photon propeller

Why is it necessary to invoke a god figure? Why add yet another layer of unknowable mystery to an already unknowable mystery?

The

Creation speaketh a universal language, independently of human speech

or human language, multiplied and various as they may be. It is an

ever-existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged;

it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it

cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it

shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the

earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and

this word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of

God." - Thomas Paine

So god is a sadist? An all powerful being that allows innocents to be brutalized while he watches?

No pain, No gain. If people want to change whats happening to them they should be prepared to fight to the death. "they may take our lives, but they will never take our FREEDOM!"

centrifugal force is reacting to centripetal force which is causing the curved path of the satellite. the net can be pos, neg or zero resulting in the barycenter

Specific orbital energy can equal zero and does when the body's kinetic energy is exactly equal to its potential energy. This is the balancing act. Positive, zero or negative net energy affects the shape of the orbit.

Not sure what this means.

 

 

Some people need answers in order to cope with the unknown.

 

 

And what if science can't find what determined these numbers? All we can conclude is that we don't know.

It was a compliment on your constructive input rather than making ridiculous comparisons and irrelevant statements. Your right about some people, others just dont give a hoot or lack the capacity to. I believe science is the only way to answer the questions of creation. Our goal is to unlock those secrets. I have faith that humankind will do so before we destroy ourselves.

When we grasp vanilla ice cream, we begin to grasp the concept of God

 

There is no special case to the concept of vanilla ice cream, nor does my logic require a special circumstance, the concept of vanilla ice cream is common knowledge, I am making a an association between vanilla ice cream and the concept of God.

 

You could equally choose to replace "infinity" with "nice sharp pencils".

It still doesn't actually make any sense (unless, of course, you say there's something special about infinity or God, but that would be special pleading and you have said you are not doing that)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No you couldn't, nice sharp pencils and vanilla ice cream wouldn't refer to eternal existence, which was my point.

 

Ok, I'll give you that but why do innocents have to suffer due to actions of others they have no control over, if the driver is texting and his passengers are maimed by the crash how is that their choice? Your argument makes sense if everyone has a choice but that is demonstrably not true...

 

 

God has also allowed us to choose the path of others as well, this is blatantly immoral, in fact "a God" by any definition is immoral when defined by his works....

We are responsible for the effects of our own choices. Unfortunately, the choices of others affect us. In that case they are responsible. This is liability. Sometimes it is simply mother nature. We must learn from our mistakes and be more prepared and informed so to avoid or invite the effects of others choices.

hmm, i'm not sure what a complete sentence is compared to a sentence.

i thought the period at the end made it clear it was complete.

are you seriously going to play grammar police on words used,

why not just understand language it's self.

if you have an understanding of language then you should have no problem.

but yes i will admit, i do not like to type, i'm basically 100% vocal. so it can lead to misspelled words and such.

 

ok, see i asked you this before,

i asked if you mean as an energy of some sort and not an individual of a sort.

see now i understand what your statements are about.

 

and if you are referring to an energy and not an individual, then i have to say,

you do not understand the definition of god.

The fact is Krash that what i have presented here is my definition of God as I am unsatisfied with the refutable traditions and beliefs of mainstream orthodox followers. I believe that God is the master of infinite complex energy and the source of the energy of our creation.

Does it have to be any more complicated than some people valuing answers — any answers — more than the veracity of those answers? As opposed to those who can accept imperfect knowledge but place a higher threshold on the (perceived) correctness of that knowledge?

intelligent response preceeds you Swansont. People need answers in order to cope with the unknown. People seek answers in order to attain enlightenment. In order to find the right answers we must ask the right questions. For instance, what determined the scale of the natural constants of the universe? Will we have the complete handbook for our universe when we have mastered the laws of physics? These questions certainly give us something to work towards.

When we grasp special pleading, we begin to grasp the concept of logical fallacies.

There is no special case to the concept of infinity, nor does my logic require a special circumstance, the concept of infinity is common knowledge, I am making a an association between infinity and the concept of God.

so god created everything from nothing, in a somewhere, but no where because nothing exist place ?

still have not told me a difference between a god that exists but does not manifest in this reality and a god that does not exist.

