TED Conversations

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Is God energy?

Hi, I was raised a christian but now that i'm 16/17 i'm questioning that religion. I could never understand how a big guy with a huge white beard could be 'everywhere' at once. that got me thinking there's only one thing that is everywhere in the universe and that's energy. Energy is everywhere but cannot be created or destroyed also the first line of the bible is " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." but science tells us it was a big bang filled with energy. the priests say that "God is inside all of us" he's not but energy is... The bible also says "And God said "Let there be light. and there was light" without energy light couldn't exist and God created light so surely that makes God energy? Just one more thing if you feel really ill and down you don't have that much energy, but when you feel better you have huge amounts of energy so Do you get ill when you've sinned? I'm not saying that is what i believe i'm just asking for your opinion on it. thanks! :)

+3
Share:
progress indicator
  • thumb
    Jan 6 2013: The biblical cannon, which constitutes the bible as we know it, was established by early church founders. They included books that supported their viewpoint and excluded books that didn't. Excluded was the gospel of Mary Magdalene, which provided a feminine persuasion. Since the church was male dominated, women were excluded. Also excluded was the gospel of Thomas, which claims we have a direct link to God through Christ without need for an intercessor (or church priest).
    Also not included were works on ancient geometry, Eastern philosophy, and mysticism. Not that you can't get access to these, but the church wanted to control what people came to believe.

    The bible says prove all things (I Thes. 5:21). But the modern definition of faith says "unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence". This is a marked change from the 1904 definition; "the ascent of the mind or understanding to the truth of what God has revealed". Such an ascent of the mind requires spiritual awareness through inner experience that leads to personal revelation.

    The church told you what to believe. Now you have to follow your own spirit to find the truth.

    Evolution comes from a root word that means "to unwrap" or "to unfold". It looks at the universe from a physical perspective. The word God comes from a root word which means "to call" or "to invoke". It looks at the universe from a spiritual perspective. At the inception of the "big-bang" there was only plasma energy in the form of quantum fields. As the temperature dropped, quantum fields condensed into sub-atomic particles having very definite (and universal) properties. As the temperature dropped further, they condensed into hydrogen atoms having very definite structure. From atoms to stars to elements to solar systems to molecules to cells to biological diversity, there are patterns that came out of hiding. They were there from the beginning. It's a lot to think about, but it's a start.
  • Jan 5 2013: Hi Toby - nice question. just words:

    God -
    Ill-defined, changing in definition throughout the Bible and history: for Isreal, a way of keeping his people together, for Moses, a moral authority to allude to, for Jesus of Nazareth, something to re-invent in the light of these two, coming up with love as the very plausible answer.

    Energy-
    Again, just a word, subject to various uses - in the history of science, something indestructable and related to matter. In the history of human relations, inspiration, maybe self confidence.

    However, the move to try and describe reality hit a wall when (some, intelligent) people realised they were not describing phenomena, but regularities in phenomena - around which there are significant margins. The rules for these descriptions (ie - calling "this" a photon and "that" a miracle) are for this reason essentiallly provisional, and the devising of these rules cannot - on the fringes of knowledge, where meaningful science and religion take place - be taken for granted.

    Regarding your beliefs - Jesus of Nazareth says, "Do as I do". Well, he goes around saying, I am the Way, which relates to what our Taoist friend below is saying - but we must avoid the evils of purism, mystification and identity, and constantly refer to the touchstone of our experience. Jof N also says, "I have spoken to you in the language of metaphor, but soon you will see that you are in me and the father is in me and I am in you". Added to which, Erasmus got in trouble with the Church for pointing out that St. John's Gospel embarks with the words, "In the beginning was the conversation, and the conversation was with God and the conversation was God," - which makes any attempt to decipher "in the beginning was the Word etc. etc." highly entertaining.
    We become who we are by engaging with each other, and we carry these engagements - as "energy", if you like - with us. In this sense, God, as spirit, love, etc. - is Energy.
    But don't miss the humorous aspects.
  • thumb
    Jan 3 2013: Hi Toby
    I would suggest you this talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html and to read the book from Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion" It is really inspiring and important to reflect on that with solid bases like these.
    Happy new year
    Lorenzo
  • Jan 2 2013: Keep searching.
    Keep looking for yourself and concluding for yourself what you find, think, believe or in how you change from those.
    Don't let anyone tell you what something is: To thine own self, be true. Find out for yourself.
    There's a line, "God as you understand God." Or,maybe some scientific version of that same idea.
    Perhaps, energy as you understand energy. I say, "as you understand" for two reasons.
    "As you understand" is actually an ongoing process and in that process your understanding grows and changes.
    Two, I believe one should come to understand what they believe in, and thus come to know it, because I do believe most people don't really trust what they say they believe in. But when we have come to know something, we trust it. At that point it is no longer a matter of faith, it's knowing and faith is false at some point. Here, I find many switch over to hope and to me, hope is a completely false concept, but, perhaps the most commonly held concept in the world.

    You have many years ahead of you to learn, find, discover, experience, believe, not believe and so on.
    Science and religion have not revealed, proven or shown the answer to humankind.
    So, they don't know, but there are wise people in both camps and there is truth in both camps as well as false ideas and places where huge, gigantic leaps of faith are asked of each of their followers and believers.

    Five years ago, I stopped believing in God. I met someone, became friends and one day he asked me if I knew what God was. Well, I knew what I believed and felt comfortable with it. I could defend it if necessary, and was ready to tell him, but thought, "you don't need to do that. It's just your ego, so why not just listen?" So, I did. When he told me I immediately knew what he meant. And it made perfect sense. I told him so. He next told me never to tell another human being what he had just told me and I have kept that promise.

    Keep searching.
  • thumb
    Jan 2 2013: The argument is akin to saying
    'The sand on the beach moves of its own choice, not because of the wind'
    Because you're taking something that is by definition inanimate and you're taking the reaction it has from various environments and essentially arguing that its choosing to react with purpose and that the environment is independent of all this;
    Just like saying that a grain of sand is choosing to move to the left and not because the wind is blowing that way.

    Theres also one other significant flaw thats being overlooked here..
    You're comparing the claimed characteristics of a god from a book with energy, but the characteristics of energy aren't synonymous with what would make the writing of that book (by the energy) possible.
    So by obligation, the book would have to be a fabrication by man and not from the energy-god-thing, making the comparison moot.

