 50,000 vectors showed about 60% preference of moving away. The results where even more dramatic when the sample was taken at speeds near c (speed of light). For those speeds, the random samples resulted in over 75% preference to moving away (red shift), when it should be more like 50%. (my percentages may be off a bit, I don't have the report in my hands right now, but you get the point)

She actually discovered that as the speed of the object approaches the speed of light, the shift approaches 100% red, regardless of actual direction.

Funny thing was that the professor she was working with even told her that they would have a pretty hard time getting their study published because the scientific community would see it as a direct challenge to the Big Bang theory (which her documentation never actually mentions, it's purely math and theory). He even half-joked about death threats should they actually get it published. In the end it was not-surprisingly rejected by the review board, but she did get a hard copy of it.

This is one example of the prejudice that anyone faces when challenging our modern scientific consensus and I feel that is only detrimental to progress. It's totally parallel to the kind of dogmas that make religion look so bad.

Awesome. I was thinking that too.

Chance is not the driving force in evolution. It is genetic mutation, which we know occurs in reality, along with natural selection. The time is... 4 billion years. Please state the probabilities you are mentioning (I bet you can't). You must also take into account the billions and billions of stars, each of which may have multiple planets orbiting them. There are more stars in our galaxy than grains of sand on our planet. Nay, scientists say that the probability of life is so great that it is naive to think that Earth is the only planet that harbors life.

I concur that there is no way to prove the non-existence of God. I challenge you to show me an atheist who attempts to prove that there is no god with 100% certainty.

However, that is beside the point. The burden of proof is on the believer. Without sufficient evidence, the magical concept of an almighty, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, sentient god who created everything, holds no weight. Why is it up to atheists to disprove that god exists?

Hypothetical:

I have an invisible, intangible, pink unicorn who grants my wishes. How can he be both pink and invisible? Well you can't see him, but if you could he would be pink. Want me to prove it? I can't prove it because he doesn't respond to tests of his power. That wouldn't be fair. Do you believe me? Is it up to you to disprove my extraordinary claims?

No, you can dismiss it as being in all likelihood false because I cannot prove it. As Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Without any proof that god exists, atheists may dismiss it as false (mind you, not with 100% certainty) because it is incredulous.

Ah, way to misconstrue what I had said. I said Dawkins replaced God with chance, I did not say that evolution itself was driven by chance (although to a degree it is, but that is another matter).

Here's a good explanation of Dawkins by one of his peers at Oxford.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-433628/Do-stop-behaving-God-Professor-Da...

You're right. I can't tell you off-hand. I can tell you tonight when I get home and can check my reference. I'm sure you can appreciate the need for using the correct information rather than pulling it out of my ass.

Edit:

Further, for your hypothetical, I would suggest that if you find that your invisible pink pony grants you wishes, you keep on believing whatever it is you are to keep those wishes being granted. I'd suggest that if it works in the advancement of your well-being and elevates your appreciation of life, then by all means embrace your beliefs and may they serve you well.

Like I've said, I believe that belief in God and belief in science as an explanatory construct for the observations of our experiences are mutually exclusive. Belief in science does not have to necessitate disbelief in God. That is an absurd assumption.

If you live your life completely on the basis of explanatory or evidential belief, then by all means show me evidence and proof beyond the testimonial evidence that Napolean was at Waterloo. After all, there is testimonial evidence of Jesus working miracles, but that is beyond the point. My point is that you are being hypocritical if you believe you operate every aspect of you life without assumptions and faith that certain things will happen without any evidence of it being true.

I agree that science does not eliminate the possibility of God. I also agree that people can't know things for certain (like your Napolean example). I have to defer to historians on that one. It's all about weighing evidence and also to some extent trusting certain sources of information. Science is an example of information that can be trusted. Not just one source, but data the comes from experimentation that is peer reviewed and stands the test of time. That is not to say to blindly believe that we are 100% certain. Science has a built-in way of self-correcting over time.

Evidence for god is something I had been searching for when I was a believer (I just wanted to make sure I was right). There is no evidence that there is a god, even though science cannot disprove god. There is room to believe in something, and there probably always will be. Now I choose not to accept any claims of any gods due to lack of evidence. If we ever did find conclusive evidence, I would accept it.

