ADN

Aemeth wrote: There is no connection to God. There is a connection to something that neither science nor logic can understand. That is all I am arguing. And I am convinced enough that something-from-nothing will not change

"Something from nothing" is your characterization. Its not the way a contemporary cosmologist would describe the birth of our universe. Our notion of what "something" is, is very much a prisoner of our scale and position in the universe.

You can expect changes in the understanding of the early universe to come very shortly-- CERN's Large Hadron Collider is beginning operation right now, and will produce collisions with energies similar to those that would have existed at the earliest moment.

Stay tuned . . .

It seems to me, after reading the posts (most of them) in this forum, that everyone has missed the point. Our belief - or disbelief - in the existence of a 'God' (or Gods) has no effect on reality. IF God(s) exist, it (they) exist regardless of our believers, atheiTo illustrate,sts, agnostics, whatever. IF it (they) do not exist, etc. Our "Beliefs" are meaningless to the reality.

To illustrate, where were all the historians, natural scientists, astronomers, astrologers, etc, when such momentous events occurred as;
The Day the Earth became an Oblate Spheroid (instead of being flat)!
The Day the Earth was moved from the center of the universe to a point 2/3 out from the center of a rather minor galaxy!
The Day the Earth started to move around our sun, instead of the other way round!
et cetera, etc, etc.

If our beliefs effected reality, well - you do the math...

Note: edited to correct "quote" tabs.

kingtgf wrote:It seems to me, after reading the posts (most of them) in this forum, that everyone has missed the point. Our belief - or disbelief - in the existence of a 'God' (or Gods) has no effect on reality. IF God(s) exist, it (they) exist regardless of our believers, atheiTo illustrate,sts, agnostics, whatever. IF it (they) do not exist, etc. Our "Beliefs" are meaningless to the reality.

Um, I think you might be missing a point yourself, and yet making clear another good point. I think the argument is what someone believes may influence their actions and thus make for decisions that reinforce their own beliefs; much like a self-fulfilled prophecy. This is why most people are afraid of "Doomsdayers". That is to me what most people are afraid of.

To illustrate, where were all the historians, natural scientists, astronomers, astrologers, etc, when such momentous events occurred as;
The Day the Earth became an Oblate Spheroid (instead of being flat)!
The Day the Earth was moved from the center of the universe to a point 2/3 out from the center of a rather minor galaxy!
The Day the Earth started to move around our sun, instead of the other way round!
et cetera, etc, etc.

The idea that EVERYONE believed the earth was thre flat center of the universe is not consistent with THOUSANDS of diagrams and stories of lore. Everyone from the Norse to the Chinese to the Indo-Dravidians to the Ancient americans have explicit records and lore that indicate otherwise.

For example, if the norse creation of the world was through Odin slaying the giant Ymir, and using his skull. In what world is a "skull" flat? Pan Ku in China plucked a pearl from his own skull and the world was created from it. Are pearls flat? Ptah the Egyptian all father spilled his seed into his own mouth and created the world - is his head flat? Pythagoras said the world is but one simple bean in a garden. To the Jew, Aretz was likened both to the lowest hanging bead on the thread and the the core of a nut or onion. Socrates compared it to a Grape. In Lesbos, it was the Breast of Gaia, In "Africa", according to the sacred Ifa, it is the cheek of the daughter of The Father of the Sun. That is the closest you get to flat, until you consider the facial anatomy of the highboned African skeletal structure.

If you believe the hype of imposed ignorance of a few religious monarchies, you are sadly mistaken. Every metaphor of the the world in ancient lore is 3 dimensional and usually related.

If our beliefs effected reality, well - you do the math...

[/quote][/quote]
Mine is the path of will, not belief. And my will, incompliance with a higher agent I dont' care if anyone else can percieve DOES affect my reality, and my experience of any consensual reality established for integration with any other humans. Mine IS the realm of mind over matter, as an observable experience limited by the "illusion" of matter, not a idle rumination.

And still I believe a person can only analyze their beliefs AFTER the end of their life which is full of assumptions. I have experienced death. clinically. I know what I experienced when I had no recognizable life signs. I have NO qualms about engaging that today as I am well prepared for it. Simply put, you will be as powerful as you have made yourself, and the fortress of your intellect will be your refuge against the dissolution into a common resource of thought, good and bad. Your willpower and your integrity are the primary means by which one part of you will even manage to not be digested; your troubles are disruption; your memory is your means of navigation and "sculpting" the impressions that position you in the sum total thought pattern of humanity. Other parts will just slough away. Some people had no ability to do anything more than integrate, and not everyone had the same amount of parts or similar appearance. Appearance was a means of communication and some were more pophisticated than others. For me, that is not "belief" - that is experience of participatory observation; the most justified assumption that can influence your actions. I was nine and dead yet not dead, and at that moment, I knew what "Enoch" had seen, though "Enoch" was not even known to me yet. My thirst for knowledge was already great, but when I was revived from death, I completely began to devour anything and everything I could, using cues from my experience as a list of things to look for, ask about, find in bookstores, libraries. It got me kicked out of churches, suspended in schools, and made everyone around me "fear" I was a Devil Worshipper; earned the nickname "DW" by time I was in Jr. High. My answer that the Devil is hardly worth the worship prolly didn't do much good for my case. heh

@kingtgf

kingtgf wrote:It seems to me, after reading the posts (most of them) in this forum, that everyone has missed the point. Our belief - or disbelief - in the existence of a 'God' (or Gods) has no effect on reality. IF God(s) exist, it (they) exist regardless of our believers, atheiTo illustrate,sts, agnostics, whatever. IF it (they) do not exist, etc. Our "Beliefs" are meaningless to the reality.

