God quantified through science - The Deity concept

[KOMORELIGIOn]

alrighty. so i see that everyone is either trying to rip my post apart without sound logic, or poke holes in the refutations of the afore mentioned. An especial LOL goes out to the guy who tried to counter with the massless nutria (whatever it was) thing. close but no dice. anyways the major thing in my argument is basically saying that god exists! So why are so many people against me? also would someone care to show some of the good parts of my thesis?

 

[Sir Doom]

alrighty. so i see that everyone is either trying to rip my post apart without sound logic, or poke holes in the refutations of the afore mentioned. An especial LOL goes out to the guy who tried to counter with the massless nutria (whatever it was) thing. close but no dice. anyways the major thing in my argument is basically saying that god exists! So why are so many people against me? also would someone care to show some of the good parts of my thesis?

I suggest you take the criticism seriously.

 

[Thief]

...all that remains. The fundamental forces of nature.

....including the fundamental Force called God.

 

[Bunyip]

alrighty. so i see that everyone is either trying to rip my post apart without sound logic, or poke holes in the refutations of the afore mentioned. An especial LOL goes out to the guy who tried to counter with the massless nutria (whatever it was) thing. close but no dice. anyways the major thing in my argument is basically saying that god exists! So why are so many people against me? also would someone care to show some of the good parts of my thesis?

Dude, when you make an argument based on the premis that all sub atomic particles have mass - and it is pointed out to you that you are wrong, they don't.

Your argument fails.

Nutrinos have no mass - therefore not all sub atomic particles have mass.

LOLLING doesn't cover your failure as well as you seem to imagine, if you d8n't understand why the fact that your premis has been disproven matters - you need to think harder.

 

[Sir Doom]

How to define irony?

Bad science used condescendingly to counter bad science. Hilarious.

There ARE particles without mass. The neutrino is NOT one of them.

 

[Runewolf1973]

....including the fundamental Force called God.

Not as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Bunyip]

How to define irony?

Bad science used condescendingly to counter bad science. Hilarious.

There ARE particles without mass. The neutrino is NOT one of them.

That nutrinos have mass is a very recent discovery, and dude you are the master of empty condescension.
How about gluons and photons then zippy?

 

[Sir Doom]

That nutrinos have mass is a very recent discovery, and dude you are the master of empty condescension.
How about gluons and photons then zippy?

I'd expect that I am the master of all forms of condescension. Evidenced by the fact that I'm literally being condescending about your inferior label thereof.

My superior condescension aside, I actually agreed with you that there ARE massless particles. Yes, the gluon and gauge bosons. That doesn't make it any less ironic that you tried to condescendingly correct someone's bad science with bad science. Even AFTER someone linked you the damn wiki on it, you STILL made the same blunder.

Now its even MORE hilarious as it seems you can't even be bothered to READ what I wrote before tilting at windmills.

 

[Bunyip]

I'd expect that I am the master of all forms of condescension. Evidenced by the fact that I'm literally being condescending about your inferior label thereof.

My superior condescension aside, I actually agreed with you that there ARE massless particles. Yes, the gluon and gauge bosons. That doesn't make it any less ironic that you tried to condescendingly correct someone's bad science with bad science. Even AFTER someone linked you the damn wiki on it, you STILL made the same blunder.

Now its even MORE hilarious as it seems you can't even be bothered to READ what I wrote before tilting at windmills.

Correct, I usually ignore your posts - they tend to be composed of nothing more than pointless boasting and condescension.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Correct, I usually ignore your posts - they tend to be composed of nothing more than pointless boasting and condescension.

He's actually quite tame compared to some of them more ... confrontational ... forums out there.

If we can look past the sharpness of his words, I suspect we could learn quite a bit from him.

 

[Bunyip]

He's actually quite tame compared to some of them more ... confrontational ... forums out there.

If we can look past the sharpness of his words, I suspect we could learn quite a bit from him.

Well my guess is that if you spend more time here you will find out otherwise.

