Science Makes God Unnecessary

[Serrao]

Originally Posted by Cheesus Toast

I am not so sure that it is an option to all believers (I am agnostic but I have a reasonable understanding of the theist position). I have had a tendency to think that people do not choose beliefs.

I think for many people it is not a choice to be religious. They are raised religious and don't know any better.
For me, I consciously used my free will to choose for accepting God's existence and integrate them in my life.

Originally Posted by Cheesus Toast

Is it not true that, for something to really be believed, there would be no choice in the matter?

For me there is always a choice based on free will, in all matters.

Originally Posted by Cheesus Toast

If there is uncertainty then the existence of a creator would be speculation to me rather than a belief.

I think this is the way atheists think also, hence they only believe in the visible world and science.
Jesus said: "blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
I agree with this statement very much.

Originally Posted by VinceField

No, the unproven assumption/hearsay is that what Jesus is claimed to have said in the bible is truth.

Oh right, I did not see that bit. Probably why I was a bit confused. I agree that circular arguments are usually no use.

[r6r6]

Gem---My favorite bit of Hawkins is this one
"The quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space-time.... ..One could say: 'The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.'...

Hi Gem, differrent sciences uses similar everyday terminologies to yet have totally differrent meanings, ergo the above of Hawkings, makes no sense to me, with his below.

The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE" [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 136.].

I.e. how can Hawkings no-boundary also be self-containtment. In physics talk it may make sense but to me it makes no sense when stated as he--- and others ---do.

Our finite, occupied space has gravitatiional boundary ergo it is that gravitational boundary that keeps our finite, occupied space Universe from being destroyed ergo maintains integrity of at one, or more, inviolate and non-contradictory, cosmic laws/principles.

Finite{ boundary } = wholistic ergo of structural and systemic integrity

Infinite{ no-boundary } = non-wholistic and lacks structural and systemic integrity.

r6

[r6r6]

All = "U"niverse--includes metaphyiscal-1 concepts of infinite

Whole = Universe ex God{ ess }

Finite set = universe{s}

Finite concept = I-verse--- understanding

Plural concept = you-verse---otherness ergo duality inherently includes I-verse

Complex concept = we-verse

Comprehension = them-verse---concepts of list above

...( (( (*|*) )) )....

Blue = positive gravity ergo spirit-3

Blood red = negative gravity/reality

Green = biological---potential for access to complex metaphysical-1 mind/intellect

Purple = objective access too complex metaphysical-1 mind/intellect and subjective, spirit-1 aka spirit-of-intent, application thereof

red = time{?} spirit-4?

..... = macro-infinite non-occupied space

Originally Posted by r6r6r

1} Metaphysical-1 = spirit-1 as mind/intellect ergo abstracts concepts ex concepts of space.
..spirit-of-intention...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
2) non-occupied space--macro-infinite
3) gravity buffer-zone---occupied space
...spirit-3....
4) physical/energy---occupied space as fermions, bosons or any combination thereof
...spirit-2....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Biological = soul ergo soul/biological or biological/soul
..synergy at its best as complex biologicals/souls...
Aggregate of spirit-2 may synergistically evolve as biological/soul, or biological/soul has existed eternally in Universe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"U"niverse > Universe > universe{s} -> I-verse <- you-verse < we-verse < them-verse
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
God{ ess }/Universe/Cosmos/Great Spirit/Great Mama...etc.....

r6

Originally Posted by Serrao

I think for many people it is not a choice to be religious. They are raised religious and don't know any better.
For me, I consciously used my free will to choose for accepting God's existence and integrate them in my life.

For me there is always a choice based on free will, in all matters.

I possibly view the concept of "believing" in a different light. It is not that I disagree with the dictionary definition - it is more a case of me seeing the idea of belief within all aspects of existence. The floor below me and the sky above me are, to me, beliefs. In other words they are there to me because they are believed to be there.

I was not so much making reference to the indoctrination of religious people but rather the state that people reach in which they think, "the only explanation is that there is a God!". I actually appreciate that perspective but I accept that mystery and uncertainty is a part of this existence.

Originally Posted by Serrao

I think this is the way atheists think also, hence they only believe in the visible world and science.
Jesus said: "blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
I agree with this statement very much.

It is almost the opposite way around with me in reference to atheism. I am suggesting that one cannot trust what we think we understand or believe. Me trying to label something that is beyond the scope of my understanding is something I see as contradictory.