    In conclusion, It doesn't seem to be a viable idea.
    Take care.
  • Jan 21 2013: The problem with the bible isn't what's inside...It's that we have no rational reason to believe that it is anything other than a work of man in the first place. If it were presented to us as fiction, we would simply read it and think that god character was a real jerk.
  • thumb
    Jan 6 2013: You know...

    A lot of TEDsters like to pride themselves and the community with being open minded...

    Yet, when a young person dictates their questioning of their indoctrinated beliefs, we do what in response? In fact, I am guilty of being militant myself! However, not when someone is not being militant them self.

    The neo-atheist fade is all the more apparent... I hope some of you guys start meeting on Sundays already... I will be making a conversation soon.
    ____
    Toby,

    One of my professors at Montclair State is Dr. Kogan. Kogan is a contemporary figurehead of Jewish and Christian collaborations (in a sense). He writes books about the parallels between the two religions and theologies. You should look into his works. One of his favorite philosophers is Kierkegaard - you should also look into his material.

    There was a day, about two years ago, I asked Dr. Kogan what was his idea of God. He said, roughly, the following:

    "It depends on the day really... Sometimes I feel like I am God, we are one. Other times, people and nature and the universe. Then there are times where I am comforted by the thought of a superior being watching over me..."

    Part of God, is to figure out the nature of God. Never to be settled with any image, because God is imageless. Never to be satisfied with one answer, because God is the true absolute.

    Advice: Seek out secular groups... Look into alternative practices of religion. Go to a bunch of churches, mosques, temples, etc. Look online for conversation boards for religious naturalist, agnostics, transhumanist...

    God is 1. energy 2. you/me 3. an all powerful force... pick one, pick two or all three... but why? Keep expanding your idea of God, and keep questioning...

    Oh and... what you describe as God-energy, is oddly similar to what Buddhism/Hinduism describes with Chakras. Read random information about a random religion/philosophy a day. Make your own religion, people do so anyways, make yours the best!
  • Jan 4 2013: Define "God"

    There is no possibility for any rational debate that the Abrahamic god Yahweh is an absurd entity, an abject manifestation of tyranny and ego, utilized as an attack on the psyche to cultivate obedient people to the service of the ruling classes.

    That said, there are many more rational ways to define god that are reconcilable with mathematics, science and (sound) philosophy. Spinoza defined a type of pantheism similar to mystical eastern conceptions of the transcendent. Hegel defined God as a teleological evolutionary culmination of consciousness.

    Ultimately though, your intuitive grasp of energy is essentially on the right track. One must ask, what *IS* energy? What properties is IT dependent on? Well, nothing other than mathematics. The one subject that is utterly non-debatable and immutable is math. 1+1 will eternally equal 2, and from that initial axiom all of complete ontological mathematics flows.

    The way we PERCEIVE energy is quite different from the objective thing in itself. Color is just your brain's subjective interpretation of a photon's frequency. The way you percieve a sound is too a subjective interpretation of waves (energy). So, without a subjective brain to interpret the waves, the universe doesn't look, sound, or feel like ANYTHING, those are all "Matrix" like mental constructions based on subjective interpretations of objective energy. And ALL ENERGY IS are mathematical functions. Therefore, the entire universe from its inception to the evolutionary culmination of intelligence, and then hyperintelligence, is one big mathematical equation solving itself.

    So, when you say "energy" you are saying ontological mathematics. Leibniz's "monadology" provides a hyperrationalist account of the ontological value of zero and infinity to the nature of the universe.

    "All that is real is rational. All that is rational is real" - Hegel
  • thumb
    Jan 3 2013: If you think of it:
    If God is the first and the last He/She/It is all that was created and ever will be created. God is the creating force beyond time and energy in which God became manifest. God is a word pointing to what is outside language, the will to be, consciousness itself.
    Any sentient being is an expression of God though I love the Chinese word TAO much better for they say about Tao that anyone that can say what it is, didn't understand it yet.
  • Jan 2 2013: God is light; God is Love; God is the power that holds all things together.
    • Jan 3 2013: Beautifully said!
      • Jan 3 2013: Wonderfully statement! It defines it all
      • thumb
        Jan 8 2013: Yes it is poetic, but also not particularly useful or detailed in terms of explanation.

        Perhaps light is better described as light. Love as Love.

        And gravity, nuclear and electromagnetic forces hold everything together.
    • thumb
      Jan 5 2013: So god it not an actual being, god did not create the Universe?
  • Jan 2 2013: Don't worry , you have the rest of your life to figure out the answer for this question.

    If you look at Genesis 1: 3 ( First Day ) - God created Light right ?

    Did you notice that he had not created the source of the light until the 4th day ( Genesis 1:16 ) ? He made the sun, moon only by the third day !!

    Well , so did he create the light without any source and still have mornings and evenings ?

    Can you have a light without a source ? do you have a radiating frequency without something vibrating ?
    • Jan 2 2013: Wow! That's the same as if a tree falls in a forest can anyone hear it!
      • thumb
        Jan 3 2013: I think you mean 'if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?'


        also, no, it isn't the same thing. The point John was making was that you can't have light without a light source (fairly obvious, I would imagine) and the bible indicates that the light came first, which ofcourse is incorrect.
        By extension, if the Bible can be wrong on a trivial and obvious fact, then it would stand to reason that the bible isn't the work of the being its claimed to have come from.
        • Jan 22 2013: John, very insightful. Thanks for giving me something to think about.

          Xavier, I have to disagree with your conclusion. First of all, understand that I do awknowledge errors in the Bible. It's made of very old writings that have been transcribed and translated so many time that there are bound to be errors. However, I do firmly believe that when each book within the Bible was written, it was done so by inspired men and was the word of God. Only over time have errors crept in.