I have evaluated the bible as a source of evidence. I don't want to bore you with the details, but it is not a source that I trust. I do trust scientific evidence for evolution. We don't know exactly how it happened, but we have extremely convincing evidence that it did occur. That does not remove the possibility that a god caused evolution to occur. Personally, it seems highly unlikely to me, but not 100% impossible.

Peace.

Have you ever heard of Anthony Flew? He was Bertrand Russell's successor, and coincidentally (or not so coincidentally) the predecessor of Richard Dawkins. You should check him out.

science and religion will never "converge" in so far as science deals with the natural and religion deals with the supernatural.

I see what you are saying, which is why I also said science and religion are beginning to cover common ground rather than converging. There's an interesting book out called "Supernatural as Natural" which covers this very topic.

Damn. I'm going to have to agree again. That has been my point of contention for some time. God and science are mutually exclusive. That is also why I have been harping on the fact that science cannot disprove God, and why I have been saying they can both exist without issue.

P.S.

You're still an agnostic, not an atheist.

Uni's an atheist. He's far from agnostic.

Science may not be able to disprove all gods, but it is continually disproving more and more concepts surrounding the gods.

I for one look to logic for an explanation of the universe . . . and logic tells me that an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent god couldn't have created the world we live in. At least one of those 3 attributes must be diminished for these results we see.

Also the concept of "free will" conflicts with the attributes of omnipotence and omniscience.

Not to mention that any uncontrollable satan or anti-god figures also diminish the omnipotence attribute.

Also, I think this understanding of the biblical version of the god-person is absolutely brilliant and needs to be repeated:

"You see, the religious people -- most of them -- really think this planet is an experiment. That's what their beliefs come down to. Some god or other is always fixing and poking, messing around with tradesmen's wives, giving tablets on mountains, commanding you to mutilate your children, telling people what words they can say and what words they can't say, making people feel guilty about enjoying themselves, and like that. Why can't the gods leave well enough alone? All this intervention speaks of incompetence. If God didn't want Lot's wife to look back, why didn't he make her obedient, so she'd do what her husband told her? Or if he hadn't made Lot such a shithead, maybe she would've listened to him more. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why didn't he start the universe out in the first place so it would come out the way he wants? Why's he constantly repairing and complaining? No, there's one thing the Bible makes clear: The biblical God is a sloppy manufacturer. He's not good at design, he's not good at execution. He'd be out of business if there was any competition."

-pjacobs51
http://current.com/items/89914923/creationism_in_texas.htm

In theory we are all agnostic, whether we like it or not.. No one has epistemic certainty about god or the sun rising tomorrow. (We do, however, have epistemic certainty that 2+2=4).

Nevertheless, in practice I am an atheist, or a polite atheist (i.e. agnostic) depending on my mood.

Ah, the conflict between omniscience, omnipotent, omnibenevolent and free will. If God is to be considered as all of existence at once, thus being omni-everything, God is outside the concept of time, and therefore, to say that he 'does' things specifically would be to imply that God is within time acting on specific experiences in relation to time. The concept of God being benevolent in some way that is likened to our own concept of benevolent would be to assume that we know what is good in relation to God. All we have is a conceptualization of things we cannot conceive of in that description. How do we define those things, to the extent that we would somehow know what conditions such qualities would have? How can we satisfy that question? I mean, who are you to decide what omnibenevolent would be for the entirety of existence? Would that existence include you? What about me? Is that fair for me? Have you thought about that I would choose if I were to have what I considered a perfect existence? How about every person that exists? Has existence ended yet? Do we have answers for any of that? Nope, its all just an exercise of the mind. If you've read this far, bravo.

We as individuals have free-will in the way that we can decide, in time, how to react to the phenomenon that we experience. We do not have the free-will to enact some occurrence that will take place 400 years in the future in any actual causal way. Free-will is something limited in the sense that we have the freedom to choose what we do right now. We have the freedom to choose whether we believe in God or not. We do not have the freedom to stop time (unless you're on some serious drugs, in which case time seems to at least slow), or the freedom to perceive all things at once. Think about it, you have a free-will. You are making the choices to do the things you are consciously doing, consciously. However, say tomorrow, you get in a car. You will deliberately be driving, and intentionally going to a specific place. That is free-will. The restriction of free-will, is that everyone in the world has free-will. We are all conscious beings making choices, and some of those choices are conscious. It is as innocent as a phone call. You could attempt to call someone, you have the will to do so, but they exercise their free-will not to pick up. You didn't have the freedom to talk to that person because they exercised their own free-will. However, the fact that you guys didn't talk at that point in time, will is someway impact your lives. If in no other way, than that the two of you didn't share an experience due to it. Of course, this is all an analogy to the fact that we have very limited perception, and that there is a level of interconnectedness between all phenomena that take place. Everything that happens, has a ripple effect forward in time, and the summation of those events have led to the fact that I'm sitting here typing this, someone out there may eventually actually read to this point, and if they do, there was a deliberate reason for it. If no other reason than me getting some pleasure out of the fact that someone read this far. The only way I'd know is if someone comments about it.