I am not necessarily suggesting that you are implying Pascal's Wager, but your comment reminds me of it. I have seen these types of passages from Bible scripture. If I were to go under the assumption that they are accurate and unchanged through time, then I would suggest that they could all be misinterpreted.

Even if the Bible has not been changed beyond recognition from what it originally was, I am highly sceptical of people's interpretations of them. I am irreligious because religions come across to me as mostly imaginative. Existence in its pure form is far more simple. In the scope of existence as a whole I see religions as irrelevant and simply a way to segregate people.

I see the goal of spiritual enlightenment to be one of merging with universal mind - not to venerate it as something external and frightening. You may note that I am using "universal mind", which could, essentially speaking, be renamed "God". I am not denying the existence of a universal creator - I am simply stating that the human condition makes it incomprehensible EXCEPT maybe when experienced through meditation.

I see my uncertainty as beneficial as opposed to a flaw - the nature of our very existence here is, to me, all about uncertainty.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Hi Gem, differrent sciences uses similar everyday terminologies to yet have totally differrent meanings, ergo the above of Hawkings, makes no sense to me, with his below.



I.e. how can Hawkings no-boundary also be self-containtment. In physics talk it may make sense but to me it makes no sense when stated as he--- and others ---do.

Our finite, occupied space has gravitatiional boundary ergo it is that gravitational boundary that keeps our finite, occupied space Universe from being destroyed ergo maintains integrity of at one, or more, inviolate and non-contradictory, cosmic laws/principles.

Finite{ boundary } = wholistic ergo of structural and systemic integrity

Infinite{ no-boundary } = non-wholistic and lacks structural and systemic integrity.

r6

The reason why quantum physics explains things so well is no one really understands it, which is most apt because the universe is inexplicable, and if you get what I just said, you've completely missed the point.

[r6r6]

Gem--The reason why quantum physics explains things so well is no one really understands it,

That is only part true Gem.

which is most apt because the universe is inexplicable,

Partly true only.

and if you get what I just said, you've completely missed the point.

perhaps I missed your point---or many therein ---and more on that later below, meanwhile, my response to you not only got some of the points associated your given Hawking quotes, I also addressed them directly, to which you may have missed any of my points within.

Back to one of your points;

...GEM--"I see my uncertainty as beneficial as opposed to a flaw - the nature of our very existence here is, to me, all about uncertainty"....

Uncertainty need not neccessarily involve chaos, or disorder, or extended periods of chaos.

All is orderly--- causal and determinstic ---it is only that we cannot have access to all the neccessary information to see that order, most of which involves gravities complex network/fabric of nodal-vertexial-events.

Imho.

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Uncertainty need not neccessarily involve chaos, or disorder, or extended periods of chaos.

All is orderly--- causal and determinstic ---it is only that we cannot have access to all the neccessary information to see that order, most of which involves gravities complex network/fabric of nodal-vertexial-events.

Imho.

Hey! You are getting me mixed up with Gem... that was my quote!

I am not necessarily making reference to chaos - simply that nothing is certain; some aspects of existence that are sometimes seen as simple are often more complex. I am highly sceptical of what is referred to as science - probably because I am a scientist by profession.

Causal and deterministic? I agree with cause and effect - but deterministic? The future does not exist, and never does - I exist in the present. Everything involves freewill within the confines of what is seen as possibility. I do not see the future ever. By the time it arrives it is the present.

By the way, I love that quote from Einstein: "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself." I like simplicity

[wmsm]

Originally Posted by Gem

Having spiritual inclinations does not exclude one from scientific interests, or vice-versa.

Who said it needed to?

I am only aware that ancient Scientists created religious Science by personal self review of their own conscious condition and evaluation of what they quantified was a spirit power, such as personal levitation.

All acts of evil on Planet Earth were caused by human interference with the natural spiritual condition to which we belonged.

We were taught and gained information from our spiritual conscious condition and were self advised not to change any state or else it would cause an evil spiritual attack, just is happened today by occult Scientists not only causing a converSION signal (UFO) formed sound bodies causing the new wavelengths for converting dust into nuclear fuel, but also a release of evil spiritual bodies attacking everyone.

Humankind reporting this incident to the public get ridiculed not only by Scientists but also by the agencies employed for dissuading the public opinion.

Who do you think you are occult Scientist, you believe you have the reason to change and alter our natural life as a circumstance belonging only to YOUR CHOICES? What about everyone else?

You say you belong to the establishment who owns all life conditions and that your own family, the family of spirit of human life have no choice except to accept what you choose to do to us all?

You also seem to imply that occult Science is spiritual? Who are you kidding, you believe in Satan.

