God has died

[Sunnybayes]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

When you say god lives in two dimensions do you mean dimensions like length, width, depth etc...

OR Do you mean he lives into two universes...>?

I don't claim that, the website does. Its says he lives in two time dimensions instead of just one time dimension of our universe.

Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time (6). Not only space, but also time has a beginning - at the moment of creation. Studies in particle physics have shown that our dimension of time is really only half a dimension, since time can only move forward (7) (forget the time travel movies - this is scientifically impossible). If God existed in only one dimension of time, then He would have had to have been created at one point. The Bible says God was not created, but has existed from eternity past to eternity future. The Bible also suggests God created time and was acting before time began (8), confirming that God exists in at least two dimensions of time. In addition, the Bible states God can compress or expand our time line (9), based upon what He wants to do. For God to turn a day into 1000 years and 1000 years into a day requires that He exist in at least two dimensions of time.

A three dimensional God would be unable to hear all of our prayers, since He could not be everywhere at once (10). In addition, a three dimensional God could not perform any of the signs and miracles of the Bible, since He would be confined to the laws of physics of our three-dimensional universe, which make no allowance for miracles.

So basically he/they redefine God when new evidence from physics comes up, so I'd suspect God will always be defined one step above of what we know.

[Ree]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

I don't want to go on a rant like so many people do on this forum. I don't want messages filled with hate or Zeal or ignorance. I want an intelligent discussion on why people think a God or power external to them, exists. What is the cause of it, and is there anyway to retain these beliefs, but avoid the negativeside effects like Terrorism, unwanted births etc...etc.

I thought the discussion was not whether or not God exists, but why people think a God exists.

[Sunnybayes]

Originally Posted by Ree

I thought the discussion was not whether or not God exists, but why people think a God exists.

So I guess it depends on how you define a god. I guess there is the classic old man in the sky god, and then there's the god who made the laws of physics and set the parameters and set the initial conditions just let the laws of physics take their course. And then someone might label the God as the one who lives in two time dimensions , And then there's the God that cannot be labeled or defined, basically like how mathematicians like to call 1/0 as undefined.

Who else has a different definition?

And then after we agree on our definition, then we should tell why we think that God as agreed by that definition exists.

[ZHereford]

Originally Posted by Carezza7

...there's just NO WAY to prove it...and no way to DISPROVE it.

@Mark
As Carezza7 says there's no way to prove or disprove the points any of us make. To me it's logical, reasonable and probable that there is a supreme intelligence whose thread runs throughout all of creation. Evolution included.

I could support my opinion with much documentation but it doesn't matter because it's still not provable. And that's okay. The one great freedom we all do have is to believe what we choose.

[Akashic_Librarian]

Perhaps we should stop believing so much then, and start KNOWING.

Isn't it about time we as Human beings took up the mantle of existance and consciousness. Shouldn't we be looknig for answers in our own experience, not in the answers of old books, or people on websites. All I know right now is thats so FEW people actually look for answers within themselves, others claim they do and then readily suppot their views by linking to an obscure article that is more fallacy than truth. I don't claim to know the truth, but I do know that Truth...

The ONLY truth is Your Truth. Why do you think Jesus has been the only Christian so far to walk on water? Or transmute two Oxygen Moelcules and a Hydrogen molecule into a complex solution of Yeast, Alcohol grape juice etc...etc...Its not because he was directly related to God, nor did God grant him special powers. He understood that his truth, was THE truth. Thats what he meant. He didn't mean you should all emulate him.

Let me tell you a story, there is a tribe in the Phillipenes who, during WWII, had the Britsh or American set up an Airport in their village, this airport had a runway, radio tower, hangers etc...etc...and the villagers benefited greatly from the trade this airport broguht them, now when the War ended, our forces vacated this airport, leaving it derelict, we took back our equipment and just left a shell of building. The Villagers did not understand electricity, or flying, or radio, but they understood that this "Thing" brought food, by magic, or providence they didn't know, but they KNEW it brought food. So it is now a tradition in their village to go to this Airport and use "Equipment" (Imagine Cocnut radios, vines instead of wires) in a desperate attempt to draw to them planes, and food and trade.