 

[Sir Doom]

opcorn:

 

[s2a]

The deity concept.
These hypotheses are a result of me wondering what is really out there. For the longest time I went back and forth between believing and trying to love god to abhorring the concept of god. Either way, I ended up feeling that something was missing. In religion, the logic, and in logic, the religion- if any. What I came up with was that to say that there was any logic in the world, there has to be something that governs rules and for there to be any religion in a world that is governed by rules, the religion has to adhere to the rules observed in nature. For example: if something does not play by the rules of this universe, it does not exist. Unimaginable colors within the visible spectrum. There is no logic to support such a claim. However, further on in this essay, I will note some potential exceptions, and the circumstances that must come about for those instances to occur. First I will talk about what I think the “afterlife body” is. Then I will talk about what I believe gods to be. Then In some side notes, I will talk about what I think the shape of the universe is, and what time is and how it flows. I am not the most scientifically inclined person and I am actually writing this in the hopes that someone will either poke a ton of holes in every bit of proposed logic I have, or support it with bits of evidence of their own. I would love to have any kind of feedback about this, as long as it pertains to the article, presented in equally professional manner, and gives REASONABLE evidence either in support or in opposition to a point.

Therefore: "If can't see "it" or explain it, it can not be real? That "seems" a reasonable answer? Really?

I – souls
I will start off by stating a law of nature, that everything observable in existence has some sort of mass, from the densest star, to the weakest/smallest subatomic particle. No matter what it is, in order for something to exist, it has mass, can we all agree? Now, here is where I am going to get my first bit of backlash, probably from the scientific community: by using this logic, all of our individual memories, characteristics, personality traits, etc, everything that makes an individual (or animal) an individual, has mass. No matter how small or what it is comprised of. I am not entirely familiar with what the scientific community agrees upon as far as what a memory is comprised of, where it is a specific set of charges stored somewhere in the brain or a specific path of brain cells, but memories do exist. People are able to recall, sometimes in shockingly vivid detail, what places, people, and things look like without having the specific thing they are recalling right in front of them. So they must have essentially some sort of backup file that they are accessing to recall portions of data to attention. Whatever the information is, and however the information is being accessed, the information exists, and because it exists, it has to have mass.
Now that we have established that individualities exist, I will say that every definitely has a different individuality because not everyone experiences the same events from the same perspective, at the exact same time. So not only does a person have a measureable individuality, every person has an individuality that is by some form (maybe chemically compositionally, or electrically charged) different. {I want to take a pause and say that I cannot give out numbers. I am 18 and have not put 70 yeasr of research into this subject. However, if my logic and formulas are sound, why should that discredit me ?

You are 18...and that is just the start... if your logic were sound...

Now, all what is considered that makes a person an individual is what I will refer to as a spirit or consciousness or something of the like in the rest of this essay. What I have laid out is basically what a lot of my other claims base themselves off of.

Your hope is noted...

Taking what I have asserted is a spirit, we are going to apply it to a larger concept. A single water droplet does not make up an entire tsunami. Through meditation and reflection and a bit of research I have come to the conclusion that no spirit capable of inflicting any kind of force ( I use force for a lack of a better word) on another object is made of just one spirit. I will use the law of inertia, which states that An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by an unbalanced force. What this is saying is that for you to inflict force on an object, your energy (or mass? Help me out scientifically inclined folks) has to be great enough that It will unbalance the forces that are keeping a resting object still. What I am saying is- basically no one spirit can do much to affect much of anything in the world that has mass. So what does this mean? Going back to the tsunami reference, like water droplets, the consciousness’s must come together to have a substantial effect on anything. BUT, for the consciousness’s or spirits to come together, they must have some sort of likeness. And now going to the religious side of things, spirits that are “good” mix together and the spirits that are “bad” mix together, but never with each other. Like oil and water. My guess as to why they wouldn’t mix would be probably that even though “X” is chemically similar to “Y”, they may have different charges or something preventing them from normally combining. {I really am shaming most of the chemistry teachers I have had, but trust me, its not their fault, I finished what was required of me in high school and got college credit and haven’t looked back since}. So, spirits that were, while in the body used to performing malevolent and nefarious deeds are chemically and electrically similar to each other, allowing them to combine, and over time, would draw towards and accumulate towards each other, and once enough of the “Y” spirit accumulated, it would be able to negatively affect something in the world. It may only have enough energy to warm a particular point in space, or blow the wind past your ear or something relatively easy to do (in terms of the “supernatural”) or maybe a particularly strong collective might be able to knock an unbalanced book off of a desk. The same goes for the other side. Possibly “guardian angels are comprised of “good” spirit collectives and follow people around attempting to perform good deeds as they would have done in a physical body.

