There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Robert.Evans]

Just because we may have emerged from singularity doesn't mean that all is the same, nor does it answer the question as to where did this singularity come from or even whether there were/are other points of singularity that may have created other universes? At this point, cosmologists have far more questions than answers, and they are very far from being able to determine what occurred prior to the BB and what exactly caused the expansion.

There are many scientists who think the multiverse is correct. It is not accepted yet as they need more substantial evidence to say it. For some, they say they already have it.

The Singularity of the One had to exist, by necessity. You cannot have something from nothing.

 

[Robert.Evans]

This is fine and dandy but where is the evidence that god is the one who set the parameters? What makes you believe that god is the one behind it?

Follow up about you claim on atheists. Why is doubt considered blind faith? Or do you mean atheists only in the sense of people that believe that there is no god?

Second follow up question. Why would you claim intelligence trumps accident/luck? Exactly what context do you mean this to be?

If someone is saying that everything is natural and there is no God, that is blind faith. Show me the evidence. We have the evidence within. Ultimately if you don't believe in God, it makes little sense what I say.
God is not behind it, God is it.
Atheist does mean they believe there is no God.

Do you really think that anything complex can come about by luck or accident? The only way it will is to have a certain set of parameters added as an artificial intelligence. Chaos is chaos. Something has to order it. Things ar too complex.

I say anything has had an input of intelligence injected into it, is in a far better place than something which has come about be mere luck... not that there is luck anyway, but from a point of view of the argument

 

[metis]

perhaps you took that the wrong way. I meant no harm

No problem.

I like Spinoza's God. No problem.

Then we may not be that far apart, however you seem to be much more certain about things than I am.

there is a singularity as there can only be ONE beginning. After that there are many reflection of that One God which brings about other Gods and gods, each to their own realm.

But deities can hypothetically collaborate. I have a car that was built by many people, and yet is is one car. Singularity could be a cooperative effort amongst deities.

The Ultimate One does not go back into infinity. That One just IS. That is it. Nothing to do with Time.

And how could you possibly know that? Not to be offensive, but it seems you're confusing "beliefs" with "evidence" and "facts". What's wrong with saying "I don't know" if one is even in the slightest unsure?

As a scientist (retired anthropologist), I always had trouble with my theistic drift because in science our bread and butter is objectively-derived evidence. If we didn't have this, we'd be stuck in the Dark Ages whereas any belief goes.

And because of my anthropological background, and because we study religions all over the world, blindly accepting just one religion as somehow having a monopoly on the truth just doesn't seem to make much sense when the entire picture is viewed as a whole. Billions of people all over the world believe their religion is right, so what leads us to believe that ours is the only "true faith" under this awareness?

 

[metis]

There are many scientists who think the multiverse is correct. It is not accepted yet as they need more substantial evidence to say it. For some, they say they already have it.

The only evidence is circumstantial evidence provided by what we now know about quantum mechanics.

The Singularity of the One had to exist, by necessity. You cannot have something from nothing.

Who said "nothing"? Again, you keep avoiding the possibility of infinity. Nor is there a shred of evidence to suggest that there could only be one singularity.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Finally, let me get to the Buddhist monk, Matthieu Ricard, and what he's written. Before doing that, let me just mention that before he became a monk he was a molecular geneticist who went to the Pasteur Institute and was heavily involved in intellectual circles. See: Matthieu Ricard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thankyou for the link.
Just to address the balance, there are scientists who believe in God.

He sharply questions the concept of divine creation largely because it defies what we do know, even though our knowledge is obviously very limited. One problem he has is how could a deity be unchanging when everything we see is in a constant state of flux? What would lead us to conclude that any deity is unchanging?

If one posits the idea that the deity or deities is/are changing, then what would cause the changes? IOW, if something is in absolute isolation from any other influence, what would supposedly cause it to change?

Let me give an example: a painter preparing to paint. Doesn't the painter first have to formulate an idea of what to paint? Change. Doesn't a painter have to gather materials? Change. Doesn't a painter have to go through the act of painting? Change. Therefore, how could a painter or a deity create without some change being involved, and if this change supposedly happened, what caused the creator to change?

