What tools or mediums does God use to create the universe?

[dybmh]

What darkness? That seems like a personal intuition of yours. I don't experience the laws of nature as darkness. For me, they're the source of light and everything else.

I know, I know... that's what makes it so difficult to see beyond it.

This sounds personal again - like some sort of existential angst. I don't have that experience. I don't feel such a burden.

It's precisely what I said: for some it's a relief, for some a burden.

This is from atheist firebrand Pat Condell:

I could care less.

So you say, but it's my position and it has served me well.

Good for you. That's one way, but not the only way.

There is likely no significance to our lives except personally and locally,

Buzzzzzzz. You just stopped making sense and down-shifted into dogma. That's the darkness I'm talking about.

Once you're good with all of that, you can ask, "What darkness?"

When one is in "darkness", surrounded by it, it is very difficult to imagine there's anything else. It is a one-sided, self-centered, existence.

For example: there's a paradox, a very powerful and important one. It has to do with the desire to help and to please. When this desire to help and to please is applied in the extreme it becomes "dominance". Extremely dominant. But the one who desires to help and to please cannot understand this. They think it's impossible to be one-sided when their desire is only to help and to please the other person. The helping and the pleasing is considered "bright" and "light" and altrusitic. But in fact, it is not those things. It is actually dark because the individual is not listening to the other person, they think they know best for them, and this is completely self-centered and one-sided. This is most evvident in well intentioned people who are HORRIBLE LISTENERS. The "helper/pleaser" will automatically reject any notion that their actions and desires are one-sided, "it can't be!" Something like this can break up marriages. Especially in the bedroom.

Neither would serve any purpose for such a person. This isn't the dangerous position to hold.

The danger is the one-sided perspective that there are no consequecnes beyond this mortal existence.

 

[shunyadragon]

See below:



IMO

The atheist's metaphysics and "science" cannot escape the "darkness" which surrounds everything that exists. That darkness is as you said: "the laws of nature, which needed no conscious creator".

The implications of this insurmountable "darkness" are profound. For some, it is a great relief, for some it is a great burden. Ultimately assuming the "darkness" is the highest and the most supreme implies that there are no consequences beyond mortal existence. And this is a dangerous philosophical position to hold.

IMO

Science can easily escape any such subjective Theist concept of "darkness" that surrounds everything that exists.

Atheism is a philosophical position with no direct relationship to science except science is accepted by atheists as the present explanation for everything. Atheism would be indifferent to "darkness" which surrounds everything that exists. To the atheist, there is nothing that surrounds anything.


I doubt you could offer any explanation for science or atheism from the perspective of a "Theist belief or concept."

 

[dybmh]

What darkness? I used an example almost half a century ago; if you were floating in space and could see any stars (light) then between you and them is not empty, the em (light) is there.

Would you please elaborate on this? I'm not sure that the one you were replying to understood what you wrote. And I would benefit as well, since I'm the one who introduced the idea of "being surrounded by darkeness".

Thank you,

 

[Bthoth]

Would you please elaborate on this? I'm not sure that the one you were replying to understood what you wrote. And I would benefit as well, since I'm the one who introduced the idea of "being surrounded by darkeness".

Thank you,

Sure. If you can see something that in between you and the source, light is conveying within that perceived darkness. In a pure form, since the visible light of the em spectrum is so small does not mean light is not there.

Another fact to retain is there is no such thing as empty space. They cannot even create a perfect vacuum (empty space) in a physics lab.

Just because our senses are incapable of seeing the majority of 'light' EM, does not mean it's not there.

 

[Little Dragon]

Is darkness, just the absence of light/knowledge/love?

 

[Little Dragon]

Sure. If you can see something that in between you and the source, light is conveying within that perceived darkness. In a pure form, since the visible light of the em spectrum is so small does not mean light is not there.

Another fact to retain is there is no such thing as empty space. They cannot even create a perfect vacuum (empty space) in a physics lab.

Just because our senses are incapable of seeing the majority of 'light' EM, does not mean it's not there.

True, spacetime itself is a physical entity. That is as real as you or I.
Not just EM radiation, but as another example of matter/energy undetectable by us, the trillions of neutrinos passing through everything on Earth, right now, and all the fields and forces that surround and permeate our physical totality.

 

[Bthoth]

True, spacetime itself is a physical entity. That is as real as you or I.

3 and 4 dimensional measurement is just a tool, not an entity.

Not just EM radiation, but as another example of matter/energy undetectable by us, the trillions of neutrinos passing through everything on Earth, right now, and all the fields and forces that surround and permeate our physical totality.

i understand and why the postulate stands: "there is no empty space (perfect vacuum/darkness) between any 2 points....... anytime.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

When one is in "darkness", surrounded by it, it is very difficult to imagine there's anything else.

Good luck with that. Your god belief no doubts offers you some comfort there. If that's ever been an issue for me, it's been so long ago that I've forgotten.

I could care less.

Did you mean that you couldn't care less?

For example: [...]

I couldn't care less.

The danger is the one-sided perspective that there are no consequecnes beyond this mortal existence.

That is incorrect. You keep claiming as much, but you're wrong, at least with regards to others. That might be true for you, but not for me and many others.

