Is it so unbelievable that we made God up?

[I'm Murrin]

An object in motion must have been moved? Something with structure must have been guided into place? You're edging onto the very shaky territory of Intelligent Design-type logic there, The Esmer.

[The Laughing Man]

the "structure" IS "the guidance", Murrin. And are we disputing the theory of relativity now about "objects in motion"?

[I'm Murrin]

Then logically there need be no other reason behind it - it becomes structure for structure's sake, and intent becomes an unnecessary addition.

[The Laughing Man]

so "structure" just "automatically" comes from "chaos"? explain, please.

[I'm Murrin]

Going back to something I just noticed in your post:

The fact that everything is in observable motion, down to it's very core, proves that some "force" is driving it

Modern theory states that objects in the universe are not flying away from one another - the space (literally the fabric of space-time itself) between them is expanding.
Just a point of clarification. I'll look in on this again in the morning, for now I'm too tired to continue trying to sift reason from the morass of flawed logic and misused punctuation that make up your posts.

[Fist and Faith]

Murrrin, the "Big Bang" simply proves it, doesn't it? The fact that everything is in observable motion, down to it's very core, proves that some "force" is driving it, and the fact that it has "form and structure" proves that "something" is "guiding" that "force". "Laws of Nature".

What drove/forced the "force," causing it to drive everything into observable motion?

[The Laughing Man]

"Intent". This could be "logically" construed as the "programming" inherent in the "data" of the "big bang", or "explosion of thought", or "presentation of idea". An "idea" is the "formulative structure" of "conscious energy". heh.

Murrin, "atomically" speaking, everything is in "constant agitiation". On a molecular level, everything is constantly moving and changing. What put it in motion, and what keeps it in motion, and what keeps it "contained", that it just doesn't "fly all over the place"?

[Fist and Faith]

so "structure" just "automatically" comes from "chaos"? explain, please.

"Intent". This could be "logically" construed as the "programming" inherent in the "data" of the "big bang", or "explosion of thought", or "presentation of idea". An "idea" is the "formulative structure" of "conscious energy". heh.

At first, I thought you were explaining it yourself, without any pre-BB God/god/creator. But "thought" and "idea" and "conscious" require a thinker. So you are saying a thinker drove everything into observable motion. And so the question continues: What is the aware source of the aware thinker that set everything into observable motion and gave it awareness?

Unless I'm misunderstanding your use of these words.

[The Laughing Man]

the "source with no source", "Itself".

[Fist and Faith]

And the reason our universe cannot be this "source with no source" is...? This is certainly the crux of the matter. There must be a source with no source somewhere - I think our universe is as good a candidate as any, while you think it cannot be.

[[Syl]]

clouds very high look
not one word helped it get up there

and

nobody told the flowers to come up nobody
will ask them to leave when spring's gone

[The Laughing Man]

no, Fist, I am saying that it IS, and that everything everywhere is too. That there are no "other universes", because they would just be part of the "larger whole" universe. There must be more than we can perceive in the totality of it all, and I am saying there is a way to "see" more of it, not all of it, and the the "void" leftover from what is "knowable" is the "observable" "source with no source".

Syl, how do you explain the fact that they "do"? "something" makes them do what they do, and can't be totally qualified by simple "chemical reactions"

[Fist and Faith]

There's no doubt that we don't know everything about our universe. Not by a LOOOOOOOOOONG shot. And you're saying that what we don't see must be the source of what we do see? Why do you think that? Maybe what we do see is the source of what we don't. Meh?

[The Laughing Man]

• well, with that statement. I'm just reflecting the overall tenet that we are not perceiving everything with all of which we are perceptually capable of, therefore we aren't perceiving everything that is capable of being perceived. That we need to get to the "molecular edge" of our "perceptual" capabilities" in order to determine this, as best we can.
  
  That if we bring "insufficient means" to the problem, we get "insufficient results", and therefore "inconclusive" data. Also that we must , in spite of Murrin's opposition to this, weed out the "raisins from the rat poop" when it comes to "logical theory" whether it comes from religion or science. They both can be hard to identify for what they are. I challenge that both are required, and each must be kept to the inherent laws that govern each, "Logic and Reason", and the "Faith" to discover umimaginable truths about ourselves and our universe, and verify them utterly and completely on an individual basis through collective observance and description. They all must pass the tests, but certain tests require certain procedures to be followed, in science and religion.
  
  And you consistenly hit the nail every time, Fist. Why bother? Well, I say "what are all these people talking about?" "could it be true?" "how do I find out?" etc. I've seen enough testimonial and had enough "supporting" experience (extremely little "controversial" experience ) to decide without a shadow of a doubt that these things were worth exploring, if not for the awesome implications, but for I had nothing better to spend my life doing, but proving what I could about whatever interested me.
  
  and after 30 active years of curious investigation, I have only come to the point where I believe it is possible, and believe there is a way to do it, but still haven't done so, but only for lack of proper dedication and effort, simply put. But "everyone" has to do it before it can be accepted as "science", and "everyone" cannot be convinced to make the effort. This is only because we have been "trained" to percieve the world in a "modern manner", and that were we to "train" ourselves, each one, from birth, to perceive with "all" of our perceptual capabilities, it would be effortless after a matter of time, jusrt like everything else we "learn to do".

Think about what Newton went thru when he started walking around going "LOOK! Everything falls to the ground! WOW!" I bet you someone probably beat him up more than once, and laughed in his face considerably more. it's difficult to explain the "unseen obvious". And can you dismiss these "scientists" who believed that what they were "describing" was further evidence of "Creator" to them? From Einstein to DaVinci, they all believed, and I admire them for their "science" more because of their "faith" in it.

