Is Nature The Antichrist?

[TDselector]

As Christians we believe in the doctrine that a single deity created the universe and everything in it. This single cause deity we call God is believed to be:

• Omnipotence - all-powerful.
• Omniscience - all-knowing.
• Omnipresence - all-present.
• Omnibenevolent ‎- all good.

Therefore, if this doctrine is correct it needs be reflective of the nature of our reality. If correct then we should be able to obtain evidence to support such a theory. The common thread of all four of these traits is single cause. If this single cause theory we call God is not reflective of Nature, then we are faced with a fundamental dilemma.

In 2000, I began an experiment at TemptDestiny.com to see if there was such a thing as destiny by repeating for a third time what had been done twice before. As a Catholic, I was raised believing in God and that things are predestine, e.g., live a good life - go to heaven, live a sinful life - go to hell. And so when I had an opportunity to put my beliefs to the test against Nature itself I was sure my faith would be vindicated. The construct of the experiment was simple. First establish cause in order to conduct the experiment, then observe its effects. By having knowledge of both cause and its effects, the findings would be complete thus unambiguous and not subject to my opinions. In other words, Nature would confirm if the cause of existence was indeed singular or not. Unfortunately, Nature provided unambiguous empirical evidence that the cause of our existence is not singular. There are in fact two origin variables in Nature that give rise to the existence of effects (everything).

Now what, where do we go from here?

 

[jeager106]

Where do we go from here?
Dunno, but I bet the sun will still rise and set, the Earth will keep turning and life
will forge ahead to a happy destiny.
Well some sore of destiny anyway?!?!?!
I'm waiting on the 2nd coming of Christ to settle all the Earthy crap.
I'll not hold my breath however as I doubt any of us will see such if it does indeed
occur.
My immediate concern is what to do with those nice fat bass I caught a bit
ago and have on the stringer.
To fillet or not to fillet.
It's soooo much easier to just buy fish at the market. Easier still is to go out to a nice
air conditioned restaurant.
(and buy a steak!)
Awww, life's conundrums.
( do you see how seriously I take things here? or anywhere else for that matter.)

 

[Desert Snake]

As Christians

I'm not a ''Christian''. /Never was/.

we believe in the doctrine that a single deity created the universe and everything in it. This single cause deity we call God is believed to be:

• Omnipotence - all-powerful.
• Omniscience - all-knowing.
• Omnipresence - all-present.
• Omnibenevolent ‎- all good.

Therefore, if this doctrine is correct it needs be reflective of the nature of our reality. If correct then we should be able to obtain evidence to support such a theory. The common thread of all four of these traits is single cause. If this single cause theory we call God is not reflective of Nature, then we are faced with a fundamental dilemma.

In 2000, I began an experiment at TemptDestiny.com to see if there was such a thing as destiny by repeating for a third time what had been done twice before. As a Catholic, I was raised believing in God and that things are predestine, e.g., live a good life - go to heaven, live a sinful life - go to hell. And so when I had an opportunity to put my beliefs to the test against Nature itself I was sure my faith would be vindicated. The construct of the experiment was simple. First establish cause in order to conduct the experiment, then observe its effects. By having knowledge of both cause and its effects, the findings would be complete thus unambiguous and not subject to my opinions. In other words, Nature would confirm if the cause of existence was indeed singular or not. Unfortunately, Nature provided unambiguous empirical evidence that the cause of our existence is not singular. There are in fact two origin variables in Nature that give rise to the existence of effects (everything).

Now what, where do we go from here?

...

 

[TDselector]

I'm not a ''Christian''. /Never was/.

...

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[psychoslice]

We are one with nature, we are part of nature, so anything that goes against this is the so called Antichrist, Christ being our inner Being, or our true SELF.

 

[TDselector]

We are one with nature, we are part of nature, so anything that goes against this is the so called Antichrist, Christ being our inner Being, or our true SELF.

Then that would be all those who believe that their existence was singularly caused since we are all a part of Nature. Either the God theory is reflective of Nature's laws or like science, we got it wrong.

 

[idav]

As Christians we believe in the doctrine that a single deity created the universe and everything in it. This single cause deity we call God is believed to be:

• Omnipotence - all-powerful.
• Omniscience - all-knowing.
• Omnipresence - all-present.
• Omnibenevolent ‎- all good.

Therefore, if this doctrine is correct it needs be reflective of the nature of our reality. If correct then we should be able to obtain evidence to support such a theory. The common thread of all four of these traits is single cause. If this single cause theory we call God is not reflective of Nature, then we are faced with a fundamental dilemma.

In 2000, I began an experiment at TemptDestiny.com to see if there was such a thing as destiny by repeating for a third time what had been done twice before. As a Catholic, I was raised believing in God and that things are predestine, e.g., live a good life - go to heaven, live a sinful life - go to hell. And so when I had an opportunity to put my beliefs to the test against Nature itself I was sure my faith would be vindicated. The construct of the experiment was simple. First establish cause in order to conduct the experiment, then observe its effects. By having knowledge of both cause and its effects, the findings would be complete thus unambiguous and not subject to my opinions. In other words, Nature would confirm if the cause of existence was indeed singular or not. Unfortunately, Nature provided unambiguous empirical evidence that the cause of our existence is not singular. There are in fact two origin variables in Nature that give rise to the existence of effects (everything).