 

what's the difference ?

krash, your going to have to make complete sentences if you want a response. Creation didnt occur from nothing it occurred from a singularity in which the fundamental forces were united and the total energy of our universe was contained within it. I believe the source of that complex energy is God. We are all shimmering forms of that single energy. Therefore I believe we are all a part of God. God manifests in all that exists.

Who created god?

good question, of course infinity has no beginning and no end, when we grasp infinity, we begin to grasp the concept of God

No the laws of such harmony do not reflect a creator, that is a logical fallacy, the assertion that the laws of nature point to a creator is not proof of anything but the laws of nature. If the laws of nature were different things would be different. it is not proof or even suggestive of a god.

 

We are here because the laws of nature allow it, if the laws of nature were different we would not be here to debate the issue. Please show some empirical evidence, existence is not evidence of anything but existence. Quoting authority figures is meaningless, and the world around us is easily explained by natural means.

 

Nature is not self evidence of god, naturalistic causes explain the life and the universe quite well with no need of god.

I told you the fact that physical constants rule nature and those constants have scale, intensity, amplitude, symmetry, harmony, etc. is what necessitates a rule maker. I showed you an example of the energy density constant but you were oblivious to its existence. Natural law has a cause just like any effect does. The origin of that cause is what we disagree on. I say it is the supreme lawmaker, your position is not to have one other than to deny a master.

Actually if the car is defective the fault is the car makers...

Way to state the obvious, except in my example the driver is at fault because of his poor choice to text while driving. The point was every effect has a specific cause. The choice I speak of is the choice of ones actions. You have no point other than to dodge the point.

Because there is no god it is a 2000 year old fairy tale. If there is a so called god then show me what he has done for man kind. <link removed by mod>

This is the typical arguement of those who are used to dealing with main stream religious ideas. You must know how one defines God before chiming in. My advise is read all the posts before commenting. In answer to your question, God has created our realm, set the rules, and allowed us to choose our path.

not at all.

you have not told me a difference.

simple.exactly.

now ponder this if your mentality is capable to do so.

think about the lack of knowledge language and mentalities of back then.not at all,

again,

learn to comprehend.

simple.

 

look, you asked,were you not referring to einstien ?

i thought you were, so i responded with,which i was referring to einstien.

simple.

 

does this make sense now

I obviously have pondered the idea because i made the statement, "words are the meager attempt of man to describe what already exists." Those are my words! You misinterpreted "lawful harmony of the world", doesnt matter who said it. You referred to a quote not made by me but by monday assignment die. You dont even know whom your responding to. It is clear who needs to "comprehend" whats being said.

I think PP is trying to show that Einstein's god isn't very different from what most theists believe in. I wouldn't agree. I wouldn't even agree that Einstein was theistic.

 

I don't know exactly what Einstein's god is, but it seems to be one that requires less faith (if any). I have noticed that some people's gods require more faith than others. For example, some gods merely set up the world like a self-sustaining machine, whereas other gods set up the world and actively interfere with it on the behalf of those they like. The former makes fewer assumptions and requires less faith. This brings up another issue, namely the malleability of the word itself. As one makes their god more realistic, they tend to make it less god-like.

 

---

 

More Einstein Quotes:

 

 

He seems to be quite the chameleon. For a person who used the word "God" in reference to something, he implied atheism quite a bit. I can't make heads or tails of it.

 

---

 

 

If you read the WikiQuote article section "Science and Religion (1941), he explains what is meant by "religion" and how it relates to science.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Science_and_Religion_.281941.29

Hopefully, I can sum it up without doing too much damage. He thought that science provides truth and religion provides values, and that scientists should hold values even though their "superpersonal" character cannot be justified rationally.

What im saying is that no matter how many different perceptions (religions) of God there are, they do not change the nature of God. Words are meager attempts to describe something which already exists. Laws that govern cause and effect are self evident in nature. God is the same for everyone, the origin of one complex energy, in which everything is a constituent.