The British / Americans where in a way, Jesus. And these villagers his disciples. "Jesus" did this that or the other in a way his "Disciples" could not understand, but they saw the benefits. Radio waves and electricity are in this case, Jesus's knowledge on the nature of reality, his disciples Vine wires and coconut radios are a ignorant attempt at recreating the effect, but without understanding of the basic principles of physics, electricity etc...etc...They have everything excpet that basic understanding.

Which leads me back to my original point, Jesus was not specially gifted from God, God does not even exist. Jesus's teachings, in my opinion, where grossly miswritten, and his praying to the Lord etc...etc...where not as they are written in the bible. But I DO believe he walked on water, and fed 5'000 people, because he KNEW how things worked. He didn't just follow some empty ritual, or passed down talisman, or words from an old book. He learnt how to effect the physical world around him, in real time through a deep understanding of the nature of reality and how things interact within it.

Which finally leads me to my final point (and ironically my first point) We have to stop believeing in things like God, Allah, Vishnu, St Joesph. This attachment is only going to bring suffering. Instead you should KNOW yourself. Know the very way your molecules vibrate and move. Know how the wind blows and how the clouds move. Listen to the sound of a tree and feel everything as one. Then you will know that what you might call God, is nothing but self realization.

Thats how I see it anyway.

[ZHereford]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

Then you will know that what you might call God, is nothing but self realization.

Actually this is the very thing that the Bible does preach "The kingdom of heaven is within". It also states that we are created in God's image. I take that to mean we are all part of God therefore part of all creation.

Now I'm not much of a Bible person but I was brought up in a religious tradition. The problem is, of course, that people wrote and interpret the Bible so it often leads to many disagreements. My only point is that what you are saying is not in opposition to what Christianity teaches.

[Sunnybayes]

Originally Posted by ZHereford

@Mark
As Carezza7 says there's no way to prove or disprove the points any of us make. To me it's logical, reasonable and probable that there is a supreme intelligence whose thread runs throughout all of creation. Evolution included.

I could support my opinion with much documentation but it doesn't matter because it's still not provable. And that's okay. The one great freedom we all do have is to believe what we choose.

I agree that there is no way to prove or disprove these points.

Now the question is, if anyone can shed some light, was leads us to choose to believe or disbelief? What things affects this choice?

[Sam988]

Isn't it much easier to believe that one will live for the entire eternity in joy?

When things get hard here on life, it's going to get better some day. This is just temporary.

I've been a christian myself (my parents are fervorous christians), i went to church every saturday and sunday (in the middle of the week we had meetings also) so i know how its like to grow being contantly taught that christ is the only salvation and blabla. It ends up making perfect sense, and anyone who says something you disagree with, you deny it on your mind the same time you hear it.

Its a hell of a brainwash. I dont know what miracle happened that i managed to set myself free of it (every friend of mine who has grown with me on church is still a fervorous christian)


I can't explain why people believe god for someone who has never really been brainwashed. But i understand it. I guess only who's been there and had the experience knows what i'm talking about.


This experience led me to understand the muslam terrorists. I dont hate them because i know they are just brainwashed, and i know how it is like, i can actually picture myself perfectly in their place had i grown up in their environment. Anyone could be like them. Scary thought to have, but its true.

[ZHereford]

Originally Posted by Sunnybayes

I agree that there is no way to prove or disprove these points.

Now the question is, if anyone can shed some light, was leads us to choose to believe or disbelief? What things affects this choice?

I would think it's different for everyone depending on how you were brought up, how much education you have (formal or otherwise), how motivated you are to find the answers to life's puzzles.

