- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (t8 @ Jan. 17 2011,19:55) Quote (DennisTate @ Jan. 16 2011,12:28) Later on I read Stephen Hawking's Universe. in his chapter The Anthropic Principle he speculated that perhaps there were an infinite number of unsuccessful universes out there somewhere in which was no life due to the fact that electromagnetism, gravity, weak and strong nuclear force were not properly tuned for life as we know it.
Of course he thought that because he was intelligent enough to know that it was extremely unlikely that this universe came about the way it did without a God (which he appears to believe anyway). Hence, go for the next best thing, i.e., invent a greater construct and explain it away by saying that is was the quadtrillionth trillionth billion attempt in a metaverse of universes. In other words ours is a lucky universe but luck when tried again and again might eventually happen.If he was wiser he would see that the universe testifies to a creator and that even a metaverse of trillions of universes still requires a cause and intelligence. But belief of any kind can be very blind. It is just a pity that he has many followers who don't even think as deep about such things as he appears to have and are ready to follow his beliefs as if his words were the words of a prophet.
Prophet Hawking needs to imagine such stuff in the absence of a God, he has no choice. Most of his followers of course haven't thought much about his thought processes on such statements and think it is all maths and science, when in fact such a statement is purely imagined in order to delete God from the picture and bolster his belief system.
t8, Your reply to this is perhaps the best and most rational that I have ever gotten in any forum….since I began discussing this general idea back around 2003….we are on essentially the same page.Yes, Dr. Hawking does seem determined to figure out some way to do away with an all powerful Creator who certainly would not be forced to use an evolutionary process to produce various species.
t8, I will be surprised if you do not find the following web page exceptionally useful as you debate this subject in the future. I refer to it often:
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research08.html
Quote
NDE supports a theory of consciousnessOne particular theory of consciousness is supported by NDE research an involves consciousness expansion after death. Stanislav Grof explains this theory:
(a)
My first idea was that it [consciousness] has to be hard-wired in the brain. I spent quite a bit of time trying to figure out how something like that is possible.Today, I came to the conclusion that it is not coming from the brain. In that sense, it supports what Aldous Huxley believed after he had some powerful psychedelic experiences and was trying to link them to the brain. He came to the conclusion that maybe the brain acts as a kind of reducing valve that actually protects us from too much cosmic input … I don't think you can locate the source of consciousness. I am quite sure it is not in the brain not inside of the skull … It actually, according to my experience, would lie beyond time and space, so it is not localizable. You actually come to the source of consciousness when you dissolve any categories that imply separation, individuality, time, space and so on. You just experience it as a presence. (Stanislav Grof)Quote (DennisTate @ Jan. 24 2011,22:27) Quote (t8 @ Jan. 17 2011,19:55) Quote (DennisTate @ Jan. 16 2011,12:28) Later on I read Stephen Hawking's Universe. in his chapter The Anthropic Principle he speculated that perhaps there were an infinite number of unsuccessful universes out there somewhere in which was no life due to the fact that electromagnetism, gravity, weak and strong nuclear force were not properly tuned for life as we know it.
Of course he thought that because he was intelligent enough to know that it was extremely unlikely that this universe came about the way it did without a God (which he appears to believe anyway). Hence, go for the next best thing, i.e., invent a greater construct and explain it away by saying that is was the quadtrillionth trillionth billion attempt in a metaverse of universes. In other words ours is a lucky universe but luck when tried again and again might eventually happen.If he was wiser he would see that the universe testifies to a creator and that even a metaverse of trillions of universes still requires a cause and intelligence. But belief of any kind can be very blind. It is just a pity that he has many followers who don't even think as deep about such things as he appears to have and are ready to follow his beliefs as if his words were the words of a prophet.