I did not say spinoza..

pay attention here ,learn to comprehend.

simple.

 

you are doing nothing but reiterating what a book say's..nothing more.

the concept you are referring to , is just that..nothing more.do you even acknowledge other religions ?

do you realize they all say the same in a sense.

do you realize that there's evidence of humanity existing long before religion was introduced to humanity ?

there's no empirical source what's so ever,

only books and hearsay. nothing more.

 

like the question that i asked you to answer,

 

tell me the difference between a god that exists but does not manifest in this reality and a god that does not exist

 

tell me the differences.

 

simple.

You quoted Spinoza "lawful harmony of the world" and miss-interpreted him, "referring to humanity". In answer to your question, God manifests in everything that exists because everything is a part of one complex energy. Your question has been answered many times already but you have failed to understand. The words of man do not change the nature of what already exists, they are only attempts to describe it. The only thing ive said that comes from a book are the quotes I offered.

I'm am sick of getting negative points for supplying accurate info.

 

should i go through all your post photon propeller and give you negative points on every single god post you make ?

Your interpretation of Spinoza was completely inaccurate. I gave you the accurate interpretation but you still havent grasped the concept. You continue to disregard everything Ive said as if you havent even read it.

The 'this world is perfectly imperfect to allow for the next work to be perfect' mentality seems like wishful thinking. Evidence?

 

As to blaming god. Unacceptable harm (as deemed by our secular ethics) is within the realm of possibility in this universe. God created this universe which allows for these possibilities. I ask you, why is it not reasonable for one to blame God?

Do we blame the car maker for the crash? The car was intended for transportation. The driver chooses to text while he drives and he crashes. It is the drivers fault not the car maker. Crashing is the result of negative choice just as suffering is, whether it is self inflicted, inflicted by others, or an act of nature. Choice is the important factor and is the privilege of the living.

the spinoza's thing,

 

he means the thought of it,

 

" lawful harmony of the world, "

referring to humanity

 

" not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind. ",

referring to gods and such.

He is not referring to humanity. The lawful harmony of the world he refers to is the physical laws of nature and the complex association by which they are governed. Simply put, and my main point, laws of such harmony and predetermination reflect a supreme lawmaker. That is what all Deists believe. Nature is self evident of God.

Heres a good quote from a well-known religious expert. "The laws of Nature are changeless, unchangeable, and there are no miracles in the sense of infringement or interruption of Nature's laws." "God is that indefinable something which we all feel but do not know ." Mohandas Gandhi

An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, Einstein was not a an expert on theology his remarks on God are no better or worse than anyone elses. How about you answer my question about the sexual brutalization of children instead of appealing to authority.

My appeal is for you to recognize that some very intelligent people are not satisfied with the default position, and that scientific experts like Einstein also recognized that the complex essence of nature implies a deity. As far as the sexual brutalization comment you and dumbloke can have your own conversation

I will offer this quote on topic "Whatever there is of God and goodness in the universe, it must work itself out and express itself through us. We cannot stand aside and let God do it" Albert Einstein

I will offer this quote from someone most scientist respect, "science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind" Albert Einstein

!

Moderator Note

 

Personal observations and attacks are not going to be tolerated.

 

One the topic of forbidden posting styles, neither proselytizing nor appeal to personal incredulity are acceptable, either.

 

Poor choice of words on my part, my apologies Moontanman. I am certainly not trying to convert non believers. I have given my opinion on thread topic, I have defined my responses and have analyzed the thoughts of others.

 

Please show me the facts, your word that this is the facts is not evidence of anything.

 

And I have told you that nature is not evidence of anything but nature the rest of your statement is simply what you claim to be true with no evidence what so ever...

 

Oh and by the way... Which God? Odin? Zeus? Adriana?

I have told you that the very essence of nature is governed by predetermined laws. Is it such a stretch to envision a lawmaker? What one names something does not change its nature. A name is merely a label. God is the best we have come up with.