Fascinating concept...no evidence or "proof", but an interesting movie opportunity... as you were saying?

Now here is where I assume I will step on a lot of toes, and I assure you that is not my intention. Through my reflection, I have basically gathered that “god” is simply a supermassive collection of similar spirits. To me, it makes sense that religions that have spanned hundreds, and even thousands of years would be able to accrue the spirits/ energy it would take to perform “miracles” of biblical proportions. Such as with (excuse my poor knowledge of the bible) the burning bush incident. Or possibly (even though I think 90% of all people who think god talks to them are imagining it or lying, 9% being a skitzo) a collective having as much skill as to vibrate itself in a frequency that would mimic human frequency and inflection and be accurately interpreted. And this is an incredible stretch, but possibly even parting the red sea. I do not know the full capabilities of such proposed collectives, but the ones that I categorize at the “god” level, would be capable of such. And this does not just go for Christianity. All the religions with a massive cult following would be capable of producing, eventually, a god capable of performing miracles here and there. And it doesn’t just have to be gods, things like urban legends may in a sense, get thought into existence.

If only legends and myth quantified themselves as ascertainable fact...right?

as I said before, there are a few exceptions to the laws of the universe that exist. I will talk about this a little later in different parts of the essay, but I think that in order for something not to adhere to the laws of nature, similar to how one might break out of handcuffs, you must be stronger than the rules that bind you. For example, it is theorized that a black hole has so much matter inside it, and is so dense that the laws of physics break down within its boundaries. Also, it is theorized that if you can amass the amount of energy it takes to travel faster than the speed of light, you may be able to alter time ( travel back in time to a point where a link in time was originally set up. I am not the authority on this subject, so feel free to do research on your own…or not). But basically to break the rules of the universe, you have to amass either an infinite amount of energy or an infinite amount of mass.

Brilliant!

Einstein, you are the fool unveiled by Komo!

Infinite mass or energy will allow time travel... for anyone...if only we can kinda do that!

This remains kinda cool... just don't grade me too harshly... ok?

 

[Thief]

Not as far as I'm concerned.

Then reiterate to a point.

I say science points to God.
Science cannot be used to prove the point.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Then reiterate to a point.

I say science points to God.
Science cannot be used to prove the point.

I say God has nothing to do with it. As far as I'm concerned, science shows us quite clearly there is no need for a God.

 

[Simurgh]

Then reiterate to a point.
I say science points to God.
Science cannot be used to prove the point.

I say God has nothing to do with it. As far as I'm concerned, science shows us quite clearly there is no need for a God.

And here then is what the problem is. Both positions are valid, for their respective proponents. There is no proof of a deity existing, because those who make them up to assuage their fears and insecurities need one to exist and will not hear anything that contradicts their ideas. You can only arrive at the conclusion that gods are human inventions if you leave years of brainwashing behind and start thinking outside of the accepted framework where gods provide the easy answer to all the world’s questions.

If you do not need gods to function then you are compelled to take charge of your life and deal with its vagaries on your own. Since you cannot run to god and be absolved of your negative behavior, you need to take responsibility for your choices and deeds as well as the consequences. At least there is no need to worry about celestial real estate and those harp plucking neighbors.