I really digressed.

to: librelover

I'm sorry, but I think your last post is a bit convoluted and I think you are missing the point on this one, I probably should have better articulated myself to begin with.

It's not "free will" if the course of the universe, as well as your own actions, are already determined. That is the conflict with omniscience.

Also, any "free will" that we have is a personal power that the god-person doesn't have control over. That is the conflict with omnipotence.

If we have any amount of "free will", which I think we do, than that in itself is a limiting factor on the god-persons power and foresight.

So the point is: that the existence of "free will" contradicts the possibility that the god-person could be either omnipotent or omniscient.

Forgot to respond to the comment about us all being agnostic. That's tricky, because in actuality we are all agnostic in the sense that we cannot know the objective truth of things outside of ourselves. The ultimate skepticism. At that point, all we have is belief. Mathematics are true because there is a agreed upon fundamental set of axioms. They are a construct of human consciousness as far as we are concerned. It is likely that any intelligence that may exist would obviously develop a similar concept of mathematics in their gradual development as a species. Anyway, we can't know that we understand existence in its totality because we cannot know what we do not know. We can learn knew things, but we cannot know... what we don't know (or how much we don't know). A theist in this sense does not know if God exists. However, just as we choose to accept that 2+2=4, theists choose to believe that God exists. They don't sort of believe, they do believe. The believe in the sense that they know God exists, just as we know that 2+2=4. Yes, you can be shown 2 apples, then shown 2 more and understand that there are now 4 apples. However, a theist doesn't require that physical manifestation to take place for them to believe in God. Belief in God can come from many other experiences. Of course, there are varying degrees of theistic belief, but affirmation of their belief in God suggests an affirmation that they know God exists. An agnostic suspends judgment, and suggests that they cannot know either way. Therefore they do not believe in God, nor do they affirm his non-existence. This means that you can be agnostic and not believe in God. An atheist, is absent of theistic belief. The atheist denies theism altogether. Nietzsche was an actual atheist. Of course, atheism has varying degrees, just as theists do. However, you still would need to concede that an affirmation of atheism is to affirm the choice to believe that you know no theistic belief as true. Just as a theist, if affirming theism, must affirm their choice to believe they know theistic belief is true.

If anyone has read to the point that I start talking about people achieving such a feat two other times by this point. I'll say I'm sorry. I guess I was in a unique mood for rambling.

Wow Lucid, I don't know if you have absolutely no sense of humor or you didn't really read my post.

Edit: Sorry. My last post was convoluted on purpose, which is why I made several comments about people actually reading that far.

We have free-will in the sense that we perceive it as free-will and our existence will be dictated by how we exercise it. Every action has a reaction. In that sense, we make the choices we make. How can omnipotence and omniscience exist in this sense?

God is omnipotent because all actions that take place, take place because some other action has taken place; and your actions would not be possible if those other actions had not taken place. Therefore, you do not really have free-will.

God is omniscient because God is all things, all at once, outside of time. Therefore, God knows what did happen, what is happening, and what will happen. God knows the choices you have made, are making, and will make. Those choices are all a part of God's knowledge.

The next is to prove how omnibenevolence is possible if that is true because how could this be the greatest good possible. I'll do that next time. Again, I'll reinforce the fact that I get a lot of personal gratification out of simply rambling through thought processes, and seeing if anyone actually reads them all the way through. Of course, this isn't always the case, but I guess I'm in a unique mood right now.

to: librelover

I took the "if you actually read this far" as if you really meant that you knew you were being convoluted, but were unable to not be. I've lately heard other people say similar things in other threads like, "i know i'm babbling but . . ." and took it as such.