So, there are logical problems picturing a deity/deities that are unchanging, but there are also logical problems picturing a deity/deities that are changing. Can these problems be bridged? I don't know, especially because what can we use as evidence that it can be? IOW, I can maybe come up with some "solution", but what's to say my "solution" is correct?

We should go back to the beginning of the argument perhaps.

But in answer to your question. There is Source. Source is the unchanging One. Then from Source comes Image (Second Source). It reflects what Source is. Thus change is within the Image not the Source. There is separation in that sense. What is within and is Source is pure in essence. What is within Image is conscious. It passes its consciousness on so that it does not die. All things are thought processes. Don't think it, say it, write it, then it does not exist within the higher consciousness. Just as thought can die in our head, and even be forgotten, so we die. We are physical thought. We are just expressed in physical terms.

That is why the Bible says that God has no form, and in other places it says he does.

I will begin the argument this way, if you wish to grasp it that is:

1. There has to be by necessity something not nothing.
2. That something must be outside of Time.
3. That something can only be One.
4. That something is unchanging in essence.

Can we get past the start I wonder. Perhaps even that is a problem.

 

[Robert.Evans]

No problem.


Then we may not be that far apart, however you seem to be much more certain about things than I am.

I did detect your doubts

But deities can hypothetically collaborate. I have a car that was built by many people, and yet is is one car. Singularity could be a cooperative effort amongst deities.

haha... that is good, though i don't know how it would work. How could have a Singularity of many?!? Singularity to me is just that. Eventually it forms a consciousness from within its own awareness. This is where the words 'luck chance coincidence' are real. Here they are not. There was only one first 'luck'. I will give a poor analogy. If one skims a stone over a lake, it is the first one that governs the others. It is the singularity of the one that governs the replicate singularities of the many. As the many take over, they in effect, kill of the origin of their own existence.
So co-operation among deities 'later' yes.

And how could you possibly know that? Not to be offensive, but it seems you're confusing "beliefs" with "evidence" and "facts". What's wrong with saying "I don't know" if one is even in the slightest unsure?

Nothing if you are unsure.
It has nothing to do with Time, as Time is change. What is pure and 'within' is not changeable. All things follow what has happened before. It is real

As a scientist (retired anthropologist), I always had trouble with my theistic drift because in science our bread and butter is objectively-derived evidence. If we didn't have this, we'd be stuck in the Dark Ages whereas any belief goes.

I am honoured.
it is true that belief can lead one to wrong places. But people believed that thalidomide was good, until babies were born with no legs and arms.
All has to be balanced and beneficial

And because of my anthropological background, and because we study religions all over the world, blindly accepting just one religion as somehow having a monopoly on the truth just doesn't seem to make much sense when the entire picture is viewed as a whole. Billions of people all over the world believe their religion is right, so what leads us to believe that ours is the only "true faith" under this awareness?

I believe that the are all right. Does that make me wrong, haha.
Each one is within his own realm, his own God or god. Otherwise, God is not that much of a God, me thinks.

 

[Robert.Evans]

The only evidence is circumstantial evidence provided by what we now know about quantum mechanics.



Who said "nothing"? Again, you keep avoiding the possibility of infinity. Nor is there a shred of evidence to suggest that there could only be one singularity.

the scientists who posit those ideas would disagree with you I think.
What is your idea of infinity? Something without limits? What has no limits? something natural? what is natural? what is it?

I have to go soon. see what you think of my questions of the beginning.

 

[Iti oj]

the scientiexcept creawho posit those ideas would disagree with you I think.
What is your idea of infinity? Something without limits? What has no limits? something natural? what is natural? what is it?

I have to go soon. see what you think of my questions of the beginning.

Strawman. No on says creation exnilho, except creationist attacking.a strawmen.

 

[Parsimony]

Explaining natural selection is not explaining anything except the physical processes. Where do these processes come from? Are they natural? What is natural? Where is it? Care to answer? Your answer seemed somewhat curt.

Yes, it's natural. Alleles that improve the likelihood that an organism will reproduce are passed on at a greater rate to the next generation than alleles that do not. The process comes from simple logic. You might as well be asking where 2+2=4 comes from.

Haha... Ok. So what is 'natural'. How is it you think you have explained something by using that word?

