Marijuana.com

solutions

I had to cancel on figuring the premise

(1) A life without religion

(2) Is heaven on earth

Peace

__________________
3 monkeys sitting under a coconut tree
discussing things as they are set to be
Said one to the other, now listen you two
there's a strange rumor that can't be true
they say man was descended from our noble race
but the very idea is a big disgrace
no monkey ever deserted his wife
or her baby to ruin their lives.
Damian Marley - Educated Fools

 

Higher Logic

Check out the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know." It talks about quantum physics/mechanics and how religion needs to evolve to a level that would adequately "benefit" from science.

Albert Einstein had it right *shrug*

__________________
Crucial Web Hosting · Garden's Cure · Marijuana Recipes · Drug Testing Facts

Dilution · Substitution · Urine Testing · Hair Testing · Drug Testing FAQ

Lothar121

I'll look into it. Thanks for the source.

__________________

Donate. Write. Make a difference..
Libertyindex | Posting Guidelines | Marijuana Policy Project | NORML | DPA | Drug WarRant | Media Awareness Project

Mamabudz

...about the Universal constant...

...it ain't the speed of light you know

SevenLeafs

In relation to the original topic of this thread, "A proof for God and your thoughts", I think that Saint Thomas offered many "evidence" of God's existance (and therefore, why your thoughts exist).

One "proof", according to him, is movement. Like Newton said, everything has an action and an equal reaction, but what starts this "action"? Saint Thomas says that every movement derives from another movement (like a person throwing a baseball; the person moves the baseball, and then the baseball could move another thing), and that everything has the potencial to be in motion, but cannot be in the state of potencial and the state of motion at the same time.

... Nothing can, excpet God off course, which is the cause and the effect. He who is the "first engine" that gives motion but needs no motion for it to work.

Peace.7L

__________________

"A soul in tension that's learning to fly
Condition grounded but determined to try
Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies
Tongue-tied and twisted just an earth-bound misfit"
- Pink Floyd -

Just say KNOW!

 

Lothar121

I suppose I mislabeled myself as a mono-theist. Perhaps that gave you the wrong idea on how I view our relationship with God.

I would consider myself a deist. I think that would be more proper. Just thought I would clear that up.

Deism (n): Belief in God as revealed by nature and reason combined with a disbelief in scripture, prophets, superstition and church authority.

I'm sure most of you admins/mods already knew the definition, but I posted this for other theistic/religious people to get a general idea of how I think.

I can't resist putting up these quotes since they were both mentioned.

This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
-Sir Isaac Newton

"That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."
- Albert Einstein

Cassius

Here's another theory. It is very likely that the expansion of the universe (outward movement due to the Big Bang) will likely slow down and stop one day, and begin to collapse in on itself again, eventually resulting in the Big Collapse. So, suppose that the Big Bang that created our universe was preceded by the Big Collapse of another universe, made out of the same energy, but not necessarily identical in form. Another universe, with similar if not identical properties such as gravity, electromagnetism, etc, but with different details. No Earth, but perhaps another planet where intelligent life arose, but not homo sapien.

Now consider that this process repeats itself infinitely forward and backward through time. This precedent universe was preceded by another, different universe, and after our universe collapses in on itself, another Big Bang will result in the expansion of the universe again, in a different form as energy and matter take different chaotic paths in their outward expansion.

There, I just explained how that motion has always existed, how that one motion preceding and causing another does not necessarily equate to a "first movement", and I did all this without having to invent some ghostly figure that we know absolutely nothing about except for what we anthropomorphizingly assign it. If you throw all your preconceptions and assumptions aside for a moment, which theory is more likely to be true? Remember, I used supposition in my theory but I only conjectured that the motion of the universe is constant and unending, with verifiable circumstantial evidence that corroborates it (our universe IS expanding, and it IS expected to start collapsing again someday).

Whereas he invented some mythical figure as an explanation, and labeled it "God". Doesn't strike me as a very logical line of thinking -- sounds more like the rationale of someone who is afraid that there isn't a "parent figure" to watch over them their whole lives and lead them into an afterlife where there's no sickness or suffering.

__________________

{ Cassius, Your Humble Narrator }
{ Posting Guidelines | Erowid Drug Information Resource | instantfilehosting.com }

Lothar121

Cassius, if the density is higher than the critical density the Universe will recollapse in a Big Crunch. But current data suggest that the density is less than or equal to the critical density so the Universe will expand forever. So right now I really don't consider the big crunch as a possibility since from what I've seen, it is widely dismissed.


You seem ever so against the idea of God, but you seem to refer to God as a parent figure as if we may have some relationship with this power. Who is to say we do? It's not as if this God speaks to us everyday or shows himself to us. I don't know if this is what is happening, but you seem to be to the point where you associate God with religion period and can't separate the two. Are you a materialist?

SevenLeafs

Cassius,

I agree with what you say. The Universe, apparently, is expanding and will probably collapse at a non-determined time. This, as Lothar says, is now a topic for debate; some say that it will stop expanding and then collapse, and some say that it will expand until who-knows-when. So let's take a look at the collapsing theory.

You say that movement is ever present, therefore, the Universe has expanded, collapsed, expanded, collapsed... since who-knows-when. This 'ever present movement' must have had an origin, so here's where many people will say that God caused that movement, but wouldn't you consider that, if the Universe has been in movement since it was nothing and that it does not need anything else for it to initially start moving, it would be God?

This is my notion of what that 'fabled parent figure' is. God cannot be a being of any sort, because if it were, then he would have depended on another thing (or being) for it to exist; much like we need our parents to be able to exist. Therefore, God is not something we can conceive, but why? Could it be because, like you say, we have morphed the true figure of God into something we can rationally understand? I believe this to be so.

Long ago, we humans considered earth to be flat, it being our entire Universe. We would say that the sun revolved around earth, instead of the other way around, but that was only because we didn't truly know how things were. Now that we know that there exists a Universe, we make 'intelligent' remarks and suggest that the earth revolves around the sun, and that this in turn moves with the sum of all the other planet's gravity and whatnot. So we now say that we live in a Universe, which expands and which may (or may not) someday collapse into itself and spring another Universe. But it never really ceases to exist.

This Universe, when it is about to collapse, suddenly bursts to life again, nearing an end, but not only being the end at a particular time. It is, in that moment of Big Collapse-Big Bang, both sides. It is and it is not, so, much like Saint Thomas said, the Universe, in that moment, has potential to be a Universe but it is not a Universe as we know it, with stars and planets and vacuum. In that moment, the Universe could be represented as a single atomic particle (matter) and a non-atomic particle (anti-matter), which would then account to having the possibility of being and not-being. In that moment, the Universe has the potential to be a Universe and it is a Universe.

Following Saint Thomas' explanation: The Universe is God, plain and simple.

Peace.7L

Wormbag

Anyway guys... you cant solve the "First Cause" problem with God (or a god, if you prefer). What was before him? Where does he came from?



You would need a previous god then... and so on.

If a god can "puff" from nowhere and then create the whole universe... why can't the universe do the same?

And eliminating the god step makes it simpler... Occam would be sooo happy.