I personally have done a lot of reading and studying including philosophy, quantum physics, psychic phenomena, near death stories etc.

From there I formulated my own opinions as to what makes sense to me and what doesn't. I must say that I'm glad I had exposure to religion growing up because it gave me something to build on and some basis for comparison.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

I don't want messages filled with hate or Zeal or ignorance.

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

Perhaps we should stop believing so much then, and start KNOWING.

...

Instead you should KNOW yourself. Know the very way your molecules vibrate and move. Know how the wind blows and how the clouds move. Listen to the sound of a tree and feel everything as one. Then you will know that what you might call God, is nothing but self realization.

Sounds a lot like zeal to me

Before I make any assumptions about what you're saying, do you believe it's wrong to reference someone else's words if they say what I want to say? Or that's it's wrong to look to others for answers we haven't been able to find within ourselves, or for answers that we might find but only after years of introspection instead of hours of looking elsewhere?

Originally Posted by Sunnybayes

But that's just what science is. "God" is just a label or an analogy. People have to agree on the definition. I guess I'm trying to label/define God in my own way to describe several different phenomena, and come up with my own analogies. But they're just making the best guess that they can given all the evidence and every time someone comes up with an objection then they have to redefine what God really means to incorporate those exceptions, just like any physical model. I just like their effort and their guesses that they've tried to muster out so far.

Perhaps, but unlike spirituality, science, after coming up with a hypothesis, gathers data to attempt to invalidate it. Before being backed up by verifiable data the hypothesis is not considered an accurate representation of reality. It remains a guess, not a proposition.

Originally Posted by Sunnybayes

Here's the analogy that I'm going for. The concept of God and the rules to follow him is analogous to a cell following its instructions of its DNA.... something along those lines, and that the God DNA is what tells humans how to form societies and relationships, like DNA tells cells how to work together "synergetically" to form a body. Edit: I guess you'd say that our DNA is just information and instructions for cells to work together, like laws of government and god are rules for us to work together to make a society.

And this is one of my fundamental disagreements with spirituality. In terms of rules governing life, God is unnecessary. Social interaction developed and evolved (and spurred our genetic evolution) in ways that don't require a supernatural entity for explanation.

Originally Posted by Sunnybayes

And I also argue, that if you translate the word God correctly into your own language that you can relate to then there is some good advice.

I agree that there is good advice to be found in spirituality/religion, but I also firmly believe that spirituality/religion is not necessary to learn/understand that same advice. Compassion, generosity, empathy, etc., none of that requires God.

Originally Posted by Sunnybayes

I also think that the word faith boils down to the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics. Its impossible to be 100% sure so faith is required eventually.

Hmmm, faith conjures up thoughts of belief in God, or certainty of divine purpose. How does that relate to the inability to accurately measure both a waveparticle's position and momentum? Unless you mean faith in respect to our certainty in the way that waveparticle will behave regardless of measurement inaccuracies.

Originally Posted by Sunnybayes

So basically he/they redefine God when new evidence from physics comes up, so I'd suspect God will always be defined one step above of what we know.

I see futility in ascribing to God things we don't know because we're continually shrinking God's domain. Project this far enough and what is left for God?

Originally Posted by Sunnybayes

And then there's the God that cannot be labeled or defined, basically like how mathematicians like to call 1/0 as undefined.

Who else has a different definition?

Since God is frequently used to explain the things we don't understand, He is undefined. Something undefined does not exist. So by that definition there is no argument for the existence of such a god.

Originally Posted by ZHereford

As Carezza7 says there's no way to prove or disprove the points any of us make. To me it's logical, reasonable and probable that there is a supreme intelligence whose thread runs throughout all of creation. Evolution included.

I could support my opinion with much documentation but it doesn't matter because it's still not provable. And that's okay. The one great freedom we all do have is to believe what we choose.