"Therefore, you do not really have free-will.":
So it's your assertion that "free will" is an illusion. Check. I disagree with you though, and it's one of the few disagreements that I can't quite substantiate . . . which kinda bothers me, lol!

Well, if the god-person is in fact omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent . . . and if there is no such thing as free will, satans, or anti-gods that restricts omniscience and omnipotence . . . then I have some very serious qualms with the god-person over some of the really seriously horrible shit that goes down, like millions of innocent children being abducted and sold into sexual slavery, or children being forced to watch their mothers and sisters being raped and tortured before everyone is slaughtered by machete . . . I just can't see how that is necessary and I will question that kind of judgment. If such a god-person were a mortal, I would kill him to stop those kinds of tragedies as any plan that incorporates that kind of shit is just effing psychotic.

And in those absolutely horribly inhumane situations, I think the "everything happens for a reason" statement numbs the mind to the gravity of what really just happened.

btw, I did read the entirety of your previous convoluted post. But stop writing like that, it hurts my brain to follow it! =)

Bravo lucidstone. You're not half-bad.

Edit: In my not so humble opinion.

@ Nox

Exactly. Since the dawn of man up until the present people have attributed what they dont/cant understand to a mystical force. Whats sad is when something can be proven in a scientific manner and people still cling to their belief in the mystical force.

I see what you are saying, and to a certain degree I see it as being true for modern society, but make no mistake, not all people before us attributed what they didn't understand to a mystical force. In contrary, some of them had a very deep understanding of how things worked. In many cases, the mythological stories and beliefs were directly derived from an understanding of how the natural environment worked.

Yes I agree. The story of Jesus (and Horus, Myhtras et al) came from observations of the night sky. The three stars are the three wise men who line up with the brightest star in the sky (Sirius), which led to the story of the wise men following the bright star. The birth of the sun (son) occurs at the winter solstice, which is when days start getting longer. This marks the birth of the gods. Rebirth happens at the spring equinox, which is when those gods were ressurrected. Etc.

definitely watch the movie zeitgiest!!!!!!!!!!! :)

The thing is though, science is more than a compilation of facts . . . it is also includes the interpretation of WHY those facts are the way they are. This is scientific theory.

Why do people get sick, why do people die, why does the sun apparently follow a predictable path, why is the horizon at a set distance, why do magnets attract and repel each other, why does it rain in one place and not another . . . . and etc.

Science is very much the process of continually chipping away at those pesky "why" questions. It's obviously not complete, but we've made a lot of progress and we're not done yet.

Lol

hysterical!! (drum roll, cymbal splash.)

ROFL

So is there an equation for that one? I have not a clue what the one up there means, but you coulda thrown something up there for us to look at. I like visuals..

what do you consider rational analysis?Only using logic?...how can that solve the ultimate answers?...using logic exclusively to understand a grand design restricts us from experiencing wholeness.Meaning you have a whole other side to you that needs integration with the logic for new perspective to arrive.words are nothing more than old expressions...they are the language of duality...what the guy means when he says you have to use feeling is that you need to think outside of the words to see the big picture...Very simple when you allow your ego to get over itself and become aware of reality...and self...which leads to the revelation of our oneness.

namaste

once you abandon logic you abandon science. any explanation without logic is not scientific, although it may be a nice fiction that gives some comfort.

to: iamfree

You are making the presumption that there is an emotional spectrum to the universe outside of your mind. I would assert that this is false.

Mathematics is the language of pure logic. It has nouns, verbs, adjectives, statements, and questions . . . yet there is no subjective/emotional element inside mathematics.

The universe when understood mathematically, yields actual physical results. When we attempt to understand it through emotional/subjective means . . . nothing happens outside of the mind.

lucidstone, are you suggesting that you can somehow escape your one mind? Please teach me such a trick. Otherwise, you comments on mathematics are true. Mathematics is a beautiful if not a cold and mechanical language that has the only claim to holding absolute truth (for the most part... you could argue about theoretical mathematics but that is going down a very different rabbit hole).

My point being that we do have emotions, even if they are simply chemical reactions inducing different states of perception as to the observations of our experience.

I'm sorry if this is 'philosophical mumbo-jumbo', but some things are a part of our experiences that set us apart from a compilation of a camera, computer, speaker, and mics roaming around. If people choose to perceive of the interactions of our existence as taking place in a deliberate fashion, who are we to deny that? It isn't that you have to believe that it is so, but that you are not in a place to deny it.