 

[Little Dragon]

3 and 4 dimensional measurement is just a tool, not an entity.

Then you lack understanding. You see, any physical parameter of the universe, that can be measured, is objectively, real.
Light, mass, energy, time, space...thus spacetime, is real, is physically quantifiable.

 

[Little Dragon]

i understand and why the postulate stands: "there is no empty space (perfect vacuum/darkness) between any 2 points....... anytime.

Correct, due to zero point energy quantum mechanical fluctuations. Spacetime on the planck scale, is a foaming mass of virtual particle pair creation and annihilation events.

 

[Bthoth]

Then you lack understanding. You see, any physical parameter of the universe, that can be measured, is objectively, real.
Light, mass, energy, time, space...thus spacetime, is real, is physically quantifiable.

With you next use 'therefore' as the net term to try and force compliance.

ps.... I wrote the reply comprehending no empty space on this thread and you had hitched a ride to what I comprehend well before you wrote it

 

[Little Dragon]

With you next use 'therefore' as the net term to try and force compliance

Pardon?

 

[Bthoth]

Correct, due to zero point energy quantum mechanical fluctuations. Spacetime on the planck scale, is a foaming mass of virtual particle pair creation and annihilation events.

So now I am 'correct' but in the last post you tried to condemn my understanding for not complying to your method.

Weird

 

[Little Dragon]

So now I am 'correct' but in the last post you tried to condemn my understanding for not complying to your method.

Weird

I suppose I am.

 

[shunyadragon]

Would you please elaborate on this? I'm not sure that the one you were replying to understood what you wrote. And I would benefit as well, since I'm the one who introduced the idea of "being surrounded by darkeness".

Thank you,

Yes, and it is a fact neither science nor atheism has any reference nor comprehension as to what is "being surrounded by darkness." In fact, atheists would be indifferent.

Both science and atheism consider our physical existence simply as we objectively observe it.

 

[dybmh]

Sure. If you can see something that in between you and the source, light is conveying within that perceived darkness. In a pure form, since the visible light of the em spectrum is so small does not mean light is not there.

Agreed 100% and thank you.

Another fact to retain is there is no such thing as empty space. They cannot even create a perfect vacuum (empty space) in a physics lab.

Agreed again, 100%, I posted the same exact thing on thursday or friday last week.

Just because our senses are incapable of seeing the majority of 'light' EM, does not mean it's not there.

Thank you, clearly our first interaction in another thread is not representative of what we have in common. I am glad I replied to you using the term "friend". If you recall that very brief exchange, hopefully, in restrospect you'll see that I was not being sarcastic at that time. I genuinely felt that we had common interests and perspectives.

 

[Alien826]

It remains science fiction with no context in reality.

Not completely without context. Have you used a VR headset? It simulates vision and sound and blocks off all experience of the real world. All you would need is to buff up the technology (a lot!) and add the other senses, and you would have a total virtual experience. OK, that's a lot, but it's really just an extension of current technology. Two things would remain to make a "Matrix". A sensation of bodily movement that matched what your senses are telling you. That is, your eyes tell you you are walking along, but your body says you are sitting in a chair. It's possible to actually stand and move around and the software adjusts what you see to match it, but it's very limited, for example you have to have something to stop you bumping into things in the real world, but I've seen setups where you walk on a treadmill. Last but not least is the knowledge you go in with that tells you it's not real.

Now I'm not sure what the relevance is to the subject at hand ....

 

[Link]

I think the Torah talks about the exalted ones who created the universe and it's they who took rest. God has no need of rest.

 

[dybmh]

Good luck with that. Your god belief no doubts offers you some comfort there. If that's ever been an issue for me, it's been so long ago that I've forgotten.

It doesn't seem that way. It seems like you're still fighting with it and have a need to reconvince yourself.

Did you mean that you couldn't care less?

Yes, thank you. LOL. And thank you for pointing it out.

I couldn't care less.

Of course not. A real world example that shows an error in your ... perspective or perhaps errors in your life experiences and choices .... ( plural ) Why would you care about that? ~insert heavy sarcasm~

That is incorrect. You keep claiming as much, but you're wrong, at least with regards to others. That might be true for you, but not for me and many others.

Hee. You just proved my point. You're agreeing with me....

I said: "The danger is the one-sided perspective..."
Then you said: "That might be true for you, but not for me and many others."

So, we agree that the one-sided perspective is dangerous for some.

Like I've been saying all along. You see, you just can't keep from falling into that trap of "my way is the only way" even when you're trying to be open-minded.

Maybe you need help with a defintion. What is "dangerous"? Is it certain danger? No. But your knee jerk reaction is to deny, deny, deny, that I can make a valid point. You have my sincere sympathy. I hope you find a way out of that maze.




able to or likely... not certain.

We actually agree, but, your one-sided perspective cannot tolerate typing that out. That's why you stop replying instead of the more noble action of saying, "yup, you're right, I agree."

 

[dybmh]

I think the Torah talks about the exalted ones who created the universe and it's they who took rest. God has no need of rest.

The verbs are all singular... not exalted ones, plural.