          I don't agree with your conclusion about the Bible however because it assumes that we know as much as God does about light. He created light, and we can't even determine what it is (wave or particle?), so we don't even come close to His understanding. Perhaps there is a way which is beyond our understanding to create light without a source, or perhaps God himself was the source. I don't profess to know the answer but I maybe someday you and I both will. Until then, let's not underestimate how little we actually know and how much we still have to discover.
  • Jan 30 2013: A lot of learned folks have commented on this already. I'm gonna give you my experience asking similar questions and you can take or leave what you want. I've thought that God was Love, Energy the collective Un-Sub-Consciousness of all Mankind and I have eventually discarded these ideas in favor for this one that I currently hold and may find in the future to be equally flawed and subsequently discarded. God is causative to all things abstract and concrete. God is present at least in myself and presumably in other people. Should It not be present in all things God is at least reflected in all things and their interactions.
    Most faiths in general and Christianity in particular posits God as the Creator, the Prime Mover. The chief attribute of the Creator is having done all the creating. As such God can't be equated to any of God's creations to include energy, consciousness and love. These things simply wasn't there before God put them there. Now I know that rings Islamic to some folks but the logic is indeed sound. Presuming you can accept the concept of a God in the first place.
    The second conclusion, that God is imminant in me is a personal, subjective fact that truly has no place in discussion beyond this is what I believe I have observed as fact. Others are free to describe what happens within themselves for themselves.
    That God is present within Creation is arguable, that Creation indicates perfections in form, function or execution and perfection is always well and readily interpeted as proof of design even indicating Deity. True or not. I chose to believe its true but then the God in me demands that I do.
    These are my answers you may find your own that will lead you to congruence or they may plant you firmly in opposition. And this too is in keeping with my observations. Good luck in your journey!
  • Jan 23 2013: The term God it seems to me, has always been used when we as humans can't explain what we are observing. So, enter rational thought the explanation of phenomena through physical properties IE. math the basis of all science. but science is constantly being reinvented through further understanding and research. QM observations fly in the face of Newtonian conclusions. Such as, a quantum leap. I may have this wrong as well but in quantum physics isn't it said that the observation of a phenomena (on that scale) in and of itself, has an effect on that thing being observed. Therefore changing that phenomena being observed. Isn't all matter just energy vibrating at different frequencies?
    It seems that when this argument comes up we inevitably start with a priory on both sides. Faith does not explain or really consider the conclusions of math/science or what we would call common sense. And, math/science does not condone abstract beliefs without a physical or common sense representation.
    I'm reminded of a Zen story.
    A university professor went to visit a famous Zen master. While the master quietly served tea, the professor talked about Zen. The master poured the visitor's cup to the brim, and then kept pouring.
    The professor watched the overflowing cup until he could no longer restrain himself.
    "It's overfull! No more will go in!" the professor blurted.
    "You are like this cup," the master replied, "How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup."
    I was brought up to believe in Christ but around age nine I began to wonder about the teachings through those who taught it
    and from the studies they had taught it from. they believed in Jesus but refuted all studies that did not originate from the the from the King James version. which said Jesus was the only man ever conceived of a virgin healed the sick, started his teachings at thirty and so on. But older with very similar almost exact attributes had already come and gone from belief systems. Oh too many characters.
  • Jan 13 2013: God is a belief. Breath is a fact. How is one to know where or if they intersect.?
  • thumb
    Jan 12 2013: I like where you went with it? If anything it is probably a novel in the making. Mind you - I am careful not to interfere with truths though. :)
  • Jan 11 2013: I think that the answer to this question is a personal one, and no one can force their opinion on someone else, but here's mine:
    I'm going to start with the big bang. Explosions are usually associated with destruction. If something blows up, it is destroyed and scattered in millions of tiny little pieces. I can't picture in my head an explosion creating something so beautiful and complex as the world that we live in. Everything is so interconnected and perfectly balanced. Use this analogy--does an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary?
    Also, God is everywhere and knows everything, but He cannot physically be inside of us. We are human and have a body of flesh and blood. He has a body of flesh and blood. What comes to us is the Holy Ghost, since He is a spirit and can communicate directly to our spirits and give us comfort.
    I don't think that you get sick when you have sinned. Sure, that could happen, but really, people get sick when they don't get enough sleep, or are stressed, or don't wash their hands. If someone sins, they can feel a physical burden, but it is mostly a spiritual "sick".
    Those are just some of my beliefs... =]
    • thumb
      Jan 21 2013: Big bang.
      Gravity pulled matter into stars and galaxies.
      Heavier elements created via fusion inside stars
      First generation stars exploded.
      Our solar system, planets made from the heavier elements pulled together via gravity.
      No gods or goddesses needed, even if individual humans have difficulty comprehending what a single atom is, let alone the cosmic scale of the universe.

      Billions of galaxies, with billions of stars
      Trillions of black holes.
      Its kind of strange, almost hubris, to assume this magnificent universe was made with one species on one planet.

      But each to their own.
      • Jan 21 2013: I guess that what I said was phrased wrong. I didn't mean that the Big Bang didn't happen, just that maybe it was God's method of creating the world, since everything has to have order. I just meant that there is no way that a random explosion could create this wonderful world we live in.
        =]
        • thumb
          Jan 22 2013: I think I understand. You look around and wonder how life and the universe could come about from a big bang and natural processes. Its a common human assumption throughout history to assume agency to things we don't understand or can not comprehend happening via natural processes.

          Yet every time we figure something out, from lightening, to disease, earthquakes, to the diversity of life, the movement of the sun, planets, stars, how the sun works, how planets formed etc, we find everything working fine via natural processes and impersonal physics, no gods anywhere.

          for me, with a 21 centuray education, there are things I don't know, but have no issue with comprehending how matter from a big bang would end up in planets and stars without the need for a guiding hand, for some agency.

          Its like I don't really know how gravity works. I can do newtons calculations, but how does this force work. Yet I don't assume tiny gods pulling mass towards other mass, or holding planets in orbit etc.

          If a god or goddess made the universe for humans, very wasteful, and cruel. I find assuming, black holes and billions of galaxies, and animals surviving by killing and wasting other life, competing to reproduce, disease etc is the conscious construct of some powerful intelligence again with humans in mind, perhaps wanting a personal relationship with us, revealing itself to us, giving us rules, much harder to accept than, the universe working via natural processes, evolution, survival of the fittest etc.
        • thumb
          Jan 22 2013: Hi, I guess if you imagine a big bang resulting in life and the universe 6 days later, I would agree that is hard to accept. That is more Like some creationist beliefs who have to invoke magic, which doesn't explain anything really.

          But remember what we see today is the result of 13 billion years of natural processes.

          Take it step by step. I guess you can accept gas and dust might accumulate into stars or planets via gravity.

          Actually if you think about the analogy of the explosion some of the carbon or oxygen involved may end up in living creatures over time, via respiration etc, natural processes.

          Each snow flake may looked designed, but that is what web get naturally when a liquid of a particular polar molecule solidifies.

