Page 1 of 8

"Finding" "God"

Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 6:32 pm
by The Laughing Man
Finding
God
If we believe that everything "comes from", or "esmerates" ;)
from a "single source", shouldn't we "logically" be able to trace it's
"emanations" back to their "source"?

And can religion, or science, best accomplish this?

I wasn't sure if this topic was better suited here, or in The Loresraat, (Big Bang), but I will let the discussion decide.... :Hail:

Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 8:46 pm
by Zarathustra
Why can't the universe be self-caused, and not traceable back to another source? This isn't as ridiculous as it sounds when you apply quantum mechanics to the big bang. Physicist Paul Davies has some interesting things to say about this. I'll look up the book and come back with more.

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 2:19 am
by kevinswatch
I just "wanted" to "reply" to this "topic" because I thought all of the "quotation marks" to be kind of "funny". :P

(Sorry, I'm just messing with you, heh.) ;)

Anyway, concepts like this really interest me. And if I had more time, or if I had chosen another field for fun, it'd have to be this whole Astronomy/Quantum Physics thing.

But no, my nerdism has lead me down a different path of geekdom. Heh.-jay

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 2:41 am
by The Laughing Man
well, at least I got the "Big Guy" to post in one of my topics, and as far as "messin", The Esmer LOVES that kind! :lol:

And I think it was Avatar who got me into that habit for "definitive" or "emphasizing" purposes.... :lol: ;)

(btw, what do you, or hope to, do? I've "esmerized" that you are in college, and have fantastic web design skills and talent, but....?) :?

(The Esmer LOVES The Tick! 8) )

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:38 am
by Avatar
Interested to see what you turn up there Malik, because I'm pretty much of the same opinion: The universe being self-caused.

--A

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:49 am
by Nathan
I've had arguments like this with my dad several times (too many).

Him: "If something so simple as a watch requires a creator, then something as complicated as a universe must require a creator too!"

Me: "well, if something so complicated as the universe requires a creator then something even more complicated, like a creator, must require a creator too!"

Him: "Perhaps, but we can go round in circles, can't we?"

Me: "Yes, so where do we choose to stop? There's no way to justify stopping anywhere except right at the beginning, somewhere else would be an arbitrary decision."


But the argument never ends. For a statement grounded in flawed logic in the first place it sure makes for some heated discussion.

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:19 am
by Avatar
:lol: I can certainly sympathise. I agree with you though. :D

--A

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:27 am
by Prebe
Sounds like me talking to "Da Witness of Jah" Natahan :D

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 12:04 pm
by ur-bane
Esmer--many people believe you can find god simply by looking in a mirror. There's your "source" for god.

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 12:22 pm
by Avatar
That sounds about right for me.

--A

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 12:56 pm
by The Laughing Man
so you're all "afraid" to take this on? bawk bawk! :twisted:

is it science or religion that can "find" God, for real, (take a pic, or point Him out) and show Him to the world? Or prove the opposite, that He doesn't exist? I'm talking about "irrefutable evidence" that no-one "should" disagree on....

syntax - def:The rules governing construction or formation of an orderly system of information

Syntax

A man staring at his equations
said that the universe had a beginning.
There had been an explosion, he said.
A bang of bangs, and the universe was born.
And it is expanding, he said.
He had even calculated the length of its life:
Ten billion revolutions around the sun.
The entire globe cheered;
They found his calculations to be science.
None thought that by proposing that the universe began,
the man had merely mirrored the syntax of his mother tongue;
a syntax which demands beginnings, like birth,
and developments, like maturation,
and ends, like death, as statements as facts.
The universe began,
and it is getting old, the man assured us,
and it will die, like all things die,
like he himself died after confirming mathematically
the syntax of his mother tongue.

The Other Syntax

Did the universe really begin?
Is the theory of the big bang true?
These are not questions, though they sound that they are.
Is the syntax that requires beginnings, developments
and ends as statements of fact the only syntax that exists?
Thats the real question.
There are other syntaxes.
There is one, for example, which demands that varieties
of intensity be taken as facts.
In that syntax nothing begins and nothing ends;
thus birth is not a clean, clear-cut event,
but a specific type of intensity,
and so is maturation, and so is death.
A man of that syntax, looking over his equations, finds that
he has calculated enough varieties of intensity
to say with authority
that the universe never began
and will never end,
but that it has gone, and is going, and will go
through endless fluctuations of intensity.
That man could very well conclude that the universe itself
is the chariot of intensity
and that one can board it
to journey through changes without end.
He will conclude all that, and much more,
perhaps without ever realizing
that he is merely confirming
the syntax of his mother tongue.
prologue - The Active Side of Infinity

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 1:19 pm
by ur-bane
Esmer--isn't it obvious? At this moment in time, no proof of god beyond personal realization exists either in science or religion.
There is no "fear" in "taking this on." It's been taken on since the Close first opened.

God or no god is a personal experience, hence "look in the mirror."
There are those here at the Watch who have found god.
There are those who have not.
There are those who are looking.
There are those who are not.
There are those who look to themselves for true guidance regardless of whether or not they have a belief in god.
There are those who look to god for true guidance regardless of whether or not they have belief in themselves.

All are welcome, regardless of what science and religion have shown or have yet to show us. Look around you. I see no fear.

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 1:56 pm
by The Laughing Man
"pretend", if you must, that there is a way to prove/disprove it. is it Science, or Religion, that can accomplish this?

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 2:05 pm
by ur-bane
Science. Religion does not require proof.

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 2:36 pm
by Gadget nee Jemcheeta
The proof might have nothing to do with the process, either. Spiritual meditation and contemplation could unlock some key to the universe, or whatever, but if you think about it, once it became proven it would be science.

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 2:39 pm
by ur-bane
Very interesting, Jem. And you are (from another thread) spot-on Jem Cheeta!
If god were ever proved, where would that leave faith?

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 2:42 pm
by The Laughing Man
ur-bane wrote:Very interesting, Jem. And you are (from another thread) spot-on Jem Cheeta!
If god were ever proved, where would that leave faith?
agree, Jem, nicely put.


Faith would be left "proving" what created "God"? ;)

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 2:45 pm
by Gadget nee Jemcheeta
What is the importance of faith? I'm not challenging that it isn't important, but I've never had it explained to me. I'm not really into faith. I'm more into 'experiencing the sublime unity of all things' or 'feeling as though i am one with the divine'
Both of those things would be a lot easier to focus on if I knew the 'divine' was out there.

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 2:54 pm
by The Laughing Man
...those things would be a lot easier to focus on if I knew the 'divine' was out there.
you answered your own question, friend. ;)

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 3:01 pm
by Gadget nee Jemcheeta
I suppose I'm addressing the difference between faith and knowledge. If you're going to say that my Faith in God would be comparable to my Faith in the fact that I'm sitting in a chair, then having multiple ways of proving god would be GREAT for my faith. I mean, how great is my faith that this chair exists while I'm sitting in it? pretty good. So faith would only increase with proof in that case.

But in ANOTHER use of faith, it doesn't refer to that, it refers to the strength of faith in the specific situation of no proof. This is the thing that I don't care about and could in fact do without. And I don't really do it, either.