No argument from me with the proposition: "Our beliefs do not affect the existence of god". However, my point was different: I have no belief in god[s] because there's no evidence for it. The absence of evidence for god[s] does affect the likelihood that they exist.

@raum

raum wrote: And still I believe a person can only analyze their beliefs AFTER the end of their life which is full of assumptions. I have experienced death. clinically. I know what I experienced when I had no recognizable life signs.

Interesting argument. Whatever your medical status, you were not dead. You may have been near death, but were you dead, you'd still be dead.

The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1980 formulated the Uniform Determination of Death Act. It states that: "An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards." This definition was approved by the American Medical Association in 1980 and by the American Bar Association in 1981

I am quite certain that your near-death experience did not meet the characteristics of "death" noted above-- if it did, you wouldn't be typing now. "Near death" experiences don't necessarily tell us anything about what death actually is about. They're not the same thing.

deepsepia wrote:@kingtgf
@raum

raum wrote: And still I believe a person can only analyze their beliefs AFTER the end of their life which is full of assumptions. I have experienced death. clinically. I know what I experienced when I had no recognizable life signs.

Interesting argument. Whatever your medical status, you were not dead. You may have been near death, but were you dead, you'd still be dead.

The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1980 formulated the Uniform Determination of Death Act. It states that: "An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards." This definition was approved by the American Medical Association in 1980 and by the American Bar Association in 1981

I am quite certain that your near-death experience did not meet the characteristics of "death" noted above-- if it did, you wouldn't be typing now. "Near death" experiences don't necessarily tell us anything about what death actually is about. They're not the same thing.

Perhaps you have not read what I have have written on the subject before. I do not believe Death exists. I observe the beginning of my life was consciousness, and since I did not expereince its beginning i can never experience its end. Some people do not believe in God. I do not believe in Death. I do not believe. I observe and assume, and adjust my assumptions to better comprehend my observations. I do not say there is a god, or that there is not an infinite number of them.

that is the permutable nature of the absolute truth that can only be approximated with statements of belief.

raum wrote: Perhaps you have not read what I have have written on the subject before. I do not believe Death exists. I observe the beginning of my life was consciousness, and since I did not expereince its beginning i can never experience its end.

Interesting. I hadn't read your posts on this subject.

I find it curious that people have such strong beliefs on "life after death" -- about which we can know nothing.

On the other hand, we have very precise details about the year 1950 . . . a year in which I wasn't. I'm guessing that you "weren't" in 1950 either.

raum wrote: "since I did not expereince its beginning i can never experience its end."

I don't see the logic there. I have no experience of the year 1960 -- as I had not yet been born. Unless I live a surprising length of time, I won't be alive in 2070. I will have no experience of that either. 1960 and 2070 are thus precisely the same to me; they are times in which I am not.

"Death" isn't a "state" for the individual-- its a non-state, non existence. You can't experience non-existence, there's nothing to do the experiencing.

Kind of off topic, but here is a great article about Creation and Quantum Physics. It's written by an MIT prof:

http://aish.com/societywork/sciencenatu ... iverse.asp

deepsepia wrote:I have no belief in god[s] because there's no evidence for it.

That's what I don't understand...What evidence are you expecting..? Burning bushes..? Politely placed lightning when you say, 'I swear to God!' and are telling a bald face lie..? Again I say, if you can make that statement, its your perception, not the existence or non existence of God's that is the issue here...Work that out, and we have a discussion...

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence...There are known knowns, and known unknowns, but also unknown unknowns, things that we don't know we don't know...

Wise man said that...

Kumicho wrote: The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence...There are known knowns, and known unknowns, but also unknown unknowns, things that we don't know we don't know...

Wise man said that...

You reading Sagan on me? Demon Haunted World is a DAMN GOOD READ.

Kumicho wrote:

deepsepia wrote:I have no belief in god[s] because there's no evidence for it.

That's what I don't understand...What evidence are you expecting..? Burning bushes..? Politely placed lightning when you say, 'I swear to God!' and are telling a bald face lie..? Again I say, if you can make that statement, its your perception, not the existence or non existence of God's that is the issue here...Work that out, and we have a discussion...

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence...There are known knowns, and known unknowns, but also unknown unknowns, things that we don't know we don't know...
.

We do not know there is no God. We merely know that there is no evidence of God. There are many things for which there is no evidence which might be true. But logic requires that we differentiate between statements for which evidence exists, and those for which no evidence exists, and that we treat these statements differently.

The statement "bees make honey" is a factual statement, based on repeatable real world observations. If you want to go watch bees make honey, you can. You don't have to "believe" in bees.

By contrast: the statement "God exists" is a belief, supported by no evidence. It is no different than any other belief in the supernatural for which their is no evidence . . . vampires, leprechauns, the Easter Bunny are in the same category as God . . . a supernatural belief for which there is no evidence. There is nothing that any skeptic can examine to demonstrate the existence of god[s]