          A skeptic might ask, in addition to your incredulousity about nature processes leading to planets and life etc, is there any actual evidence for some guiding agent? Any evidence of it existing or acting. Any evidence or reliable information about what it is, how it came to be and how it did what you assume it needed to do. Or is it just a plug to fill in the gaps of your knowledge and comprehension. I suggest saying you don't know might be better than assuming some mysterious agency for things we don't fully grasp, unless you have evidence for it better than saying it is essentially magic.

          There are lots of things we don't know. There may be gods. But to assume gods for every gap is probably not great critical thinking.
      • Jan 23 2013: Every time we discover something new, yes, it does add knowledge and understanding. I can still say, "I don't know!" for things, even while believing in religion. I do not know the answer to every question, neither do you, or any other person in this world. Its just that religion helps to provide a possible solution. I think that religion supports the knowledge that we already have.

        Religion isn't something that can be proven. Science isn't something that can be proven. Everything we have right now in science is a theory. So there is no way for me to walk up to someone and say, " Here is religion, and it is all true, because of x,y, and z." I can give them reasons as to why I believe what I say to be true. It is the same for science--we can't prove it. I can come up to you and say, "Here is evolution and it is all true, because of x, y, and z." But we can't go back in time and prove it to be completely true. Now, wait one minute. I never said that I don't think evolution happened and is still happening, that was just for the purpose of an example.

        I don't see religion as a plug to fill in the missing bits of information. I see religion, if nothing else, as a source of hope. That way, instead of seeing the world as an awful place where things are "very wasteful, and cruel. ... and animals surviving by killing and wasting other life, competing to reproduce, disease etc " we can see the world as a wonderful place given to us as a home away from home. We can see death as the last time we will ever see anyone again or we can see it as a temporary separation, our relationship with that person to be continued in heaven. I also don't think that Heavenly Father is just sitting around setting out rules for us to follow. He is placing guidelines that we can choose to follow or not. It is like if you are driving and someone gives you directions to their house. You have the steering wheel and the agency to choose to follow the directions or not.
  • thumb
    Jan 8 2013: Above all, I suggest in regards to the existence and proposed nature of gods or goddesses you ask yourself how do you know if the particular proposition is true, what is the evidence supporting the proposition.

    Some are happy with the Bible or Koran says so or the interpretation of the bible by a pope or preacher. Others are more sceptical.
  • thumb
    Jan 8 2013: Good on you for thinking about these sort of things.

    Up front, I'm no longer a theist.

    Suggest bible based religions are just one stream of thousands with different ideas of gods and goddesses. Even those who would call themselves Christians have different ideas of what god is and whether to take all the bible literally or not. If you take it literally, then at different times Yahweh walked around Eden with Adam, was a burning bush, a ghostly hand in the temple, and also incarnate in the person of Jesus, also the holy spirit is god, if you go for Triune interpretations.

    I'm not sure why Christianity is a more deserving basis for your god view then say Islam or many others. Actually, I suggest a non interventionist deist creator is probably the most intellectually robust, but unproven.

    As to the nature of the Christian god, my understanding is most scholars propose something spiritual, immaterial, outside of time, space, matter and energy, but able to impact reality, all powerful, all knowing etc. Actually, the definition is suspiciously vague as to the nature of this being and convenient in that something all knowing and all powerful can explain just about any fact or hypothesis you can imagine.

    This is virtually some magical construct that fits the fact that we have no empirical evidence, we can not test or detect this god that essentially exists outside our physical reality.

    I'm not not aware of any good explanations on how a mind can exist outside of say a physical brain, what spirit is and how it all works.

    Suggest the first question might be whether there is a reasonable case for any gods or goddesses existing.

    I came to the conclusion that there is no compelling argument for the existence of any gods. There could be, just like you could speculate lots of invisible, undetectable things. there could be a immaterial billion gods in your living room and just as much evidence for these as yahweh or allah or vishnu.

    Hope your journey is enriching.
  • Jan 7 2013: Nope. There's no gods.
  • thumb
    Jan 7 2013: Energy being created and destroyed thing can be violated in 1 way. If the total energy of the universe equals zero then quantum fluctuations which have been observed to release energy make sense.
    This is calculated as gravity having negative energy, people say then wouldn't the universe be static? Not necessarily, it would be if galaxies were the things moving apart and stretching space but more physicists are thinking its space itself that is expanding and there's nothing gravity can do to stop that except bend space of course but it can't stop it expanding
    So in essence with those ideas there may not even be any energy in the universe and were all the product of a prolonged quantum fluctuation
    And the illness is much better explained by the fact you use more energy to combat bacteria and viruses when you're ill, and the symptoms of such diseases don't necessarily reduce the energy in your body but either use it elsewhere or render you incapable of using the energy. It also doesn't explain why good people get sick, and following it on if god was energy he/she/ it wouldn't just be in us but would also be in every virus, bacteria, solar flare, quanta, meteor, approaching galaxy, murderer that is trying to kill us. So it's a very mixed message making any god be energy
    God didn't make light, nuclear fusion makes light but you could counter that with god made fusion etc but also to every animal that doesn't have eyes there's no such thing as light
    Also the quotes you've used are very selective, there's lots you could say which implies gods very much physical
    Info on my background 17 and atheist plus anti theist as in I'd rather there wasn't a god or heaven and hell
    • Jan 7 2013: Famous answer to Exam Q, Is Hell endothermic or exothermic?
      "First, We postulate that if souls exist, then they must have some mass. If they do, then a mole of souls can also have a mass. So, at what rate are souls moving into hell and at what rate are souls leaving? I think we can safely assume that once a soul gets to hell, it will not leave.

      Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for souls entering hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, then you will go to hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and souls go to hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in hell to increase exponentially.

      Now, we look at the rate of change in volume in hell. Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in hell to stay the same, the ratio of the mass of souls and volume needs to stay constant. Two options exist:

      If hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter hell, then the temperature and pressure in hell will increase until all hell breaks loose.
      If hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until hell freezes over.
      So which is it? If we accept the quote given to me by Theresa Manyan during Freshman year, "that it will be a cold night in hell before I sleep with you" and take into account the fact that I still have NOT succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then Option 2 cannot be true...Thus, hell is exothermic."
  • thumb
    Jan 3 2013: Hi Toby,
    I think you're getting God & Santa mixed up, Santa is the big guy with the beard,& he only claims to be at all the chimneys at once.
    The God of the bible claims three qualities. 1) He is infinitely powerful. 2) He has infinite knowledge. 3) He is everywhere at once. Infinite power is not subject to deterioration; however energy will eventually degenerate to cold mass. I agree that God provides the energy; however the difference between a dead rabbit & a live rabbit requires a special kind of energy. Be very careful regarding the Big Bang; it is the most popular theory at present, but may not be in 100 years. However, let's assume it's true, for the sake of argument. Is this bang more likely to produce our universe by A) By being left to it's own devices, or B) Being directed by a being of infinite knowledge.

