immortal

We need Sigmund Freud to interpret your dreams. Religious experiences are neither dreams nor waking dreams, it requires divine intervention to access some real useful knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortality From what I have read about immortality, religious scholars say that one needs to be omniscient in order to achieve physical immortality. Being omniscient means you know everything that is there to know so it means you'll feel disassociation and won't be interested in anything. They say that they can see things from their legs and hear things from their eyes, I don't know what that means but definitely the senses and the information content is operating quite differently in such individuals. So yes if such a true immortality is achievable then it has many benefits, your mind comes to a state of complete calmness, having to think only when it is necessary rather than always thinking about this or that or what to do and what not to. When I was young I was really attracted by the idea of telomeres which are at the ends of chromosomes and prevent non-germ lines to proliferate indefinitely but an enzyme called telomerase is able to control the length of telomeres and there by making it express itself in non-germ line cells we can increase our life expectancy but it comes at an expense we would be more vulnerable to cancer attacks. http://www.viewzone.com/aging.html

I agree that the education system which is to blamed here, coming from the same state as Anil, I don't think even if he would have finished college it would have been easy for him to understand how science works without showing extra interests in reading scientific journals, papers and books written by scientists and other authors in the field. In fact the teachers here are still teaching the Lamarckian view of evolution and not much knowledge is given about the scientific method and the way it works.

Earth dragging space-time as it rotates. In that paper one can see how earth(matter) curves space-time and how that curvature of space-time tells the satellites to move and change their plane of orbit in the direction of earth rotation. The frame-dragging effect was predicted by general relativity and the observations test those predictions to an amazing degree of accuracy. This is how science works. You are of the opinion that science is wrong and your logical reasoning about space is right, that's not how it works, nature says your logical reasoning is wrong.

From what I know about Tar and from that post he seem to have already passed a negative judgement on subjective idealists.

Scientific realism is an assumption, tar, its a belief, there are subjective idealists who do not believe in God, quantum physicist Bernard Espagnat is convinced that "what we call reality is only a state of mind" then even he must be broken for believing in subjective idealism when the implications indicate that scientific realism might be false. Its as much reasonable to believe in subjective idealism as it is to believe in scientific realism. Who is lying? who is broken?

People who believe that they can understand God through logic and reason are broken, religion is not irrational, its non-rational, I can go to any extent and say that someone who believes that God used Big Bang and evolution to create this universe and the diversity of life on earth is broken. http://www.netplaces.com/kabbalah/kabbalah-and-philosophy/the-rational-irrational-and-nonrational.htm God doesn't contradict logic, he harmonizes logic, he is beyond reason and if someone doesn't want to believe in that I have no problem with that and its quite normal that those who do not understand religion to say that all religious people are broken.

Its okay. Agreed, a morally perfect, all knowing God should create an universe with Hnot S. Agreed, so only the purpose is important for God which means God could allow drought, famine and other natural calamities since it is required for his purpose and also could have created us in a way that we under go no suffering at all. Now the fact that suffering exists doesn't necessarily mean that God wanted it, we might be responsible for our own suffering and if God has indeed created a Hnot S universe then we should be able to access that universe to evade all suffering. In the absence of evidence for such an universe your conclusion seems to be valid for now.

My beliefs are not illogical, they are non-logical and non-rational. Kant strongly criticized metaphysicians and the empirical sciences for attempting to conclude things about God based on logic, reason and empiricism for a God who is beyond rationalism and empiricism itself. I have no problem if anyone doesn't believe in God but if one goes by the reasoning of Kant there are no logical and rational reasons for not to believe in God. As far as my criteria for choosing on what things we need to invest our time and what not to, I go by the criteria of Broad, there is just too much debate on this particular topic. There is just an amazing amazing degree of similarity between the oral traditions of Gnostic Valentinians, Kabbahalists, the tradition of the Upanishads and other ancient traditions, they all were from different cultures, places, traditions who interpreted their contact with the numinous nature of God based on a rational interpretation of the human psyche across centuries of time, being a rational being I just cannot dismiss them as delusions. I just cannot. I have no problem if no one believes in it but if one goes by the reasoning of Kant and Occam's Razor its inevitable that one needs to have a weak belief in God in order to bring positive evidence of God in the first place. This is my justification for a weak belief in God.

Good question. It is because God is in the noumenon of things not in the phenomenon of things. Science has nothing to do with religion and religion has nothing to do with science. Now Kant doesn't say that God is in the noumenon of things , he simply says that the noumenon is unknowable since one has to transcend one's mind to know the noumenon, the things in themselves, now this is where the Gnostics and the people of the oral traditions come into the picture, they say that one can transcend one's own mind and observe the noumenon and observe the pleroma of God in the noumenon, this is the reason they say that the empirical reality is only a state of mind because they have transcended mind itself and observed the external mind. This is the reason why I think that science cannot give an objective account of reality and solve our ontological and metaphysical problems, so I am in the hope that God gives an objective account of reality and in order to transcend one's mind you need to worship him. This is the reason why it is unwise to subject God to the scientific method. I am least bothered about calling this as science, it is not science, science rejects competing God hypothesis for explanations about the nature of reality. However the oral traditions have the tools of faith and revelation to test such hypothesis and to bring some real knowledge. So yes, you need to get rid of everything that you know to get evidence for him.