Science clearly functions without a god principle. We are way past the Dark Ages so let’s not go backwards in an attempt to save ourselves the effort of scientific inquiry.
The problem is that some people clearly need a god, because thinking hurts too much. No, it does not give you a headache but it hurts the self-imposed status of “special creation”. Many books have been written about this need for supernatural explanations as to why we exist, but in the end it all comes down to a need to rationalize. We need purpose, and a lot of people turn to the supernatural for validation on that account.


People do not want to face oblivion that death brings, they want an afterlife where they can act just like they did when alive, with few harp lessons and some worship of a deity thrown in. All in all, I agree with Virgil who once said that man creates the gods he wants. That explains why some people follow a loving god and others use the hateful killer and smiter model. Your god is a reflection of your true self. Science on the other hand is evidence based and is just what it appears to be. The facts as we understand them I the here and now.

 

[McBell]

alrighty. so i see that everyone is either trying to rip my post apart without sound logic,

Oh, so sorry.
It was assumed since your post was devoid of sound logic, that sound logic was not a prerequisite in this thread...

or poke holes in the refutations of the afore mentioned.

You are gravely mistaken.
There is no need to poke holes in the OP.
There are more than enough already in it.

An especial LOL goes out to the guy who tried to counter with the massless nutria (whatever it was) thing. close but no dice. anyways the major thing in my argument is basically saying that god exists!

Yes.
You took that conclusion and tried, rather poorly, to collect what you think supports said "god exists" conclusion.

So why are so many people against me?

Because your OP is an epic fail for "proving" the existence of god.

also would someone care to show some of the good parts of my thesis?

Well, I found no spelling errors...

 

[KOMORELIGIOn]

i think you guys got too hung up on the word "mass". maybe i used the wrong terminology but when i say that everything has mass and has to have some sort of mass to exist, i guess i am refering to particles. while nutrinos may not have "mass", they do take up some observable space in the universe, and they are made of something. and whatever that something is is what i was refering to when i said mass. sorry for the confusion. i just hadnt had a better word to use in place of mass, and mass made sense at the time. (i used mass as basically anything that takes up space in the universe, no matter how small). if some of you were able to actually dig into the concepts of what im saying instead of picking apart words on the surface, we might have something interesting going on here instead of this being just like every other thread in the world

 

[Sir Doom]

i think you guys got too hung up on the word "mass". maybe i used the wrong terminology but when i say that everything has mass and has to have some sort of mass to exist, i guess i am refering to particles. while nutrinos may not have "mass", they do take up some observable space in the universe, and they are made of something. and whatever that something is is what i was refering to when i said mass. sorry for the confusion. i just hadnt had a better word to use in place of mass, and mass made sense at the time. (i used mass as basically anything that takes up space in the universe, no matter how small). if some of you were able to actually dig into the concepts of what im saying instead of picking apart words on the surface, we might have something interesting going on here instead of this being just like every other thread in the world

Dude, you used bad science and you are doing it again. Just stop already. Mainly stop pretending its our fault. You are faced with a similar problem with volume.

Volume is what you call 'taking up space', by the way. Yes, this is me getting hung up on terminology. You don't know the simplest words to describe the simplest concepts, and yet we are the ones who aren't 'digging in' properly?

Get real, hero.

 

[Runewolf1973]

i think you guys got too hung up on the word "mass". maybe i used the wrong terminology but when i say that everything has mass and has to have some sort of mass to exist, i guess i am refering to particles. while nutrinos may not have "mass", they do take up some observable space in the universe, and they are made of something. and whatever that something is is what i was refering to when i said mass. sorry for the confusion. i just hadnt had a better word to use in place of mass, and mass made sense at the time. (i used mass as basically anything that takes up space in the universe, no matter how small). if some of you were able to actually dig into the concepts of what im saying instead of picking apart words on the surface, we might have something interesting going on here instead of this being just like every other thread in the world

I know how hard it is to take criticism sometimes, but really you should be more grateful that others pick apart your ideas. There is a lot to learn from it.

Perhaps try looking at things more fundamentally. It is not the mass or the particles that are important, it is the fundamental forces by which those particles or that mass originates.