For whatever reason my brain has always had an extremely sharp barrier between logical thought processes and my emotional spectrum. The two for me don't mix at all. The rest is to continually look for the objective reference point in an almost compulsive manner. I wouldn't know how to teach this.

"My point being that we do have emotions": You are absolutely correct. But these emotions only exist inside the mind.

The thing that most people, including the scientific community, don't understand is that the conscious mind is quite literally a dimension removed from space-time. Not the mystical kind, but an actual dimension.

The properties inside the mind are as alien to the outside world as 3rd dimension properties are alien to a 2-dimensional plane. That is my hypothesis anyway, and it's a keystone to the structure of my personal world-view.

"If people choose to perceive of the interactions of our existence as taking place in a deliberate fashion": The main thing to point out in this is that, "choosing to perceive" is the act of deluding oneself.

I for one would be the strongest advocate for the human right to freedom of thought and say yes, that these people have the inalienable right to think like this; but, the rest of us would be also correct to recognize a delusional person as being delusional.

Oh and I didn't think your questions/statements where philosophical mumbo jumbo, I thought they were actually very rational. =)

"The thing that most people, including the scientific community, don't understand is that the conscious mind is quite literally a dimension removed from space-time. Not the mystical kind, but an actual dimension."
agree..
"You are making the presumption that there is an emotional spectrum to the universe outside of your mind. I would assert that this is false."

I would assert that you assume half wrong..I believe outside of this 3d world life is abundant...i dont care about emotion only connection...it is rather difficult to describe to you my experiences outside of this reality because you would use labels to call me a whacko...when in reality i'm not crazed @ all just more aware than yourself...you people who use logic only decide that is better to adobt beliefs and work from them to gather further enlightenment...while i find solace in my primordial state before all the scientific mumbo jumbo...the philosophical stuff seems to carry love along with its messages and thats the spectrum i vibe with most...Limitless Oscilating Vibrational Energy or LOVE is what i believe exist outside of this reality and also within it.We are whole beings...do you really think humans will ever understand the big picture only functioning on small % of their brains?With most being pure left brained prisoners?Lets be real guys...we're all clueless to the big picture and guess what....thats the point!..You'll never understand anything i'm saying if you only are versed in duality..There is no right and wrong there only is...sorry for philosohical mumbo bs but i'm high (yes i am a pot head) and too be honest what the hell does it all matter anyway?When you do figure out the answer then what?...A new era of worship or a new era of chaos?I choose transcendence

namaste

to: iamfree

All of the philosophy that you describe is very much real and very much valid, inside the mind. But, if we are looking for an accurate world-view to accurately describe what goes on outside the mind, then these philosophical/emotional descriptions are not valid in that context.

What does it matter? It matters because many of us have the quest to understand the natural world for what it is . . . and I for one don't think it's a fruitless quest, or a hopeless one.

"Limitless Oscilating Vibrational Energy or LOVE is what i believe exist outside of this reality and also within it.":
I think you are anthropomorphizing and projecting your personal emotions onto the surrounding universe. If that's true, then you are painting over the picture with your own colors instead of seeing the colors that are naturally there.

Also, I think reaching "transcendence/enlightenment" is actually an exercise of turning off part of our brain . . . the part of the brain that is responsible for rational analytical thought.

Here is a video that supports concept. I think you would probably enjoy this and walk away with different conclusions, and also I think there is a bridge here between your world-view and mine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU

(all of the TED talks are worth watching imo)

hey lucid that video was awesome:-)Thanks a ton..I believe we both share the same understanding with the difference being @ how we tackled our question.If you believe that we are 1 then me and you're differences are bogus.I believe conscious energy began it all and "vibrational energy" is the very fabric of our being.What are the "atoms" that make up our reality doing?They are oscillating.The only real difference is that I know all is conscious..so you see my concept has lots of truth within it..all how you perceive it. No links again because the concepts resonate from me.my apologies if i came off as mean in previous post.The bridge that separates us our concepts is very thin and i "feel" as though soon one day we will be able to understand each other at a deeper level behind all the words.much love and thank you for the great conversation.BTW to me to transcend is to break through the barrier of duality all together..not to lose awareness or shut anything off.Awareness and connection are key for me on my path to complete conscious expansion.
Namaste

I liked it great post.