Your ego, invented and then your ego wanted a resource for your invention.

You advise us all that invention was needed, yet when invention destroys our health and causes an increase in death of life, why was invention necessary?

Only for the reason of creating civilization instead of living as the natural spirit did, in the tribal communities.

Therefore our spiritual review demonstrates that we ourselves enabled you to be empowered to make choices about our life circumstance, where we gain the attack, whilst you live the life of luxury for being an inventor.

[wmsm]

Originally Posted by Gem

The assertion that god is unnecessary was made famous by Hawkins, so it's important to understand the context of how he came to say such a thing. The famous quote is as follows:

"What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary" [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989].

The context was that quantum theories don't express boundary conditions for the universe, so the universe didn't begin, and therefore it wasn't created at all.

My favorite bit of Hawkins is this one

"The quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space-time and so there would be no need to specify the behavior at the boundary. There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. One could say: 'The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.' The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE" [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 136.].

If Scientists did not use quotes of Philosophy that relate to the terms of God, not believing in God, then don't quote God....yet you all do.

If you had any inquiry regarding the ancient mind/Philosopher or consciousness and why he used the term of God as a Creator then maybe you would inform your uniformed selves about how you gained the first insights as a human being regarding Scientific circumstances or review of creative conditions.

As I stated previously it is obvious you believe in circular bodies as a state of creation. The circle O therefore was given a holy condition.

You ask yourself through your own body condition...cells, or circular conditions, how it was created, and the information advised you. Therefore your own consciousness, the only consciousness asking questions of itself informed itself. This is how original scientific thinking began. Therefore you truly make me annoyed at the updated versions you all imply by your egotistical self evaluations of how wonderful and intelligent you all are (cough cough......for the CIA operative).

God was a self evaluated cellular condition of your own cells.

You also thought about how a cell or round body was formed in out of space.

These 2 evaluations began your own thinking process of how a circular body was first created and held itself together as a circle.

You told yourself the circle was holy and a Creator O.

The dot point by secret information, the crumb of creation was Magdalia, the Magdalene. Therefore you stated that God created the female as a crumb.

Now is this crumb your own cell or the cell of a space body? Well as you are not a crumb nor are you a female, the consciousness you were using was only informing you of the chemical condition which was supported as a life circumstance inside of your own O human organic cell state.

Therefore you implied by evaluation that a circular light sound body was formed. A dot, the inception was placed immaculately inside of the circle, that the swirling movement of light created the first angle beginning the evaluation for the Letter of G.

O
dot point .
Forming G
Of the swirling body of O the circle.
The circle O broke into 2 new cells of D and D.

D given a secret scientific spiritual evaluation of 500.
500 and 500 the 1000 relating to both the Christ (Holy Ox - oxygen) and Satan body.

Therefore anyone with any form of sensibility would realize that this is ancient scientific self realization as a discussion.

Now are you going to advise us all that the real light spirit did not actually inform you of this condition itself, as if Spirit or our Father does not exist?

I was advised that all conscious information is only known by evaluated record, caused as a sound image in the light.

If we could not advise ourselves through this situation, we would have NO KNOWLEDGE AT ALL.

Therefore we advised ourselves of where we came from, we told ourselves that we knew we came from out of a light spirit that created our existence, both as a spatial existence as a release of light from out of a much greater light body, forming the space existence and then the existence of our organic life, released by the same action.

That the action of God in our created organic state is the leaving of God, not the creating of God, which is what an Occult Scientist wanted to gain from our life cell and spirit conscious reviews that many of us have given as real and precise information.

Sadly for you Occult Scientist you were always wrong about God.

Therefore when the REAL LIGHT BODY that lost a portion of its own light sound that created us, it acted as the swirling release of light sound we called GOD. The same circumstance happened again when the Earth's own atmospheric condition refilled empty space with a light sound body.

God was then contacted as a light body condition, reactivated a changed light sound, that released SPIRIT from its body and SPIRIT moved into the Earth's atmosphere as the natural creation formed by the body of GOD.

GOD therefore did create us.

GOD is therefore the image of our own cellular life condition releasing its energy as it lives.

You therefore cannot emulate GOD nor HAVE GOD as a condition.

Is spirit real, sure is for those of us who have had the real spiritual condition.

Don't tell us you unintelligent misinformed consciousness that spirit light life condition after death is not real. We have had enough life experiences to prove otherwise. PROOF is a SELF EXPERIENCE for even Scientists only PROVE information by self experience.