Prophet Hawking needs to imagine such stuff in the absence of a God, he has no choice. Most of his followers of course haven't thought much about his thought processes on such statements and think it is all maths and science, when in fact such a statement is purely imagined in order to delete God from the picture and bolster his belief system.
t8, Your reply to this is perhaps the best and most rational that I have ever gotten in any forum….since I began discussing this general idea back around 2003….we are on essentially the same page.Yes, Dr. Hawking does seem determined to figure out some way to do away with an all powerful Creator who certainly would not be forced to use an evolutionary process to produce various species.
t8, I will be surprised if you do not find the following web page exceptionally useful as you debate this subject in the future. I refer to it often:
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research08.html
Quote
NDE supports a theory of consciousnessOne particular theory of consciousness is supported by NDE research an involves consciousness expansion after death. Stanislav Grof explains this theory:
(a)
My first idea was that it [consciousness] has to be hard-wired in the brain. I spent quite a bit of time trying to figure out how something like that is possible.Today, I came to the conclusion that it is not coming from the brain. In that sense, it supports what Aldous Huxley believed after he had some powerful psychedelic experiences and was trying to link them to the brain. He came to the conclusion that maybe the brain acts as a kind of reducing valve that actually protects us from too much cosmic input … I don't think you can locate the source of consciousness. I am quite sure it is not in the brain not inside of the skull … It actually, according to my experience, would lie beyond time and space, so it is not localizable. You actually come to the source of consciousness when you dissolve any categories that imply separation, individuality, time, space and so on. You just experience it as a presence. (Stanislav Grof)
You are taking what Hawking said far too seriously. Einstein and he both mock your god constantly. They don't built “greater constructs” than your god, they simply use “god” in the metaphorical sense akin to the idea of Spinoza, personifying the universe in rhetorical use as much as anything.There never was a god to delete in Hawking's view. It would have made little difference if he had not mentioned any god.
As for evolutionary processes that produce species, you do realise he is a cosmologist not a biologist, don't you.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 17 2011,18:50) Quote I wrote up a blog on this idea last February. If you are interested there are some intriguing quotations there on invisible dimensions and why they should exist from articles on theoretical physics.
]http://www.carbonbias.blogspot.com/
It doesn’t take long to spot the problem. It’s there in the first paragraph:“ I actually do believe in evolution but I think that anybody who would dogmatically limit evolution to our four dimensional space time continuum lacks basic mathematical aptitude.“
Evolution is a fact explained by the theory of natural selection. The fact is based on the overwhelming empirical evidence for it, and the theory of natural selection is similarly dependent only on observations to be made in the space-time that we are able to observe. So actually “evolution” says nothing about anything beyond four dimensions. Far from limiting it, it is as far as it can go with any honesty. It would be a mistake to think there would be any validity in extrapolating a scientific theory mathematically into further dimensions. It is difficult enough to establish confidence in scientific theories within the dimensions we think we can observe. Further, what would be the point? How would we know there was speciation going on beyond the scope of our observation that required explanation?
Stuart
Wow Stuart, exceptional questions and yes, my health is excellent lately. In many ways I feel vastly better at 51 than I did back when I was 25!Stuart my primary objective when I wrote up that blog was to encourage people who believe firmly in evolution but have became extremely skeptical about the existence of any sort of God or higher plan for our lives to realize that those near death experience accounts might not be mere fantasy as many scientists suppose them to be.
I believe that Intelligent Design Theory or Theistic Evolutionary Theory if taught in schools could produce a much more well adjusted generation of young people especially if they get into the possible implications of the positive near death experience accounts.
This quotation is from an article in Psychology Today, it is entitled Bright Lights, Big Mystery, published on July 1, 1992.
