[Eric]

Lloyd can prove God is non-existent.

Lloyd is so logically disciplined. I know he can do it.

I just know he can do it.

Please don't keep us waiting.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

No-one needs to prove the non-existent___you, Eric, need to prove your ideas___so far, you have no objective scientific proof___the only type of proof, possible. Science has proved itself to scientists, for thousands of years. The emotional metaphysics has never been proved___or even close to being proved___even to other metaphysicists. It just happens to be impossible to prove subjective emotional ideas___your only proof is "agreements of ideas" among the metaphysical/spiritual community___then you run up against science___where your ideas vanish into the unprovables___this is the world's history, for thousands of years___science can prove___emotions can not___period...

Eric, here's the easiest way to reflect our major differences, that I believe anyone can understand. Let's just look at the differences of our souls. Now, I would guess you believe in a soul that has spiritual substance, and also view this is the same "correct" position of all human souls. I would further guess that this substance of soul you believe in has allegiance to the history of other wise[by your soul's standards] souls___in other words, their emotional truths are your emotional truths[not all, but some]. I, on the other hand, have a soul also, but of entirely different substance. I, after comparatively studying most all the religions and esoteric schools of the world, and most all the philosophers and physicists of the world came to realize there is more than one emotional/soul standard of thought. Though I used to have the same soul you believe in, I came to realize its shortcomings, when dealing with the absolute fundamentals of science, so I looked more deeply at the soul's conflicting ideologies, ingrained within, by the evolutionary inputs of history. My soul does not see itself as the ingrained base of emotional beliefs___my soul sees itself more honestly, as no more than the mind's self-reflective mirrors of intellect, emotion and logic, relected back into an equilibriated ego of the self___balanced between science and human spiritualism. Now, you may say that's terrible, the ego having an equilibriated justice over the emotional soul, but you would be failing to realize, I am the one truly trying to unite the true mind, spirit and soul under one substance___the only possible substance of a real and absolute soul___matter. So, when your soul of emotional beliefs comes up against someone, such as a logical scientist, trying to be fully honest, your emotional beliefs blind your one sided intellect to its own truth of the equilibriated justice, the ego/soul is truly capable of. It's just the other standard of the soul you have not recognized, yet many philosophers, mathematicians, logicians, and physicists have, for centuries...

regards,

[Mr. Nobody]

When one looks at our surroundings one realizes emergence at every level. Combinations of atoms and molecules attain attributes that cannot be deducted by merely looking at their basic ingredients or constituents. Matter conglomerates through gravity and the other fundamental forces into forms and structures that are exposed to competition which determines what forms survive and what is stable enough to pass on information. Quantum mechanics presents the first step of this evolutionary path by melting down particles into the probability functions of energy that they are which compete to form stable information, but can never be completely determined. Isolated systems stay undetermined until they come up against established structures to which they merge via decoherance. The indeterminism of quantum mechanics is the basis of progress and provides the "randomness" of evolution. Quantum mechanics is not the proof for consciousness and results of observations are not dependant on a sentient observer. It merely shows matter as what it really is, energy subject to competition to form stability. I think that universal expansion caused gravity (yin yang) and started this process, many eons ago.
The world does not stop when you close your eyes, so why should it seize to exist if their where no observers, why should it be dependant on an Infinite Consciousness. We are not the root and the reason for the cosmos, just because we are able to deceiver the code of stability and the human ape is just one tiny machine that acquired an awareness as an unfortunate side effect of staring at repetitive patterns for millennia in an attempt to becoming a better hunter. Think outside your box and think without your ego!

[QuantumGhost]

Lloyd,
One cannot be so confident as you. You have an opinion, but deliver it as fact, as if there is no way anyone can possibly think differently. This is not so. For example, you say that thermodynamics is the sourceless source, but how can you prove that. How can it be sourceless? It is a law of nature and physics, and there are plenty of others that govern our lives. So why is thermodynamics sourceless?
(I believe G-d created all things, including rules, and thermodynamics is just another rule. It might be an important rule, but it is still by G-d.)

Another example: how can you say that the only possible substance of a real and absolute soul is matter?

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

"Now, you may say that's terrible, the ego having an equilibriated justice over the emotional soul, but you would be failing to realize, I am the one truly trying to unite the true mind, spirit and soul under one substance___the only possible substance of a real and absolute soul___matter."

A soul is spiritual, not physical. It is not made of molecules. It is something a logical thinker would label as "unknown yet." Scientists say that religion is an explanation to the unexplainable, and they don't believe in G-d because they find that many things that were unexplainable are now explainable. To them, this is proof enough for disbelief. A soul is something yet to be explained by science.



Re: G-d
I say that there is no way to prove or disprove G-d. G-d is too abstract and cannot be found using the five senses, which science relies on. Just because it cannot be seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted, doesn't mean it does not exist. Such is the case with all abstract ideas, like democracy.
Also, before Einstein came along and revolutionized physics and its laws as we know it, people thought they've figured everything out and there was little, if not nothing, left to discover. This shows that just when you think you've got all the answers, another question comes up, whose answers will rock your world.
Lastly, I believe that G-d is not something to be proven or unproven, but rather something to be believed in (or not believed in). It is all a matter of faith. Religion says that G-d wants only that you believe in Him - it does not require that you prove his existence - and belief comes from the individual.

QuantumGhost

[jim barlow]

God is unnecessary.
Universum creates itself on many many tracks.
It anticipitates its origins from its future and fine-tunes its various evolutions.
God was invented by a woman-hater bedouin tribe lacking the balance a female element might give. Was even afraid should the female influence distract them from their wars and wanderings by generating a confining civilization
This unbalanced male bias (see trinity) infected the cross, the crescent and the star and condemned them to perpetually hate each other and be at constant pogrom or war.
I suppose Jesus tried to ameliorate this hard bias a little and they murdered him. All remained as it was while they had the nerve to use Jesus as propaganda.