Anything that happens in nature is natural, by definition.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

If someone is saying that everything is natural and there is no God, that is blind faith. Show me the evidence.

We have evidence of the scientific explanations of the way nature works. What we don't have is evidence that it is caused or is god. So why would we ever assume something we have zero evidence for? It is not up to anyone to prove that it isn't god.

We have the evidence within. Ultimately if you don't believe in God, it makes little sense what I say.
God is not behind it, God is it.
Atheist does mean they believe there is no God.

incorrect. It is anyone who does not believe in god. It does not mean that I have to believe there is no god. There is a subtle but important difference between the two statements. I separates the logical conclusion from the unsupported rift raff.

Do you really think that anything complex can come about by luck or accident?

If there is evidence that a natural system results in these complex changes or developments then yes. I believe what the evidence states.

The only way it will is to have a certain set of parameters added as an artificial intelligence. Chaos is chaos. Something has to order it. Things ar too complex.

Natural laws of physics do this. But why do you believe that god is the natural laws of physics rather than it simply being the natural laws of physics?

 

[metis]

Thankyou for the link.
Just to address the balance, there are scientists who believe in God.

Of course, and it's always possible they could be correct.

We should go back to the beginning of the argument perhaps.

I prefer discussion versus argument because with the latter the implication is that someone has to win but with the former it's an exchange of ideas whereas no winner is necessarily expected.

But in answer to your question. There is Source. Source is the unchanging One. Then from Source comes Image (Second Source). It reflects what Source is. Thus change is within the Image not the Source. There is separation in that sense. What is within and is Source is pure in essence. What is within Image is conscious. It passes its consciousness on so that it does not die. All things are thought processes. Don't think it, say it, write it, then it does not exist within the higher consciousness. Just as thought can die in our head, and even be forgotten, so we die. We are physical thought. We are just expressed in physical terms.

That is why the Bible says that God has no form, and in other places it says he does.

These are all beliefs-- not necessarily facts-- but you portray them as facts.

I will begin the argument this way, if you wish to grasp it that is:

1. There has to be by necessity something not nothing.

Agreed.

2. That something must be outside of Time.

Don't necessarily agree. Time is mere sequencing, so any movement, nor matter how minute, is "time".

3. That something can only be One.

Not likely, imo, because I drift in Ricard's direction on this. The concept of an unchanging singular deity has made less and less sense to me as time has gone on, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible. However, I will say it is virtually impossible to verify, imo.

4. That something is unchanging in essence.

See above.

Can we get past the start I wonder. Perhaps even that is a problem.

It appears not, but that's OK.

 

[metis]

I believe that the are all right. Does that make me wrong, haha.
Each one is within his own realm, his own God or god. Otherwise, God is not that much of a God, me thinks.

Again, we may not be that far apart.

I have long asked myself the question as to why all cultures have and have had religious beliefs amongst the majority of their people going back as far as we can take written history. Even prior to that, Homo sapiens tens of thousands of years ago had cave paintings portraying deities (animism) and we also find with some Neanderthals that they buried their dead in ritualistic fashion, which seems to suggest religious concepts (again, animism is the most likely).

Some anthropologist suggest that we may have a "God gene", namely some sort of propensity to believe in deities, and I would suggest that there's some rather serious logic with that because it's so pervasive in every society that we've ever studied. But what can't be determined is exactly how this genetic propensity may have developed. Did a deity/deities put it there? Or is it that such beliefs are beneficial with no deity as a cause? At this point we simply cannot tell.

Therefore, I am not an atheist. Instead, I prefer to use the word "naturalistic" (my "leaning"), but "non-theism" and/or "agnosticism" are also quite close as well. Call me what you want, but just make sure you call me for dinner.

 

[metis]

the scientists who posit those ideas would disagree with you I think.

That is simply not true. I have been a subscriber to Scientific American for over 40 years, plus I have read about a half-dozen books written by research cosmologists on the BB over the last several years. Both the concepts of quantum mechanics and the hypothetical possibility of infinity are very much in the running and, as a matter of fact, most cosmologists that I've read lean in the direction of both likely being true. However, they are as stuck as we are in that there's not anywhere near enough evidence to conclude that there is a multiverse or that infinity exists.