I think it's extremely cool that The Esmer is a cross between a Bloodguard and an Elohim!!

did you know Cail is my daddy?

[Avatar]

Long and long since Darth Revan started a topic here in the Close. Nice to see another one. LuciMay, look back a few pages and you'll understand that this is positively restrained for Revan.

Some interesting posts by all. Naturally, I'm in favour of Murrin and Fist's viewpoint, especially Fist's suggestion about the "thinker."

(And I've just realised something too...(because we're actually still going round and round about intent, aren't we? You're not actually looking for a shared view of the concept, you're looking for me (us) to accept your view. )

I really like what Fist had to say about the known being the source of the unknown.

And what is it that flowers do, Esmer, that can't be qualified by "chemical reactions" or similar empirically testable considerations?

To return to the original topic question though, no. It's not unbelievable that we made god up. In fact, I think that that is exactly what we did.

--Avatar

[lucimay]

ah...the topic turns once again to conciousness...which has been the discussion all along, hasn't it, gentlemen?
you one smaat bunch uh boys!

[The Laughing Man]

'Tis not my view, --A, but "a" view that is held from the standpoint of "Reason & Logic", and it is subjected to the same "laws" as what you claim to be science. It can be reasonably argued that God exists based upon current observations, and can only be argued against by supporting a theory that requires "infinitely impossible" odds of "likelihood" of occurring. Not to mention that this can be proven, and has been proven, and the only ones who refute this are the ones who refuse to experiment properly. The argument here is with "logic", and it is not my view, but "reason's", so we're clear here, --A. For your information we haven't gotten anywhere close to what I "actually" believe, so therefore your statement would thus require more information on what my views are to be a valid one.

And I will refer you to my previous article and link on the nature of plants and "observations" made in regard to an inherent "consciousness" in them. Again, here are ways which you can "prove" certain facts by performing certain experiments, but I'll bet the statements themselves would be disregarded and the experiments would not be made, and the "facts" disputed, based on "opinion", only because it seems they already have.

[Avatar]

Having once again browsed that article, (busy day today) I still feel that "intent" is missing. At least, in my accepted definition of the word. The plant didn't decide to mimic the wasp.

Plants responded to most kinds of music or sound, to magnetic and electric fields or current, all of which favored growth under certain conditions.

There's a potential answer to the question of plant awareness that fits neatly into the chemical or similar reactions.

And I think, in fact, that a key word here that we may be missing is reaction. Reaction.

The plant reacts to changes in it's immediate environment. Cause and effect, stimulus and response. Big difference between that and awareness or consiousness, let alone intent, which we may think of as action perhaps.

It can be reasonably argued that God exists based upon current observations, and can only be argued against by supporting a theory that requires "infinitely impossible" odds of "likelihood" of occurring.

Uuh, make that infinitely improbable odds, huh? I'm happy with the thought that we are infinitely unlikely. That, if the universe has a sense of humour, we're the joke. That doesn't bother me at all, because I don't believe that there is a plan. And if there is no plan, then what is god?

Actually, given your response to Murrin's earlier post about anthropormorphic characteristics, I'm not sure that we're so far apart, at least in the sense that I could accept some form of energy, but even if it were so, I can only see that as unconscious, unaware, and undirected.

In other words, it's still chance that we're here at all.

(Oh, BTW, my statements can only be based on currently available information, not what might be revealed. )

--A

[The Laughing Man]

[Fist and Faith]

And you consistenly hit the nail every time, Fist. Why bother? Well, I say "what are all these people talking about?" "could it be true?" "how do I find out?" etc. I've seen enough testimonial and had enough "supporting" experience (extremely little "controversial" experience ) to decide without a shadow of a doubt that these things were worth exploring, if not for the awesome implications, but for I had nothing better to spend my life doing, but proving what I could about whatever interested me.

Excellent paragraph.

and after 30 active years of curious investigation, I have only come to the point where I believe it is possible, and believe there is a way to do it, but still haven't done so, but only for lack of proper dedication and effort, simply put.

But this doesn't get you any points with me! You are convinced that a process that requires immense time and effort will yield specific results - but you haven't actually gone through the process. You've thought long and hard about it, and discussed it with many people, but you haven't actually experienced this for yourself? I have to assume such a thing would be an extraordinary experience!! What's holding you up?

But "everyone" has to do it before it can be accepted as "science", and "everyone" cannot be convinced to make the effort.

Everyone's involvement is not a requirement of the scientific process.

This is only because we have been "trained" to percieve the world in a "modern manner", and that were we to "train" ourselves, each one, from birth, to perceive with "all" of our perceptual capabilities, it would be effortless after a matter of time, jusrt like everything else we "learn to do".

I don't know about this. May as well say we could all be telekinetic if we were taught from day one that we were. But if we were taught from day one that we were all telekinetic, I think we'd all be saying, "Huh? How come I'm not telekinetic? We're all taught that we are, after all."

Think about what Newton went thru when he started walking around going "LOOK! Everything falls to the ground! WOW!" I bet you someone probably beat him up more than once, and laughed in his face considerably more. it's difficult to explain the "unseen obvious". And can you dismiss these "scientists" who believed that what they were "describing" was further evidence of "Creator" to them? From Einstein to DaVinci, they all believed, and I admire them for their "science" more because of their "faith" in it.

Again, there's no contradiction between science and faith. I also admire scientists who also have faith. And I especially admire the ones who do not attempt to use either science or faith to prove or disprove the other.

I think it's extremely cool that The Esmer is a cross between a Bloodguard and an Elohim!!

did you know Cail is my daddy?

I had heard rumors...