TED Conversations

Carlos Marquez

This conversation is closed.

How can God exist beyond space and time?

I'm trying to make sense of this "existence" outside space and time. How can something , anything exist yet not exist in space-time? Something completely disconnected from length, width, height, or point in time....
Is this a "truth" that is beyond human comprehension? For maybe this may be one the "truths" that escapes the human intellect. However there are also non-sense statements that require filtering, I believe that existence beyond space and time is one statement that requires filtering.
Does God pops in and out of existence along with virtual particles? Or is God tightly curled up( about a Planck length?) in one or more dimensions of a Calabi-Yau manifold? Or is this existence as useful as the Cosmic Peanut Butter Theory?
Asking if it's possible means nothing, however. The question to ask is, what makes anyone say this? What is the evidence for such assertions? Show me how does anyone got to this statement.
Please as you deploy your arguments don't conflate suppositions with explanations, for these are not interchangeable. Just because it can be imagined, does not make it valid, or even explanatory.
And no scripture as proof.("Behold, heaven and the highest heavens cannot contain Thee... (1 Kings 8:27)) etc, Please and thank you.
Keep the mental contortions civil & courteous, even artful which is always cool. Let's learn from each other!

"You're everywhere and no where, baby
That's where you're at"
Hi Ho Silver Lining


Closing Statement from Carlos Marquez

The operational word in my question was "how" could god or anything exists beyond space and time?, And the core answer after the often heated exchanges is that some folks believe such a fantastic particular possible yet unable to render a demonstrable explanation -why?- because it is impossible.
The incredible thing is that folks believe dogmas as such without questioning. Is similar to lets say slavery or interracial marriage or the prohibition, many in power used (still do ) the Bible to back up such views and today-thanks in a big part by Secular Humanism- are not active policies in our country. Many a Christian believed that all above mentioned stances were correct just as god exist beyond space and time.

I think that as a whole mankind is evolving away from dogmas into new horizons, faith based or divinely revealed knowledge will take a backseat to reason based knowledge. And for that process there is a demonstrable "How".

  • Jul 28 2013: Carlos,
    Im going to give you the benefit of the doubt. As I read your initial question (I.e. "how can God exist beyond time and space"), as well in reading many of the posts below, I think a discussion of this nature needs some further clarity and guidelines (mutually agreeable of course) before proceeding in any depth.
    1.) definition of terms. "God", "time"' and "space" are rather large concepts, which can be defined by various individuals (based on their own experience and ability) in various different ways. In reading many of the posts below it appears this may be a source of some misunderstanding. I would suggest use of mutually agreeable definitional terms.
    2.). The question of plausibility. What is plausible? I would suggest coming to some mutually agreeable terms of what is plausible.
    3.) methods of knowledge. What are the various ways in which we might "know" the existence of something.
    4.)acceptable proof/evidence for existence. What is acceptable proof? I would suggest coming to some mutually agreeable terms for what constitutes acceptable proof of existence.
    5.) Finally a discussion of "how God can exist beyond space and time".

    A wise man once said, "I prefer clarity to agreement", and i tend to believe that. In any discussion I prefer just that. I'm not trying to argue you over to my position, just trying to find clarity. Along the way we might find we disagree, but at least we will be clear on what it is that we disagree on. We will see how far we get. Sound fair?
    Best regards,
    • thumb
      Jul 28 2013: Steve,
      A very refreshing approach-Thanks!-

      Before we begin this collaboration that if I write anything that you find offensive to please let me know. This is a quest and is the journey that I enjoy.

      Defining God: If I told you"the world is round" or "water is made up of f hydrogen and oxygen" I think that you would agree that those are well supported claims or "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the USA"
      -you get the point-.
      Still other claims have no supporting evidence like "gremlins are green" ( I mean no offense) "Pegasus had wings" In those cases in which the evidence is truly inconclusive, one may legitimately say with regard to a claim, "I don't know whether it's true." every claim must have some evidence in its favor otherwise I think is arbitrary.
      To the statement: "Divine being X exist in an inaccessible realm of reality" is either unknowable or impossible. Logic can refute impossible beings, but logic can't show that POSSIBLE beings exist without evidence.

      This is perhaps the first block to tackle- help me out here Steve.