What is your idea of infinity? Something without limits? What has no limits? something natural? what is natural? what is it?

Anytime there is matter, energy, or sub-atomic particles of any type, there will logically have to be limits because each has its own characteristics, and "characteristics" logically necessitates limits.

I use the term "natural" in this context of my "leaning" as applying to literally everything, ala Spinoza's approach. Matter of fact, he used the name "Nature" as another name for God. Because all things in Nature have characteristics, they therefore have limits.

For those of us Jews who tend to take this approach, most of us do not differentiate between pantheism or panentheism, and neither do I. Essentially it's beyond my job classification. Therefore, I tend to say my position this way: Whatever caused the universe/multiverse I'll call "God" and pretty much leave it at that. If "God" is a conscious deity, so be it. If "God" is merely the energy of creation as Einstein hypothesized, so be it.

Or, to put it another way, whatever is, is.

 

[Ouroboros]

Beyond are own consciousnesses I would say. That is another level.. haha

I think you're just a panentheist in the making, but you just haven't realized it yet. Hehe.

I enjoyed it, though I did not think it was exhausted, rather just beginning. If you change your mind, as they say, just whistle

Sometimes it's better to put it on a shelf for a few days or weeks and then come back to it from another angle.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Strawman. No on says creation exnilho,

what is this?

except creationist

I am not a creationist

attacking.a strawmen.

I always think that phrase adds nothing to the argument other than to say your mind is closed. If you wish to discuss, then discuss

 

[Robert.Evans]

Yes, it's natural. Alleles that improve the likelihood that an organism will reproduce are passed on at a greater rate to the next generation than alleles that do not. The process comes from simple logic. You might as well be asking where 2+2=4 comes from.


Anything that happens in nature is natural, by definition.

But you are saying now that all things are natural. So what are you talking about? What mystical property is this magical 'natural' that you put forward? Where does it come from? What is it?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

what is this?

Latin for creation out of nothing.

 

[Iti oj]

what is this?

I am not a creationist

I always think that phrase adds nothing to the argument other than to say your mind is closed. If you wish to discuss, then discuss

It means you purposely misconstrue things then attack a false understanding.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I will begin the argument this way, if you wish to grasp it that is:

1. There has to be by necessity something not nothing.
Agreed.

Good, that is a start.

Quote:
2. That something must be outside of Time.
Don't necessarily agree. Time is mere sequencing, so any movement, nor matter how minute, is "time".

But if you have change then what is there is not perfect. Do you not think it is pefect, in the sense that it is complete, I mean. Is it in need of anything? Presumably not as it exists. So how can it change?

3. That something can only be One.
Not likely, imo, because I drift in Ricard's direction on this. The concept of an unchanging singular deity has made less and less sense to me as time has gone on, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible. However, I will say it is virtually impossible to verify, imo.

One and then becomes many

Quote:
4. That something is unchanging in essence.
See above.

I am speaking of something that is not as a deity as we would think. I am speaking of something primordial, archetypal, monadic, pure, simple not complex, an Existence.

What do you think.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Again, we may not be that far apart.

I have long asked myself the question as to why all cultures have and have had religious beliefs amongst the majority of their people going back as far as we can take written history. Even prior to that, Homo sapiens tens of thousands of years ago had cave paintings portraying deities (animism) and we also find with some Neanderthals that they buried their dead in ritualistic fashion, which seems to suggest religious concepts (again, animism is the most likely).

Some anthropologist suggest that we may have a "God gene", namely some sort of propensity to believe in deities, and I would suggest that there's some rather serious logic with that because it's so pervasive in every society that we've ever studied. But what can't be determined is exactly how this genetic propensity may have developed. Did a deity/deities put it there? Or is it that such beliefs are beneficial with no deity as a cause? At this point we simply cannot tell.

Therefore, I am not an atheist. Instead, I prefer to use the word "naturalistic" (my "leaning"), but "non-theism" and/or "agnosticism" are also quite close as well. Call me what you want, but just make sure you call me for dinner.

Ok. Good.
By the way... argument in the sense of opposing views etc, not as an argument to the death. But you are right, discussion is better.