My beliefs are purely based on anecdotal evidences and I know such evidences are not accepted here and I am least bothered to call my beliefs as scientific or to convince others to believe in God. This forum is about questioning one's personal beliefs and am I not allowed even to do that? We apply Occam's razor in science but we don't apply his views while discussing God. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor#God_as_beside_the_razor God trumps logic (Law of opposites), reason and empiricism, it is unwise to subject God to the scientific method and to conclude things about him.

1. The oral traditions say scientific realism is false. 2. QM says one of the assumptions of science is wrong and Bernard Espagnat is convinced that it is scientific realism that is false. Both revelation and reason are pointing to the same conclusions, in fact revelation has already reached there and reason seems to follow the same path now. Gnostics and the people of oral traditions were psychologists, for them Gods didn't existed in heaven, they exist in the human psyche, religion is about explaining what is the relationship of human beings with God and his numinous or supernatural world, it answers questions like Does divinity exists in humans? They knew what mind was and they also knew that the reality of empiricism was a state of mind which is echoed by quantum physicists like Bernard Espagnat himself. This is quite universal not something relevant to a particular tradition or a belief. The pleroma of God exists in each and every human being in the human psyche its like being in the Matrix of God. Just because we chose an oral traditions doesn't mean that we have to have an affirmative belief in it, I for example though used to follow such traditions and practices am still not convinced that they are true, I doesn't want to reject them though, the way it works is that the methods should correspond to specific revelations and it should be coherent to the traditions, if Valentinus experienced the pleroma of God in the 2nd century even I have to experience the same pleroma of God in the 21st century and that should give me some real knowledge and that's how it works. Its not that there is some kind of agenda behind it to delude others to believe in God. My reasoning is based on revealed truths and such truths indicate that- 1. God's actions of good and evil has nothing to do with one's suffering. 2. Hence to conclude that God is evil based on the observation that suffering exists is invalid and inaccurate. The reasoning for my re-difinition of morality between God and humans is that the pleroma of God exists in every human beings and he is responsible for all our actions including both good as well as evil actions and it is based on revealed truth. If you question evidence for revealed truths then I would follow those oral traditions and worship God and I would point others in this direction if they ask for evidence. If its not compelling for others to believe in God then I can't do much about it. Those oral traditions give answers to questions like if what we call reality is a state of mind then what is mind? Science cannot answer such questions.

The revealed truths are based on the conclusions from the oral traditions of Buddhists, Jews, Upanishads, Gnostics and various other individual mystics and traditions, I accept other oral traditions too, I'm not saying they are not true, the oral traditions imply the existence of other worlds and eventually leads to paganism but I'm interested in the supreme Godhead through which other Gods emanated from and he is the one who gives us the perfect knowledge as I said earlier that even other Gods are in ignorance too. There is nothing special about my adherence to judo-christian belief its just the same pleroma of God which Jesus revealed to others which is very much identical to the pleroma of God as described in other oral traditions which interests me, to dismiss them as mere hallucinations and ramble about God based on logic and reason for a God who trumps logic, reason and empiricism as Dr. Genie said is not an intellectually honest thing to do. I cannot convince the scientific community with these revealed truths but as to whether my beliefs are justified or not depends on the positive evidence of God.

From the oral traditions and through revelations. For God good and evil as such doesn't exist. From such a perspective its not a problem at all. You don't seem to understand how religion works through faith and revelations and accesses revealed truths, empirical observations doesn't say anything about God, it sounds like preaching for the people in the other camp when you use the bible and say God is immoral, those are not evidence based facts, those are your personal interpretations and beliefs and when I use the oral traditions and argue based on the reasoning of revealed truths you condemn it. Any further arguments are pointless.

The spirit of science is upheld when it honestly accepts that one of its fundamental assumptions is false and when the Gnostics and the mystics, the people who have faith have concluded about the nature of reality in the same way science as concluded with its own tools then its quite compelling to worship God. If people around the globe had described about unicorns again and again in their revealed truths I would have believed in unicorns. No, God cannot be found in the natural world, there cannot be positive evidence of God in the empirical world, I never said that entanglement was direct evidence of God, it was to show that the claim God is everywhere is not disproved simply based on the assumptions of scientific realism. God exists in his own numinous world, science and its method has nothing to do with God. The Holy scriptures are not the only source of religious truths even the oral traditions are and they give us revealed truths, you used the holy scripture to show that God is immoral where as I used the oral traditions to show that he is morally perfect, omnipotent and omniscient. That doesn't mean there are contradictions in the Holy scriptures and the oral traditions its just the latter people interpret the scripture differently. If you're arguing from the Bible then you need to accept the revealed truths of oral traditions or say we don't know about God. That's not the point, if people around the globe had described about unicorns again and again I would have believed in unicorns, its the strong correlations in different disconnected oral traditions around the globe is the reason for my belief, that's convincing enough for me to worship him. Its the job of theologians to bring positive evidence of God and its enough justification for theologians to worship him. It meets the criteria for their magisteria. Yes it supports QM, in fact the ideas of QM itself leans towards subjective idealism and questions the assumption of scientific realism which is assumed to be true and taken for granted. Care to read your links again, it says subjective idealism is unfalsifiable, a rejection of an hypothesis doesn't mean the idea is false. That's not the point, you tried to say that religious claims contradicted science and you said they can be disproved, not far as I can see. Religious claims stands on its own.