    You are quite right to question your faith. We all want the truth. My search has been different to yours; I was raised agnostic & became a Christian at age 35. I asked similar questions to you however, I need to try & understand how things really work. I would encourage you to check out. http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers , & similar sites & read up on the subjects that interest you. There are two sides to every argument however & http://www.talkorigins.org/ will supply balancing arguments for the Athiest side. Happy hunting.

    :-)
    • thumb
      Jan 8 2013: Happy New Year Peter.

      I think Toby may be asking for a more specific and detailed explanation or description for a monotheistic non physical invisible god, what it is, how it works, who it meets some of these claimed high level unsubstantiated attributes of being everywhere, all powerful and all knowing. Perhaps trying to understand how this would work in reality.

      Probably a dead end given there is nothing much to test, and only vague or speculative descriptions of what spirit and the spiritual realm is, often extrapolated from ideas like mind and consciousness, which as far as we know are only found as a result of physical brains, neurons etc.
      • thumb
        Jan 8 2013: Hi Obey,
        Not saved yet ? Hope you had a cool Christmas/Darwinmas whatever :)

        I am reminded of the two computers who were discussing how they came to be. There was nobody about, so the sun must have burnt circuits on silicon from a volcano & attached to some resistors etc etc. After a while they had it all worked out. Given billions of years & billions of universes it seemed perfectly possible. The service manual on the bench beside them must be wrong.
        We are like that with nature. Because it is so sophisticated & we see no God, we assume He does not exist, or some of us do. The computers had no concept of people, we have no concept of God. If you want to test God then you have to move in His direction.
        Hebrews 11:6 (NIV)
        And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

        :-)
        • thumb
          Jan 8 2013: Had a great Christmas and New year holiday. Hope you did too. We are not as politically correct in Australia as say the US with their happy holidays. No problem with different culture and religious traditions unless they are harmful..

          Different issue if in a discussion about whether gods exist and what are they.

          Actually I don't assume no gods or goddesses. I just don't have enough evidence to believe in any of them. I am open to compelling new information.

          But I admit my bias that I don't assume the had of any god in natural processes as a working hypothesis, but again open to evidence.

          Even thinking deeply about what an atom it, a boson, what is light - a particle or wave or something a bit of both. what is energy, how does gravity work, what does it mean to bend space and how does mass do it. What is outside our expanding universe, it does my poor monkey brain in. I give I have an intuitive working model based on how I interpret the science, but it is only a shadow of reality.

          So at the scale I can understand more easily, based on a reasonable understanding of DNA, natural selection and the tree of life around us, evolution is compelling. Still find even a single cell amazing. The origin of life a question.

          Likewise the basic scientific explanation for the big bang to what we have now makes sense to me also.

          For me I guess gods come from our evolved drive to assign agency to stuff, hallucinations, social programming, our hope for life after death etc.

          If there is some creator deity I find it at least as reasonable to assume it is perfectly happy to let us muddle through life, do the best we can, and is not going to punish us according to any particular apparently man made religious traditions.

          I find appealing to scripture, revelation, preachers and prophets not very satisfying without good cause. Why don't you believe in the Koran? I've heard Muslim scholars rip apart the resurrection story and make a case for the reliability of the Koran vs bible.
      • thumb
        Jan 9 2013: Hi Obey,
        I'm afraid I don't have compelling new evidence to give. I know how difficult it is to get engineering solutions to work. Never once has a beam fabricated itself, or a weld spontaneously occurred. I am in awe at the complexity of the world around me, from the nano of the cell to the mega of the universe. The possibility that a Heath Robinson system like evolution could achieve such a thing is a non-starter.
        I fully understand the need to come up with a material solution, & wish you all the best with it. As for me & my family, we shall serve The Lord. Time will tell which of us got it right.

        :-)
  • thumb
    Jan 3 2013: No but he has the ability to create energy.

    I think the thing to consider is that there are entities that do no exist in the physical universe and they decided to be in this universe. And all energy and life you see are a manifestation of them and God.
    • Jan 3 2013: But energy can't be created or destroyed only moved inn space...
      • thumb
        Jan 4 2013: Not really everything was created and what is the cause of that movement?
  • thumb
    Jan 2 2013: I believe that that which some call "God" is an energy field. I believe that the energy field is aware and that we are part of it. The energy field is more "being" than "a" being. It cannot be personified.

    The energy field doesn't create us. We create ourselves from it, and we share what we learn because we are one-with it.

    Most people are not self-aware, so they do not know this.

    Quatum mechanics is saying that this is probably the case. It's the only thing that anyone has come up with to explain the oddities that have been discovered in the last few years. In the context of modern science, quantum mechanics makes perfectsense.

    I am a god. You are a god. We are a god. All that is is god. (What powerful gods we are too, as anyone who knows how to use the energy field to manifest things and events into their realities will attest)
    • thumb
      Jan 2 2013: Could you explain or provide a useful link to a reliable source that shows how quantum mechanics supports your view? Those I know who specialize in quantum mechanics do not see such a connection.
      • Jan 2 2013: I know that quantum mechanics don't support the theory. But i think that if you look hard enough you could find more connections and evidence that supports this in your world now than quantum mechanics would offer. Quantum mechanics explains most things but i think we have to look in and around ourselves to find answers to the big questions.
        • thumb
          Jan 3 2013: Hi, Toby. Just a wild guess, but I am thinking none of us here actually knows all that much about quantum mechanics, though there are people who do. I agree with you that matters of faith are areas in which people need to make their own decisions and to question at least privately those who claim authority on the matter.
        • thumb
          Jan 3 2013: I think that Quantum Mechanics should become the modern version of godwins law.
          Essentially that the first to mention quantum mechanics in a debate automatically loses.

          I'm not sure what I've grown more sick of..
          People mentioning the term Quantum Mechanics or
          Everyone and his dog trying to claim Quantum Mechanics proves whatever asinine belief that person happens to hold at the time.