True. And I'm sure your beliefs are as solid as mine, so they'll be able to withstand scrutiny, right? I ask you to share your beliefs, and specifically your reasons for holding those beliefs, because of the possibility that they may shed some light on hidden discrepancies in my own.

Ultimately, as Sunnybayes asked, if the existence of a supreme being is equally likely and unlikely, what leads you to believe in rather than against?

Originally Posted by Sunnybayes

Now the question is, if anyone can shed some light, was leads us to choose to believe or disbelief? What things affects this choice?

I don't believe in God (of any kind) because everything I've experienced is either explainable through mundane mechanisms, or is unexplained. It's those unexplained things which are sometimes ascribed to God, but which I sometimes later see, either through experience or new knowledge, as also having mundane explanations.

That's why I'm not a believer, because of the lack of personal experiences in favour of belief, and ever-increasing knowledge which provides explanations for things previously ascribed to spiritual causes.

I suspect some people believe because of the comfort that belief provides in the face of things unknown. I think that some people have a tendency to replace the unknown with imaginary scary things, so to avoid that they readily adopt beliefs which replace the unknown with positive things. (I wrote a little about this in this blog entry) But for me the unknown is itself positive; it's a source of endless joyful discovery, discovery which I feel would be limited by explanations which can't be verified.

On a slightly different note, I do believe that spirituality, specifically the language of spirituality, is useful for communicating experiences of the world, rather than for trying to understand and explain the world.

Maybe this is what you were getting at before Sunnybayes. Except rather than governing, spiritually can be an aid in social interaction. I don't believe that God (or any focus of spiritual beliefs) governs our social interactions, but I do agree that spiritual practices can help guide them, and that spiritual language can be used to more effectively communicate experiences (as long as everyone involved understands the language).

I had a discussion with Jenny about this and she summarised it very well.

[ZHereford]

Mark Lapierre True. And I'm sure your beliefs are as solid as mine, so they'll be able to withstand scrutiny, right? I ask you to share your beliefs, and specifically your reasons for holding those beliefs, because of the possibility that they may shed some light on hidden discrepancies in my own..

Hey Mark here is a link on this forum where I explain how I came to my beliefs without stating what they are: What backs your faith?

Would you like me to go into detail as to what I believe?

[Mark Lapierre]

Yes please. That post provides some background but doesn't show the process of reasoning that you could have used. I really would like to see how anyone could use logic to support the existence of God.

[Michael Chui]

Heh. The fairy tales are getting old.

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

Along time ago people lived in constant fear that a deity would smite them should they do wrong.

How long ago? One millenium? Two? Three?

Because, last I heard, most people were afraid of the people waving whips around and telling them to do this and that or else no food for you. I don't think random deities had anything to do with it. Well, maybe in Mesapotamia, where the king just happened to be God, sitting on a stylish ziggurat.

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

Every civillisation had some onipotent force who ruled their life and ruled their hearts.

I'd let this pass if you defined "rule" with extremely sweeping broadness. I mean, these days, we call this omnipotent force "freedom". Free your mind, Neo.

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

They asked where was this "God" in times of need a worry? Why did the "Sinners" not be struck with lightening like those in the old stories?

Incidentally, these questions are also in the Bible. They're listed in Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes; these I can be certain of off the top of my head. I'm pretty sure they're in Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekial, too, but I could be wrong.

And yet many and most of the Jews retained their faith through the Holocaust.

I'm fine with your message, if you want to call it that; and of course I agree with it; it's a fine Gospel. But do you have to use revisionist history to do it? I mean, really. Check the akashic record yourself. If the medieval peasants lived in constant fear of anything, it was of the vassal lord's interest in their wife.

Really: where do you get off being the spokesman for several continents full of dead people?

[beautyscientist]

It seems overwhelmingly unlikely that the God described in the Bible exists. I can't see any compelling reason to believe that anything remotely similar exists either.

Humans are good at seeing patterns and meaning where none exists. The other day I heard about a religion for the first time. It struck a bit of a chord with me, and a few days later I noticed something that would otherwise have passed me by that seemed strangely significant in the light of my new knowledge.