Does the moon exists out there when we are not observing it? Does an Apple fall in the external physical world or does it fall only in our minds? These are the philosophical implications of quantum physics on which much of the debate between Einstein and Bohr resorted into. There is no need to bring out-of-body experiences into this argument. We cannot really say whether something exists independent of the mind, scientific realism is an assumption. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/mar/17/templeton-quantum-entanglement Not necessarily an external mind could create an reality in such a way that it is brain itself is the cause of such experiences and make us perceive it with in the world picture.

Now this is quite tricky but he can act like he is really dead. God can chose to create anything and chose to do anything with it. He can create a stone and chose to lift it or not to lift it. Religious superstition, there are people who doesn't visit such places and believe that he exists everywhere. Philosophers have been arguing for a while whether they can prove the existence of an external physical world independent of the mind. If cells, brain and other organs existed only in our minds and our minds were made of God's stuff then it would prove that God is everywhere so unless you can prove what kind of external physical world exists out there you cannot disprove his existence based on that argument.

The reason why seriously disabled seems to be too confident that the theory "food is energy" is bogus is because of this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inedia#Prahlad_Jani_.28.22Mataji.22.29

If you go by theological noncognitivism then the question Does God exists? is meaningless. Here you have chose to define God in your own terms and have assumed what he has to do and what he doesn't have to do rejecting the theists definition of God. Don't you realize that you're argument is logically flawed based on your own way of theological noncognitivism? Why is your argument any more better than that of the theists?

Agreed. He neither wants to stop the drought nor he wants innocent children to suffer from such droughts ever.

I'll let Dr. Eugenie Scott address this issue and no wonder why even religious people have so much respect for her. This thread is about your reasons for believing in God and the reason for my belief in God is based on revealed truths and also based on scientific reasons which give indirect evidences to such revealed truths. God intervenes where it is very much necessary for one to have revealed truths and to attain his perfect knowledge. There is no reason what so ever to not to believe in him either or to say he is not worthy of worship either. The suffering of young children cannot be the reason for God being immoral without knowing how he wants to give his perfect knowledge through which one can have zero sufferings. I'm not a proponent of Intelligent Design or a supporter of creation science because religion has got nothing to do with the natural world, the reason for my belief is based on revealed truths, if you want to accuse me of being intellectually dishonest go ahead and prove physicalism with your tools which you have in your magisteria and say that physical things are all the things that exists out there and there is nothing real apart from that otherwise my belief is justified. The thing is, obtaining revealed truths is as difficult as running one's self awareness in a neural network and to make him know what it is like to be a neural network. Its not arrogance on my part for not showing evidence for God's revelations of his revealed truths to people around the world. Its intellectually dishonesty on those who claim empirical evidence of God and reject assertions of people who have faith based on revealed truths. If you don't want to believe that's fine by me. @mooeypoo The reason why people of faith haven't burned the bible yet is because they believe that bible has revealed hidden truths in them, so I see no reason as to why God is not preparing us to give his perfect knowledge. There has been a lot of good things that have happened in the world which compensates for the evil in the world, so God allows both good and evil and he is also trying to give his perfect knowledge to us in the form of revealed truths so that we can evade from all kinds of suffering i.e even from good and evil. <edit: another video in my previous post>

There are indirect evidences, Jesus got that knowledge from God, he gave that knowledge to his inner circles for example Paul, Theodus got that knowledge from Paul and he gave that knowledge to Valentinus but unfortunately such knowledge has been suppressed by the orthodox church without themselves being aware of that, so I don't blame the orthodox church either. God has revealed his pleroma in the past and is revealing it to people now and will reveal it in the future and the people around the world have described such similar things in their own psychological terms again and again, so he is good outside the bible too.

Like the times when he sends his Aeons (Jesus Christ) to give his real Gnosis to us through which we can evade all suffering and have a sinless existence, he is quite awesome at such times.

All the opposites in this world like good-evil, famine-hygiene, drought-flood, heat-cold, light-darkness etc are good works of God.

Those are the good works of God for he knows that such calamities are necessary and important for the stability of the world and it is his same good work through which he sends religious missionaries and medicines to care for the suffering of his children. He loves them and wants to give his perfect knowledge even though they didn't abide in his words. In what way he is malevolent.