          Its true that it opens up additional possibilities, but its not magic and its not vastly understood, two things it would NEED TO BE to justify any psychic, reincarnation, god (etc etc) belief.
    • thumb
      Jan 5 2013: Hi TED Lover

      That has nothing to do with quantum physics.

      "We create ourself from the Energy field". What does that even mean?
      • thumb
        Jan 5 2013: As in the twin slit experiment. The photons, in seeing the two slits and knowing that which slit each will pass through is not measured, form a wave pattern on the back wall. It's as if the photons went through both slits - which means that it may have created its own double that proceeds to its own destiny. If the photons know that there is a measuring device behind the slits, no wave pattern forms. Apparently, the experiment itself is "aware".

        How can an experiment be aware? Think of Bell's Inequality, where a photon is split and the two parts are sent in opposite directions where the change of spin on one is changed and the other instantaneously changes its spin - no matter how far apart they are. This means that entangled particles are multidimensional. There is a part of their being that transcends the visible reality that you and I can perceive. Both realities of the two photons are part of the present moment of the superpositioned moment.

        Another example is Shroedinger's Theorum. (As explained through the Shroedinger's Cat thought experiment). Put a cat in a box with a device that will cause the cat to die at some "unknown" point in the next 60 minutes. For as long as no one looks inside the box, the cat is both dead and alive.

        Schroedinger points to the split universe theory. Let's say that you and a friend are walking down the street and you come upon a box with a cat in it. You say the cat is sleeping. Your friend says it's dead. You kick the box. At that moment, the universe splits. In one reality, the cat jumps out of the box & runs away. In the other, it was dead. Both realities are real but they cannot see one another.

        I choose which reality to exist in as do all the other probable selves. But we remain entangled.

        I have learned how to manifest things & situations into my reality. If humans are that powerful, why can't we use the same energy field to explore probabilities (thus create an identity (self) to probe them?
        • thumb
          Jan 5 2013: Let me ask you this: in which way does the thought experiment with Schroedinger's Cat differ from the experience you would have, if the cat was alive OR dead before you opened the box? Saying that the cat is dead AND alive before you open the box doesn't change your experience of the situation.

          How does the adding of the word "quantum" differ from the free will you would have anyway?

          I understand the role that quantum mechanics play in understanding that our universe isn't deterministic, but it seems to me that you jump to unfounded conclusions on a macroscopic level.

          You say you have learned to manifest things and situations. Would you mind giving examlpes of this and how it is related to quantum physics?
      • thumb
        Jan 5 2013: The cat is not alive OR dead before I open the box. It is alive AND dead until observed. Both states exist in superposition.

        If I am the photon in the twin slit experiment, and I see potentials that others don't see, I can direct myself toward those realities through conscious choice. From my position as observer, it appears that things come to me, however my explanation to myself is more like I appear in the reality in which it already exists (as potential).

        Examples? So many - both large & small.

        My first manifestation? I was in a horrible marriage & needed to find a safe place to heal. I wanted a water-front house near - not on - the ocean. It must be a nice house, not an apartment. I didn't want any housemates. I wanted it to be $200/month heated (an unreasonably SMALL amount of money by any standard).

        I visualized every noon for 20 minutes before going to work. At some point, I started being aware of what it looked like. It was passive solar and had a deck in front of the massive windows. It was tall and I entered through the front door which opened from a small porch on the narrow side into a kitchen.

        On the 28th day, I knew that my new house was in the paper. I just knew. As I didn't read the local paper, I stopped to buy one on the way to work. When I got to work, I immediately turned to "houses for rent". It wasn't there. I re-read & reread. Nope. So I wondered if it was incorrectly placed & check apartments for rent. Not there either. Discouraged, I put the paper in the desk drawer, but immediately wondered if it was mistakenly placed in the rooms for rent section. I looked and there it was. A woman going to graduate school needed someone to live in her house, and take care of her cat. Rent? $200/mo - heated. Exactly as envisioned.

        I have manifested a sports car, a grand piano (full-grand, not baby). My current back yard, exciting travel. Too many to list because I practice. I've just listed some interesting ones.
      • thumb
        Jan 5 2013: How does this relate to quantum physics. Well, the explanation is controversial and far from commonly accepted, but given that we have recently learned that time is provably not what it was thought to be, and that we know that reality must be seen through the lens of probabilities, it is a rational way to look at a multi-dimensional reality that quantum mechanics is close to declaring as extant.

        There are a number of theoretical physicists who are working with other fields to explore "mind". Discoveries confirm much that I already accepted as belief.

        AS AN ASIDE: I found it curious that as I studied QM & related, I kept being silently reminded of the teachings of Jesus (as opposed to Christianity). I started reading the words of Jesus, excluding the rest, and in a flash, understood that he was talking about QM to a fearful people who were incapable of understanding how POWERFUL and PERFECT they are because of fundamental flaws in their culture.
        • thumb
          Jan 5 2013: I am aware of superposition of quantum states. My point being, if you say the cat is dead OR alive; or you say that the cat is dead AND alive, what difference does it make for you as an observer? Either way you will not be able to make a statement about the cat until you open the box. I fail to see the practical implication of it.

          Regarding the photon in the double slit experiment you contradict yourself. You talk about the photon as if you can predict its motion without observing it - contrary to quantum physics.

          You're not manifesting things - you rented a house as people do every day. Your approach can be compared to prayer. We are predisposed to see patterns, and we remember the successes and not the failures. This is well documented.

          I believe it is not only false but also a dangerous message to send, that all we have to do is think about stuff and we'll get it. But should your theory be right, we can solve poverty by thinking about it.

          The only thing I believe you manifested is the correlation between Jesus and QM.

          Another implication of what you are suggesting is the lack of free will. If you can "manifest" things, then you interfere with someone else’s free will. In the same way your free will can be suspended in order to grant possessions to another person who is "manifesting" stuff.

          Let's just assume that you are right. Then this is probably the biggest discovery in human history. But instead of proposing a theory or conduct studies you use this to gain possessions?

          Your theory is far from accepted because it has nothing to do with science nor quantum physics. And there is nothing rational about what you are suggesting.
      • thumb
        Jan 5 2013: There is a HUGE difference when one gets to the practical implications. If the cat is both dead AND alive, then alternative realities exist within the superpositioned observer. We, as humans can take advantage of that and, being entangled beings in our own right, choose from the array of probable realities that lie (physically) unseen before us.