The trouble is, the religion was a spoof one: the Great Spaghetti Monster. And the thing that I noticed was a surprisingly large amount of spaghetti on my kitchen floor when I was sweeping up.

The point is, if the original premise of the religion had not been intentionally ridiculous then I might have found this apparent coincidence a divine message.

God isn't dead - he was never alive in the first place.

[ZHereford]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

I really would like to see how anyone could use logic to support the existence of God.

Okay Mark since you seem to want the actual logical argument for the existence of God I'll give you some philosophical points of view (my own views are a combination of many philosophical and esoteric views).

From St. Thomas Aquinas:
"It is necessary to assume something which is necessary of itself, and has no cause of its necessity outside itself but is rather the cause of necessity in other things. And this all men call God."

Here is a modern cosmological argument by Tom Morris:

1. The existence of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation.

2. The existence of the universe is thus either:
a. unintelligible or
b. has an explanation

3. No rational person should accept premise (2a) by definition of rationality

4. A rational person should accept (2b), that the universe has some explanation for its being.

5. There are only three kinds of explanations:
a. Scientific: physical conditions plus relevant laws yield the Event explained.
b. Personal: Explanations that cite desires, beliefs, powers and intentions of some personal agent.
c. Essential: The essence of the thing to be explained necessitates its existence or qualities.

6. The explanation for the existence of the whole universe can’t be scientific because there can’t be initial physical conditions and laws independent of what is to be explained.

7. The explanation for the existence of the universe can’t be essential because the universe cannot exist necessarily. The universe is not the sort of thing that exists necessarily.

8. A rational person should believe that the universe has a personal explanation.

9. No personal agent but God could create an entire universe.

10. A rational person should believe that there is a God.


To me George Washington said it most simply: "It is impossible to account for the creation of the universe without the agency of a Supreme Being."

For a totally different perspective and probably more in line with your views see the article on Epicurus under this month's philosopher and his views on death and annihilation.

Also for Shamou - note that Anthony Robbins was not the first one to talk about pain and pleasure.

[Lychee]

Originally Posted by beautyscientist

It seems overwhelmingly unlikely that the God described in the Bible exists. I can't see any compelling reason to believe that anything remotely similar exists either.

Humans are good at seeing patterns and meaning where none exists. The other day I heard about a religion for the first time. It struck a bit of a chord with me, and a few days later I noticed something that would otherwise have passed me by that seemed strangely significant in the light of my new knowledge.

The trouble is, the religion was a spoof one: the Great Spaghetti Monster. And the thing that I noticed was a surprisingly large amount of spaghetti on my kitchen floor when I was sweeping up.

The point is, if the original premise of the religion had not been intentionally ridiculous then I might have found this apparent coincidence a divine message.

God isn't dead - he was never alive in the first place.

What verses in the Bible do not fit with your conception of God?

[Akashic_Librarian]

@ZHereford...

Wow.

[Mark Lapierre]

Thanks ZHereford. I've heard Thomas Aquinas' argument before, and most of Tom Morris' in other forms, and I find the logic flawed. Since you didn't seem keen to discuss your beliefs I won't point out the flaws unless you want to continue the discussion.

You're right, Epicurus' views are more inline with mine, but I don't agree that happiness is achieved solely through avoidance of pain. Happiness is experienced when moving towards something, not away. Otherwise that happiness is tainted by negative emotions.

[ZHereford]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Thanks ZHereford. I've heard Thomas Aquinas' argument before, and most of Tom Morris' in other forms, and I find the logic flawed. Since you didn't seem keen to discuss your beliefs I won't point out the flaws unless you want to continue the discussion.

Hi Mark,
Actually most arguments that offer a proof have flaws in them, this being no exception.

You asked me how anyone can use logic to support the existence of God so that's why I put those out.