[QuantumGhost]

Jim,
G-d is not a creation of man, rather man is a creation of G-d. Religion is a connection between man and G-d. It is a tool for G-d to deliver his guidelines for life. How can the bible, at least the old testament, have been created by man if it is so cryptic and never loses its value in society, as the moral code for all of humanity. Religion is meant to help people understand each other, not hate each other. Religion was not created to demean women and extol men. Women have a very important role in society, and religion affirms that.

[jim barlow]

" Religion is meant to help people understand each other, not hate each other. Religion was not created to demean women and extol men. Women have a very important role in society, and religion affirms that."

My friend you are saying here what should be, not what is: propaganda.
The god concept is a spiritually impoverishing political concept projecting kings and what not on your spiritual landsacape.

Let go of the evil sky god thing and study legends, traditions. your own psychic projections, ghosts, what have you. Let go of this overarching nothing nobody has ever seen but for which they burnt women and fought meaningless wars and will do so again.

Its modern edition is nationalism with a little twist of racism. Read the Nordic legends about the evil sky god, Blake's Nobodaddy and the Xtian Devil and you'll find the object of these bedouin's worship who couldn't learn from the Egyptians.

[QuantumGhost]

Originally Posted by jim barlow

"Religion is meant to help people understand each other, not hate each other. Religion was not created to demean women and extol men. Women have a very important role in society, and religion affirms that."

My friend you are saying here what should be, not what is: propaganda.
The god concept is a spiritually impoverishing political concept projecting kings and what not on your spiritual landsacape.

Let go of the evil sky god thing and study legends, traditions. your own psychic projections, ghosts, what have you. Let go of this overarching nothing nobody has ever seen but for which they burnt women and fought meaningless wars and will do so again.

Its modern edition is nationalism with a little twist of racism. Read the Nordic legends about the evil sky god, Blake's Nobodaddy and the Xtian Devil and you'll find the object of these bedouin's worship who couldn't learn from the Egyptians.

I don't agree. Religion is not propaganda...that just sounds nice.
Firstly, religion was not "created." I believe in G-d and his involvement in religions. The three main religions believe (at the core) that man should be kind and loving to his neighbor. Whether that is reality or not doesn't make any difference. They still preach the same truth, the same rule: the golden rule.
"Do onto others as you would like them to do onto you."
This is what makes people do good. Breaking this rule makes a person do bad. Just think about it. If you were waiting in line at your local supermarket and the guy in front of you is short one dollar. If you give him a dollar, that would be the right thing to do (based on your own situation, of course, but lets assume you could spare the dollar). It's right because if you were in the same position, for some reason, you'd like that to happen to you. This shows how the rule applies - the rule that is at the core of religion.
Another thing is that religion could not have been a political tool created by some powerful governments, etc. There is too much truth in the bible, some of which doesn't agree with government interests.

My point is this: religion could not have been "created," and it has goodness and truth at its core. What people do with that truth is not up to the religion.

[jim barlow]

" If you give him a dollar, that would be the right thing to do (based on your own situation, of course, but lets assume you could spare the dollar). It's right because if you were in the same position, for some reason, you'd like that to happen to you. This shows how the rule applies - the rule that is at the core of religion."

Sorry, I would not call this emphatic gesture "religion". A mother's got plenty toward her baby. So do we in general to a lesser degree.

I think "religion" is useful for the tribal types, otherwise they'd do it to Hitler, Stalin even to Mrs Perron (Evita). Let them do it to some entity that doesn't respond.

What is important to me (personally) is a kind of spiritual growth. For this I need "user friendly" psychic entities. Good or bad is not operative here because it depends on the light. The dumb stupid boring entities can be just as useful as the more vacuous ones into which I can enter. (We may only see inside the stomach of something and think it whole.) The other thing I learnt was the "rule of two" as minimum to accomplishing lasting transformations.
Unity, cosmic oneness, all purpose superintendent does not help me.

[QuantumGhost]

Originally Posted by jim barlow

" If you give him a dollar, that would be the right thing to do (based on your own situation, of course, but lets assume you could spare the dollar). It's right because if you were in the same position, for some reason, you'd like that to happen to you. This shows how the rule applies - the rule that is at the core of religion."

Sorry, I would not call this emphatic gesture "religion". A mother's got plenty toward her baby. So do we in general to a lesser degree.

I think "religion" is useful for the tribal types, otherwise they'd do it to Hitler, Stalin even to Mrs Perron (Evita). Let them do it to some entity that doesn't respond.

I don't understand what you mean. Do what?
Also, this "emphatic gesture" is not religion, it is what religion preaches.
Religion is not something that is good for some and not for others. Religion is a guideline for a normal, moral, & spiritually-fulfilling life. If everyone did it, then life would be great because we'd all understand the same concepts, the same laws, and the same train of thought would drive us all.

Originally Posted by jim barlow

What is important to me (personally) is a kind of spiritual growth. For this I need "user friendly" psychic entities. Good or bad is not operative here because it depends on the light. The dumb stupid boring entities can be just as useful as the more vacuous ones into which I can enter. (We may only see inside the stomach of something and think it whole.) The other thing I learnt was the "rule of two" as minimum to accomplishing lasting transformations.
Unity, cosmic oneness, all purpose superintendent does not help me.

"user friendly?" That's cute. Again, religion is not something to play around with and have preferences for. Spiritual growth is available in most major modern religions. All you need is the motive to learn more. In my opinion, there's an endless amount of knowledge in religion and its books, which means there is an endless potential for spiritual growth.

Define "user friendly." Who is the user, and how is the entity friendly?

What is the rule of two? Why the lasting transformations?