….Quote For Sappington and others, the issue is not whether the person is actually meeting God, but why NDErs routinely seem better adjusted, more at peace and content with themselves and the world after their experience. Disregarding, for the time being at least, how they got that way, and focusing on the changes themselves, psychologists would like to borrow this newfound sense of well-being and utilize it in therapy. Reports are highly consistent and common: “I understand things so much more” and “My senses all seem heightened.” Subjects claim “sudden knowledge and comprehension of complex mathematical theorems.” Psychologist Ring has identified a consistent set of value and belief changes. They include:
a greater appreciation for life
o higher self-esteem
o greater compassion for others
o a heightened sense of purpose and self-understanding
o desire to learn
o elevated spirituality
o greater ecological sensitivity and planetary concern
o a feeling of being more intuitive, sometimes psychic.
o He also observes “psychophysical changes,” including:
o increased physical sensitivity
o diminished tolerance to light, alcohol, and drugs
o a feeling that their brains have been “altered” to encompass more
o a feeling that they are now using their “whole brain” rather than just a small part.
NDErs undergo radical changes in personality, and their,significant others–spouses, friends, relatives–confirm these changes, reports Bruce Greyson, M.D., clinical psychiatrist and associate professor at the University of Connecticut. Like Sappington, he is concerned with what can be learned from such new outlooks on life.// (PsychologyToday .com)
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 24 2011,22:50) You are taking what Hawking said far too seriously. Einstein and he both mock your god constantly. They don't built “greater constructs” than your god, they simply use “god” in the metaphorical sense akin to the idea of Spinoza, personifying the universe in rhetorical use as much as anything. There never was a god to delete in Hawking's view. It would have made little difference if he had not mentioned any god.
As for evolutionary processes that produce species, you do realise he is a cosmologist not a biologist, don't you.
Stuart
Stuart, I don't blame you one bit if you are highly skeptical regarding the following conversation between near death experiencer Christian Andreason and Albert Einstein but I personally am profoundly impressed by the content and calibre of what they discuss and I will not be at all shocked later on if I find out that Christian Andreason did indeed meet Einstein in some sort of out of the body state?!http://www.christianandreason.com/
link: for the spirit…Quote
Our spiritual brother, Albert EinsteinA moment happened in the beginning of my experience where Albert Einstein, the famous scientist, came forward to speak with me. While at first I could not make out his face, by the 'feel' of his energy I knew exactly who he was as soon as he appeared.
To be perfectly honest, I really never had much of an interest in Einstein before, so I found it interesting that I was seeing him now, and what amazed me at the time was that he seemed to know exactly who I waseven though he died in 1955, 14 years before I was born.
He explained that he wanted to answer a few questions I was starting to have about some of the codes and scientific theories I was now seeing on the screen held behind me. He told me it was important for me to fully understand, so I could accomplish my destiny on Earth. I remember wondering how it was that he could speak of and claim to know of my destiny, when I myself did not have a clue?
As he spoke to me about space, time and relativity I was aware that Einstein had been (and still was) a great teacher who not only had been born to our world, but that he had also come to many other worlds' in God's Super Universe to help them advance in scientific and social understanding. As his energy stood before me, it was like being near an old friend who just happened to be tremendously brilliant, and what I found completely remarkable was how he was able to explain even the most complex notion in such an easy to understand way.
Not only was he incredibly kind, sincere and funny; he always seemed to be completely interested in my views. We started discussing sound and the use of music and harmonies for the purpose of transporting energy into a space. It surprised me that I actually started to believe I knew more about this particular subject than he seemed toand when he showed me a supernaturally displayed diagram of what the Universe looks like before and after sound has entered it, I challenged him in our discussion about the use of tonal dissonance, which led to another discussion about the opening of some sort of time/space portal and the filling of space with atomic, neutrino type matter. I understood that this matter absorbed and recorded absolutely that happened within the space it filled. Without thinking, I began speaking about the use of positive and negative energy, and that if too much challenging energy fills a space, the atmosphere becomes tainted and is never as pure as before. We spoke about Nazi Germany and how the vile actions performed there, when Hitler was in power, forever altered the energies in that part of the world.
