"If god is nothing but pure energy" We first have to establish the existence of a deity before we can determine (or postulate about) its characteristics.
ive come across more people who believe it to be fact than those who are intelligent and realize what it truly is. i believe in religion, just not modern day religion.
i just do not understand why there has to be a god/deity behind creation. For starters we do not even know if our universe is the only one. Our universe could be on cycles just like many other things we see in nature. Our universe is nature isn't it? So the possibility that it goes through cycles is very rational. i've been pondering for some time now about what history really is. Does history require rational and logical thinking? If there is no conscious like ours how would the universe even be? Aero i think you were the one who said it best if i recall correctly. Our universe has evolved into a form that can recognize its existence. Why can't people comprehend our universe always being? I mean we can do it for a deity, why not the universe? Our Big Bang could possibly just be for OUR universe, so what if there is more? For those of you who say "Oh god is our universe," need to rethink your beliefs. If you believe in the universe then you believe in science. Particles make up everything, and particles are science. If god is everything then he also must have come from nothing. If he is everything, then he had a beginning.
thats a very interesting conclusion you came to... would you care to explain how science is faith? it seems like you're just saying that particles are moving really fast and can go through walls n shit therefor... science is faith doesnt really make sense to me
This is a bad analogy because blind people are lacking one of the common senses, to sense experience something supernatural would require an entirely new set of sensory organs. Also, the blind man can ask others if such things like light exist because most other people have eyes to experience such things. Trismegistus, you are right that just because we cannot experience something does not mean it doesn't exist.....but why would you wanna be so adamant that something we cannot experience DOES exist? We as humans are not equipped with the right set of sensory organs to experience such things....even if they really do exist!!! These supernatural things become MEANINGLESS because we do not have any language to accurately describe such things.
i dont see god as a deity per se at least not at this point in my experiences, what i see it as is the force or connection between every atom and particle, the force that vibrates through everything giving it perfect rhythm to dance to. i have glimpsed satori once and know others that can glimpse it more often and in that moment the definition of "god" seems so obvious as if all the questions you have form one long answer but you aren't being told anything you're sensing it, feeling the answer pulsating through your core and in that brief moment of pure nirvana you feel that connection you have with everything for everything came from the same place, the origins of the atoms that make up your body are the same that are in Pluto's crust, running off the same cosmic vibrancy.
does our universe actually have perfect rhythm? If that is the case, there has to be repeating factors. if we have repeating factors then we have rhythm. does that mean life is a rhythm to our universe? If the universe is in rhythm then life should be a very common thing throughout the universe. If you believe we are the only ones, then there can be no rhythm because then you are saying we are the result of disobeying universal rhythm. well duh our senses are the basic fundamental core of our consciousness. when we limit ourselves to only using our senses and block out everything, we are then at our core functions. Our senses have allowed us to see that we are all connected in some way. i never disagreed with this thought. I can cook an egg a bunch of different ways, but it is still an egg. Atoms can line up differently to create anything and everything, but they are still atoms.
i believe this rhythm allows for atoms and all things to interact being somewhat intune with the universal rhythm, now as far as saying sentient life somewhere else in this or another universe its obviously possible, ARE WE NOT PROOF?? it would be ignorant to say life has never existed elsewhere, i mean we exist right? this means its possible under the right conditions and variables for life and evolution to be ALLOWED anywhere else. repeating factors? everything is a cycle
Symmetry has been suggested in physics through elementary particles. We see this in the forms of bosons which have integer spin, and fermions that have half integer spin. But it is also suggested that these particles can undergo spontaneous breaking of symmetry - i.e, Higgs mechanism. So how symmetrical (rhythmic) the universe is is still extremely speculative and doesn't have a lot of empirical support.
Why don't we first have to establish the existence of "other" Universes before we can postulate on their evolution? Are only scientists allowed to speak of the hypothetical?
M-theory, an extension of string theory is attempting to explain how our physical laws could be evident of multiverses. I won't try to explain it, because the fact of the matter is, it's an area that I'm not to well versed in and would rather claim ignorance than attempt to explain it. I would say if you have some time though search Membrane Theory. Perhaps you can pick up some interesting information, or only affirm to you how loony scientists have gone.
Yeah, it seems M-theory exists in the Mathematical world... as you said earlier, there is little to no empirical evidence to support such theories... not to say the scientists or just making shit up though. But even if "this Universe" is a collision of two Membranes, those Membranes still exist in The Universe and whatever created those Membranes exists in The Universe, etc... Nothing is outside of Everything (and inside.)
have you skeptics realized yet that even though we care about your eternal souls we still have yet to make a point that you agree with there is a reason for that....
now this one is for anybody who thinks they know it all yet they still lack faith in a "higher deity" [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxECb7zcQhQ]YouTube - Dr Thomas Campbell - My Big TOE (1 of 18)[/ame] this guys a bit hard to keep up with but keep your mind open and try to watch and listen to all of his videos on his BIG TOE big (theory of everything)
all i can say is neighsayers GIVE UP i don't care if you believe or not (or do i??) but your consistent disbelief isn't going to change a mind in hell(heaven?) but seriously, this is simple information just like everything else in the universe data flow you guys trying to resist the natural flow of data is simply...... priceless but hey you aren't wrong you aren't right either but we all have our differences so why don't we just keep the nice stream of data flowing and keep the skepticism healthy as usual also don't forget to keep asking questions
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFjwXe-pXvM&feature=PlayList&p=44F396360C83E7F9&playnext_from=PL&index=0&playnext=1]YouTube - Origin of the Universe - Stephen Hawking (1 of 5)[/ame] I like Hawking's take on God. Edit: I was watching Dr. Cambell's video, but dealing with the subjective turns me off from things.
1 and 5 somehow it is amusing to you that we "resist the natural flow of data" yet you say you aren't wrong nor are you right.... So why use an attitude demoting other beliefs when obviously you are not correct either? 2. So are you just presenting your hypothesis? Your consistent belief is not going to change any of us during nothing. 3 and 4 The universe is simple? Now that is priceless sir. -fatty
after listening to this guy ramble for the first half, me makes an outrageous claim saying that subjective experiences are more important that objective experiences. Subjective experiences are derived and only possible via an objective reality. Therefore, objective reality (in his use of the term) should really be more important because it sets the limits of any subjective experience. Who is he to even place value upon each? The laws of nature are objective, and we are subject to them. i gotta watch the rest of his vids to see where he's going with all this. As far as I know, there is NO unifying theory of everything.