Now what, where do we go from here?

First off, though experiments are not empirical evidence. Besides that I don't see anything in there giving evidence or suggesting dualism over monism, perhaps you can clarify. Temptdestiny is also assuming determinism is true which is not conclusive either.

 

[TDselector]

First off, though experiments are not empirical evidence. Besides that I don't see anything in there giving evidence or suggesting dualism over monism, perhaps you can clarify. Temptdestiny is also assuming determinism is true which is not conclusive either.

Let's be clear, experiments are used to obtain empirical evidence. The construct of the Tempt Destiny experiment simply established cause prior to its effects. It did not assume cause was preexisting or existent. Our current logic uses effects (God/Higgs boson) to cause effects (the universe) without saying anything about how effects are first caused. By placing cause second to effect, such logic violates the very essence of a deity causing the universe and everything in it.

When we speak of dualism or monism, we are talking about philosophy (effects), not mechanics (cause). The findings are mechanical to the extent that everyone can test them for themselves for validity via the Final Selection Thought Experiment as described in the peer-reviewed article mentioned. Did you read it?

 

[Shimi]

You say God is not a reflect on nature, but we most certainly are. It is within us. To destroy it is to destroy ourselves. Nature is most definitely not the antichrist. I do not want to b rude, but that idea is nothing but absurd.

I saw this on Pinterest. Does this not remind you of the roots of a tree?

 

[TDselector]

You say God is not a reflect on nature, but we most certainly are. It is within us. To destroy it is to destroy ourselves. Nature is most definitely not the antichrist. I do not want to b rude, but that idea is nothing but absurd.

The findings, which are unambiguous and not subject to opinions including my own, show that we cannot exist or continue to exist without the two acts of selection. So either Nature needs to conform to our beliefs or we need to stop fooling ourselves. Which one makes sense to you?

 

[Shimi]

So either Nature needs to conform to our beliefs or we need to stop fooling ourselves. Which one makes sense to you?

Could you clarify what you mean by this?

 

[TDselector]

Could you clarify what you mean by this?

In order to believe in theories of single cause (God/Higgs boson), in contradiction to reality, it is then necessary to insist that our opinions supersede reality itself. That is where we are now at. Does this make sense to you?

 

[Shimi]

In order to believe in theories of single cause (God/Higgs boson), in contradiction to reality, it is then necessary to insist that our opinions supersede reality itself. That is where we are now at. Does this make sense to you?

No I am afraid I am quite confused

 

[psychoslice]

Then that would be all those who believe that their existence was singularly caused since we are all a part of Nature. Either the God theory is reflective of Nature's laws or like science, we got it wrong.

The so called god theory is just that, a theory, to me God is all there is, nature is also one with the cosmos, God isn't a personal god that judges us, in fact I hate the word god, its full of, well, you know what.

 

[idav]

Let's be clear, experiments are used to obtain empirical evidence.

Not thought experiments.

The construct of the Tempt Destiny experiment simply established cause prior to its effects.

Even if that were true, says nothing of god, god would need to be able to do this or it isn't much of a god.

It did not assume cause was preexisting or existent. Our current logic uses effects (God/Higgs boson) to cause effects (the universe) without saying anything about how effects are first caused. By placing cause second to effect, such logic violates the very essence of a deity causing the universe and everything in it.

No I don't think it does. So to fix the issue you simply add another cause/effect that can't exist in the first place. Its like saying god can't exist, a singular cause, so it must have been two gods then.

When we speak of dualism or monism, we are talking about philosophy (effects), not mechanics (cause). The findings are mechanical to the extent that everyone can test them for themselves for validity via the Final Selection Thought Experiment as described in the peer-reviewed article mentioned. Did you read it?

Dualism and monism is putting into words what your describing. Your saying it can't be one singular cause therefore there must be two, that is dualism and doesn't say much about whether god exists. Your adding more complexity to something your saying is impossible.

 

[TDselector]

Not thought experiments.

Even if that were true, says nothing of god, god would need to be able to do this or it isn't much of a god.

No I don't think it does. So to fix the issue you simply add another cause/effect that can't exist in the first place. Its like saying god can't exist, a singular cause, so it must have been two gods then.

Dualism and monism is putting into words what your describing. Your saying it can't be one singular cause therefore there must be two, that is dualism and doesn't say much about whether god exists. Your adding more complexity to something your saying is impossible.

Impossible? Unlike the God theory, Nature is not a theory as can be confirmed by conducting the thought experiment in real life (not recommended). Please read the peer-reviewed article so that we are on the same page.

"Dualism and monism is putting into words what your describing." Actually they describe states of existence not how such states come to exist, BIG difference.

 

[TDselector]

No I am afraid I am quite confused

I am glad this does not make sense to you. Self-causality (existence with no cause - God) has never made sense to me. Yet as a follower, blind faith is required and so I went along for the ride. I had no evidence to support existence was not self-causal or singularly caused... until now. So where do we go from here?

 

[TDselector]

We are one with nature, we are part of nature, so anything that goes against this is the so called Antichrist, Christ being our inner Being, or our true SELF.

If Nature is not the antichrist, then our beliefs are.

 

[psychoslice]

If Nature is not the antichrist, then our beliefs are.

Yes good point, the true so call devil is our minds that make up such beliefs that takes us away from our true self, that being one with all there is.