Ultimately, Einstein seemed highly interested (and even humored) by my assertions. And as he saw that I was shocked by my own sudden burst of self confidence, he congratulated me on what he called my “chutzpa” (hut-spa)a word I had never heard before until then, which I later found out was a Yiddish term expressing, “sudden and unexpected boldness.” While our actual conversation seemed brief in comparison with everything else I encountered during my NDE, Einstein did manage to impart a tremendous amount of information to me in a way that I can only call, “telepathic”not only could I hear his thoughts and explanations fully in my mind, I could also see actual multi-dimensional, moving, colorful demonstrations as well. It was like watching a live documentary that is being broadcast into your mind. Unfortunately, most of what I was shown is not always easy for me to recall at will, but I am sure it is all still subconsciously with me, because I will sometimes find myself suddenly able to explain some of the things Einstein showed me on a “as needed” basis during my one-on-one sessionsand then be completely stunned by what I just remembered!.
Quote Why can the beginning of the universe not be the uncaused cause of everything we see?
Good starting point. Why couldn't the 'uncaused cause' as a thought experiment be replaced with 'unbegotten god' with unlimited potential and then proceed from that point?With Love and Respect,
WispringQuote (Wispring @ Mar. 24 2011,23:10) Quote Why can the beginning of the universe not be the uncaused cause of everything we see?
Good starting point. Why couldn't the 'uncaused cause' as a thought experiment be replaced with 'unbegotten god' with unlimited potential and then proceed from that point?
With Love and Respect,
Wispring
What is a god?Stuart
Hi Stu,
OK. I think you are asking for a starting point definition. Let's go with creative intelligence OK?
With Love and Respect,
WispringQuote (Wispring @ Mar. 25 2011,18:55) Hi Stu,
OK. I think you are asking for a starting point definition. Let's go with creative intelligence OK?
With Love and Respect,
Wispring
The only creative intelligence we know to exist is that held by humans and other animals. So what is a god, and by what means might it also possess this quality?Stuart
I would say start with your own creative intelligence to build up what to you make good sense, cohesive logical constructs with internal logical consistancy
Wispring
Quote (Wispring @ Mar. 26 2011,11:23) I would say start with your own creative intelligence to build up what to you make good sense, cohesive logical constructs with internal logical consistancy Wispring
OK. Intelligence is the product of natural selection, the result of the operation of the conscious mind. Natural selection is a slow, incremental process from which qualities such as creative intelligence emerge in some animal species and only because there is a survival or reproductive advantage to be had by that adaptation. Such intelligence did not exist at all 1 billion years ago. Probably there existed nothing like the kind of intelligence we think of in humans even 2,000,000 years ago.How do these facts relate to your god concept?
Stuart
Holy moley Batman.
I am beginning to think that Wispring must really
be the Riddler.Now riddle me this.
Tim
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 26 2011,11:49) OK. Intelligence is the product of natural selection
OK. Natural selection is the product of Intelligence.
Quote (TimothyVI @ Mar. 26 2011,20:59) Holy moley Batman.
I am beginning to think that Wispring must really
be the Riddler.Now riddle me this.
Tim
He knows what he said. That's good enough for him.Quote (t8 @ Mar. 26 2011,23:32) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 26 2011,11:49) OK. Intelligence is the product of natural selection
OK. Natural selection is the product of Intelligence.
True. The concept of natural selection is principally the product of the intelligence of Darwin and Wallace, but I'm sure there were many others thinking along these lines at the time. Of course natural selection itself is entirely blind and has no intelligence.But the question of this thread is whether god could have evolved. Far from matching the evolution of intelligence with the supposed creative intelligence of gods, we have not yet established the relationship between creative intelligence and gods, and we are no nearer establishing with any credibility that there is any such thing as a god than when you first established this website, t8.
Stuart
Quote (Wispring @ Mar. 27 2011,07:21) Hi Stu,
In the context of this thread what have I said concerning a thought experiment?
Wispring
Either you are a genius and I am simply failing to keep up, or you are a tedious bore who has no point to make but craves the attention of others.Either way there is time to be saved by ignoring you. Do you have a point to make that is worth considering?
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