        If the cat is either dead OR alive, no such opportunities exist and we are pretty powerless creatures consigned to a fixed Euclidean reality (that we know doesn't exist because we know that time is multi-dimensional). For creatures in such a world, fear is inexorable.

        Those who live in fear make irrational short-term decisions and in this way get themselves into trouble (because of an over-active amygdala). Understanding that you get to create your own reality takes away the fear and puts power back into your hands.

        I cannot interfere with anyone else's free will any more than they can interfere with mine. I am the creator of my reality. You are the creator of yours. Sheeple allow others to lead them into realities that don't necessarily serve them well.

        Dr. Daryl Bern (Cornell) recently published a paper that relates to this. He put volunteers in front of a computer that randomly chose words. They were then tested on the words. AFTER the test, the computer gave them certain words from their list to practice typing. Those who called themselves "risk takers" (those who see an array of probabilities) scored so much higher on the test than the others (fearful) that it was most improbable that they did not "time travel" for lack of a better phrase, find the word, and remember the word practiced after the test as they were taking the test before practice.

        This view is not dangerous. In fact, it's the opposite. You cannot be harmed w/o your consent. You can't bring harm to others without bringing harm to self. You cannot have what you would deny others. It gives "The Golden Rule" actual meaning.
        • thumb
          Jan 5 2013: I am sorry, but this is unscientific nonsense.

          You abviously don't understand the experiment with Schroedinger's cat. Either way you only find out whether the cat is dead or alive when you open the box.

          But, your theory can be tested easily. We replace the cat with you. As you create your own reality and you can't be harmed without your consent, you should come out alive every time.

          Let me know how the experiment turns out.
      • thumb
        Jan 5 2013: You said, "Let's just assume that you are right. Then this is probably the biggest discovery in human history. But instead of proposing a theory or conduct studies you use this to gain possessions?"

        How else cold I test my theory? And now that I have tested it, and found it to be workable and effective, I no longer focus on things. I've gotten rid of most of my "things". I focus on talking to others about WHAT a human is and how to develop their own power.

        This worldview is an ancient one and one that is being rediscovered. You would probably be surprised by the numbers of people who are ex-christian because they discovered that Jesus and Christianity have nothing in common but a name.

        To see one's perfection and power is to, metaphorically,live in the christ or in the kingdom of heaven. (Didn't Jesus assure us that those who hunger and search shall find that which they seek? Did he not say that the kingdom of heaven isn't outside of us, but within us, and when found will come a wise counselor? Did he not say that ALL that you ask for is given, if you have faith (that it will be) even as small as a mustard seed? Christianity has twisted Jesus' words so much that the message has become incomprehensible ramblings. Look at the changes from the KJV and forward. The changes are profound.

        I am not alone in the world with this worldview. There is a growing global movement. We find one another on-line. We speak of things that few understand, but we understand one another. The world is filling with deliberate manifestors.
      • thumb
        Jan 5 2013: You said, "You abviously don't understand the experiment with Schroedinger's cat",

        but you make it very clear that you have no understanding of it at all, so you are not in a position to judge

        I am not trying to make you angry, yet you are angry. How's that working for you?

        Bye.
        • thumb
          Jan 5 2013: Hi TED lover

          You have not made me angry - it is hard to convey tone in a debate.

          My main point is that we can actually experimentally verify your theory. If you take the place of the cat and come out alive every time. This is what you are claiming.

          Off course the experiment can be conducted with another mechanism that will not result in death.

          I do not understand why you are avoiding the one thing I write that could actually verify your theory. There is a guaranteed Noble prize if it works.

          Faisel
        • thumb
          Jan 8 2013: After doing a bit of research on quantum mysticism, I can't help noticing that it's either based on fraudulent research or unfounded speculation.

          It seems to be an adaptation of eastern mysticism into a western consumer based ideology.

          I find it dangerous because it is disguised as science, yet it completely ignores logic, rationality and the scientific method. And ultimately I believe it promotes a solipsistic world view.

          Do you realise that a lot of the publications on this matter have a disclaimer stating that it is for entertainment purposes only, as it can not be classified as science?

          If you truly believe in this, why don't you - or anyone else - conduct an experiment that can verify if the theory is valid? For instance you could play Solitaire on a computer and see if you can win every time. The way the cards are distributed is based on probabilities, which you claim to be able to manipulate.

          If you could present an experimental verification of your theory, it would convince me of its validity.

          If you aren't interested in this, I can only assume that you are not interested in the truth, but have a fanatic faith in a belief system, where you see facts as something you need to avoid to protect that very belief system. If that is the case, what is the difference between what you are claiming and people who still today claim that the earth is flat?

          In hope of a constructive dialogue, sincerely

          Faisel
      • thumb
        Jan 8 2013: Faisel,

        So you have reviewed what I have been studying and following for nearly 30 years, and you feel competent to declare science as mysticism and that it is based on fraudulent science?

        Faisel, you don't know what you are talking about. to the informed, your ignorance in this matter is profound.

        Your aggression is inappropriate here. I simply answered a question. Unless you are working with multiple screen names, it wasn't even your question. I have no desire to have a conversation with someone who doesn't recognize the research., studies, and experiments (some of which were given early on in this dialogue) and which has been accepted by ALL quantum physicists as legitimate science

        Please don't bother me any more on this subject. It is a waste of my time. You cannot hide your ignorance behind aggression or contempt - except for the benefit of others who are not sufficiently informed to know better. Those who are informed can see your aggression for what it is as clearly as I can. Please leave me alone.
        • thumb
          Jan 8 2013: Physics and especially quantum physics has been a great passion of mine since my early teens and I've studied it at University. In the last couple of years I've had a growing interest in the relation between our macroscopic world and quantum physics. So you make it hard not to view your argument ad hominem as nothing more than a diversion, because you can't answer the questions I ask.

          You say you have studies it for 30 years. If you come across evidence that your theory is untrue, would you accept it?

          I am trying to reach out to you and have a constructive dialogue about the subject. If you have perceived my last comment as being aggressive I sincerely apologise. However, you call my ignorance profound - another example of argument ad hominem, as you are unable to argue your case.

          If you by research mean the double slit experiment and Schroedinger's cat - I most certainly accept it. My point is that you misinterpret them completely without any rational arguments.

          If you by research mean you "materialisation of things" it does not in anyway qualify as science or legitimate research.

          Why in the world would I operate under different screen names? Again an unfounded claim and argument ad hominem. I could say that you write in this forum under a pseudonym, but it is completely irrelevant for the discussion.