Without going into a long winded explanation, my beliefs are along these lines and I can't imagine there not being a Supreme Being or Intelligence. I feel that we as humans cannot fathom the complexity or enormity of such an intricate intelligence. I think we're probably clueless in that regard.

As I mentioned too, in another post, I feel that I intuitively know there's a Higher Power. I have no doubts about it.

The worst that can happen if I'm wrong (and I don't think I am), is that I cease to exist. So what? Problem solved.

[Mark Lapierre]

No problem ZHereford, consider the discussion satisfactorily closed.

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by ZHereford

Also for Shamou - note that Anthony Robbins was not the first one to talk about pain and pleasure.

Very few things that Tony Robbins talks about is original... however he has the talent of saying it in a way that will stick to your bones and not just simply linger in your intellect as a vague theory...

When he said, "Who would you be if you were all that you could be...???" I got the message loud an clear... and it's still with me...

Sorry for the hijack... now back to God...

.

[ZHereford]

Originally Posted by Shamou

Very few things that Tony Robbins talks about is original... however he has the talent of saying it in a way that will stick to your bones and not just simply linger in your intellect as a vague theory...

You're right about Tony Robbins' talent Shamou. He's great at what he does.

[Amadeus]

Hey Akashic, are you the kid on June 6th, 2006 that poured dishwasher fluid in the community fountain making all those suds and writing "666, God is Dead" in big chalk numbers and letters?

[Akashic_Librarian]

Why yes I am.


I SUMMON OUR TRUE LORD SATAN TO SPRED THE BLOOD OF THE INNOCENT AND CAUSE UNGODLY HORROR AMONGST THE PITIOUS HUMAN SOUL! I, HIS MINION AND REPRESENTATIVE ON EARTH, COMMANDS YOU ALL NOW TO PRAY FOR YOUR DAMNED SOULS IN THE NAME OF SATAN, LUCIFER AND HIS DEMON COHORTS: ASTAROTH, BEILZEBUB AND THE GREAT UNCLEAN ONE!

Oh wait...

no.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

BEILZEBUB

Any relation to Belize?

[Akashic_Librarian]

You know Michael I am not sure...I have his e-mail address here somewhere...nope can't find it. When I converse with Satan on MSN tonight I'll ask him...

[Jenny]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

You know Michael I am not sure...I have his e-mail address here somewhere...nope can't find it. When I converse with Satan on MSN tonight I'll ask him...

Reading along...then a confused "what"?? Nice comeback.

[Akashic_Librarian]

God in all his glory is dead. No more are people turned to stone, or pillars of salt. No more do people live for nearly a Millenia before dying. God no longer sends us prophets, or graces us with angels.

In my opinion the God so zealously written about has died long ago. What we worship is a dead angel. Nothing more.

[beautyscientist]

Originally Posted by Lychee

What verses in the Bible do not fit with your conception of God?

Well He seemed to have a habit of manifesting himself in some rather odd guises in the Old Testament. Burning bushes, turning people into salt that kind of thing. He hasn't done that since films have been invented.

[Matthew Shea]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

God in all his glory is dead. No more are people turned to stone, or pillars of salt. No more do people live for nearly a Millenia before dying. God no longer sends us prophets, or graces us with angels.

In my opinion the God so zealously written about has died long ago. What we worship is a dead angel. Nothing more.

Oh but the issue is so much deeper than that, A.L. God is not dead. You just don't believe in him. God does indeed send us prophets and angels, we just don't call them that anymore. Someone of belief would say that people like MLK Jr., Pope John Paul II, Mother Teresa, the anonymous good samaritan who saves the life of a stranger and many others fit all the qualifications of the old prophets and angels described in the bible.

This is not to mention that you can't successfully argue "God is dead" any more than a believer can argue "There is a God." You have every right to believe that if you want and every right to proselytize until you're blue in the face, but declaring your personal belief as a universal truth is nothing short of delusional.