          If you wish to terminate this debate, don't reply to this message. But let me make it clear that I have stated experiments that could determine whether your claims are true or not several times, but you keep dodging the subject.

          Since you are unwilling to verify your theory through experiments (the scientific method), I can come to no other conclusion that you are promoting a false belief.

          However, if you can verify it through experiments, I will accept your theory. And that is the difference between you and I - the scientific method and rationality.
      • thumb
        Jan 9 2013: Can I prove that time is what I think it is (a prerequisite to what I suggest)? No.

        Twin Slit & Bell's Inequality lay out the framework of evidence that supports the idea. They don't PROVE it, any more than rock formations and ancient skeletal remains PROVE that evolution is true. Evolution is a theory based on evidence. So is my assertion.

        As to being able to manifest intended consequnces, the evidence comes from various sources.

        the fist venture into this area involved tests with basketball free-throws. Volunteers were divided into 3 groups. 1st, all were tested for free throw ability, then split into 3 groups. 1st group practiced every day. 2nd group visualized making baskets every day. 3rd group was told to avoid basketball courts. At the end of 21 days, the 2nd group improves its ability equal to or greater than the first group. These experiments (repeated many times) are the reason why all professional/olympic athletes include visualization (a key component of manifestation) as part of preparation.

        More recent experiment: Students placed in front of computer monitors. Given 30 words. They were then tested on how many words they remembered. The computer then selected random words for them to practice typing. Those students who called themselves "risk takers" remembered words practiced AFTER the test in a degree that was most improbable. This makes sense because those who consider themselves risk-takers are able to see more probabilities than the fearful, and can choose from among them. Dr Bern suggest that they are able to travel into the future, learn from it, and apply it to a moment of now. (=different future)

        Dr Bern's paper (published last year) is completely harmonious with the new definition of time that Twiin Slit, Bell's Inequality, & Schroedinger's Theorem suggest.

        Physicists R actively working w/ researchers in other fields to study "mind" because of their discoveries about the nature of time & our relationship to it
        • thumb
          Jan 10 2013: Hi,

          The experiments show no evidence whatsoever of your claims of being able to manipulate probabilities through consciousness.

          The basketball experiment is very easily understood if you apply a bit of knowledge of how the brain works. What the experiment shows is that practising mentally under certain circumstances can be just as good or even better than the physical part of it. There is nothing shocking about it and absolutely no evidence of people being able to manipulate probabilities.The only thing the students in experiments manipulate is their own minds.

          I don't know who Dr. Bern is, but anyone who would explain a certain statistical pattern in a memory test with time travelling is not a man of science. It is a memory test! A “risk-taker” remembering differently is being interpreted as if he or she is travelling into the future. If you have a link to the study, I would be very interested in reading the foundation for Dr. Bern's claims.

          If you see these experiments as evidence for your theory, it is because you want to see it. You have already accepted the theory and now you interpret everything through that lens - even the bible.

          In order to verify your claims one needs to set up an experiment where the subject has to manipulate a system with the mind alone, which is what you claim to be able to do. This is why I don't understand why you or any of your peers haven't conducted such an experiment. It would be irrefutable evidence. Why are you not providing it?

          Do you know that there is a prize of one million dollars from the James Randi Educational Foundation if anyone produced such evidence.
      • thumb
        Jan 9 2013: Faisel, while I await response from a distinguished scientist (of the Stanford/MIT/Harvard/Berkeley level) specializing in quantum mechanics, could you give me your opinion as a physics-educated person on whether the linked article might clarify the confusion between the points of view being put forward here?

        http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/views/qm-cr.htm
        • thumb
          Jan 10 2013: Hi Fritzie

          Thanks for the link. I haven't finished reading it yet, but the first sentence sums it up quite well:

          "Since 1975, enthusiastic adcovates of "mystical physics" have claimed that the New Physics (especially Quantum Physics) lends scientific support to a pantheistic worldview of New Age beliefs about "creating your own reality." (*) But these claims, which are not scientifically justifiable, are based on nonscientific interpretations leading to implausible metaphysical speculations that are rejected by most scientists."
      • thumb
        Jan 10 2013: Faisel, I will be interested in your thoughts on the arguments when you have time to read further.

        I am totally fine with whatever religious or metaphysical beliefs people have, but I think its important not to pretend there is a SCIENTIFIC basis for prefering one over the other, when there simply is not.

        I believe those who promote pseudoscientific arguments absolutely do not mean to mislead but believe them to be true and can spend years seeking only confirmation of their biases. This is why critical analysis and open-mindedness are vital in education and in life.
        • thumb
          Jan 10 2013: Hi Fritzie

          How refreshing to read a scientist interpreting quantum physics without the over-dramatisation! It is a rarity these days.

          Overall I agree with Dr. Rusbult's interpretation of quantum physics, however, when it comes to the implications of the science, I do think there is a little room for interpretation, but it is rather about the limitations of consciousness and our definition of reality. It is a semantic/philosophical discussion that has no implications in our every day life.

          I completely agree that it is a matter of misuse of the word science. It is a subject that has caught my interest lately. I don't know if you've heard of the “Simulation Argument”. It is an argument stated 10 years ago by an Oxford professor and basically it says that we most likely live in a computer simulation. It has gained increasing popularity and researchers at universities in Bonn and Washington are conducting research to find evidence for it. It might sound insane but the argument hasn't been refuted yet.

          I have (almost) finished writing a counter argument that refutes the theory. The simulation argument is often presented alongside multiverse theory and string theory, but I have mathematical proof that they are conflicting and mutually exclusive.

          I feel all this is important, because I believe that logic, rationality and the scientific method are invaluable tools in the face of our current and future challenges. And I am amazed at how little we value these tools.

          Faisel
      • thumb
        Jan 10 2013: Then go to my answer on this question and read about some more. http://www.ted.com/conversations/15812/what_research_has_been_done_to.html. I can't list them all in 2k characters or less, nor am I able to educate one who is unwilling to be educated. You are perfectly able to pull out the data yourself.
        • thumb
          Jan 10 2013: Let's summarise:

          We both accept the experiment of Schroedinger's cat. You claim to be able to manipulate the outcome of the experiment with your mind.

          All you have to do is conduct an experiment to verify this. I have asked yoy five times, why you do not do this, but you refuse to answer.

          Please refrain from calling me "unwilling to be educated" just because I ask critical questions. I find it deeply offensive, especially when all your claims are easy refutable.