      Thank you!
      • Jul 29 2013: Carlos,
        Stay with me here, we will get there, but in proper time. Your asking for evidence (item 4) before we have even defined mutually agreeable terms. Common sense and scientific method tell us that all we need to start this journey is : an interest/willingness (basis for inquiry), the formulation of a question, and a hypothesis (conjecture based on knowledge obtained while formulating the question). You've created this TED forum and formulated the question: "how can God exist beyond time and space". I assume that based on this you have some level of interest in the concepts God, space, and time...enough at least to warrant you to have started this TED conversation and pose the question eliciting responses from others.
        Many millions of people worldwide currently claim to have knowledge of God, time, and space. This is the subject/basis of our inquiry. Our only requirement initially is to define terms in a manner consistent with, and inclusive of these purported beliefs. The terms will be working terms which can be revised later, until mutually confirmed and agreed upon.
        I will start. I suggest a working definition of God to be: the original and creative force of life. Again, this is not asserted as fact, but simply a mutually agreeable working definition to which we can verify/assess plausibility, knowledge, proof (i.e. evidence), etc., later. I believe this definition would be consistent with and inclusive of most beliefs espoused by various current religions. Would you agree?
        • thumb
          Jul 29 2013: Steve,
          I appreciate your willingness & patience to navigate this issue with me-I'ts Monday(busy) so pardon the late reply-.
          Now I agree that we should make "distinctions" so we can build a common language in order to build meaning, I also think that the 6 or so days left on this thread may not be enough time to work on the issue.
          On the Deity issue if we were to assume a definition that we know is not asserted as fact we start on shaky ground, can I please counteroffer to you to start first with what is known (time, space for example) to gain traction then move from there to more metaphysical terrain. That way we start with known knows(the things that we know), then to the known unknowns(things that we know we don't know or think we know). Like putting the horse in front of the carriage rather than the opposite. What say you?

          It's OK if this process of building a common language takes time-it should- Even if it takes another thread.

          Thank you,

          Back to work-me
      • Jul 29 2013: Carlos,
        This might indeed take some time. Please understand that a "definition" is nothing more than a common/shared understanding. Its meaning is purely conventional and may or may not have a basis as fact. What determines its basis in fact is the application of some standard for plausibility, knowledge (I.e what can be known), and evidence and proof.
        That having been said, I understand your uneasiness and hesitation in starting with the God concept first. If you would prefer we can first define "time" and/or "space". So that we might truly gain some traction in our discussion, I will defer to you. Please feel free to suggest a working definition for "time" and/or "space".
        • thumb
          Jul 30 2013: Steve,
          To make it a bit more entertaining please watch( to me is a hard concept to explain without graphics aids and math): Spacetime and the twin Paradox


          Lenght contraction & Spacetime:


          Simultaneity and time Dilation:


          Spacetime(University of Pittsburgh)


          So space and time, as physical constructs, have to be combined into a mathematical/physical entity called 'space-time', because the equations of relativity show that both the space and time coordinates of any event must get mixed together by the mathematics, in order to accurately describe what we see. Because space consists of 3 dimensions, and time is 1-dimensional, space-time must, therefore, be a 4-dimensional object. It is believed to be a 'continuum' because so far as we know, there are no missing points in space or instants in time, and both can be subdivided without any apparent limit in size or duration.
          In Physics we routinely consider our world to be embedded in this 4-dimensional Space-Time continuum, and all events, places, moments in history, actions and so on are described in terms of their location in Space-Time.

          Surprisingly the math involved is not really hard-compared to other Physics-.

          Please do watch & read the info (I enjoy the animations!) and I hope that the spacetime explanations is satisfactory to you.

          Thanks Steve.
      • thumb
        Jul 30 2013: its probably more of a squashed sphere than round like a circle
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jul 30 2013: Some,
          See above for quantum fluctuations,

          Hawkins: Imaginary time: Although not a string-theory idea, it remains a viable option even within string theory since physicists have no evidence that any of the extra dimensions of the universe is not a time dimension instead of a spatial one.
          Also Some Guy, notice that in imaginary time calculations are completed they are converted back to"real time" (by using Wick Rotation) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wick_rotation
          When the paths are "summed over" the classical path comes out as most probable. So imaginary Time is just a mathematical trick to make an approach(sum over histories) to Quantum Mechanics Mathematically tractable via a Wick rotation.
          As we scale down to the elementary particles -the realm of QM- things get really spooky, but for the effects of the ordinary speeds and the ordinary world we live in - I - would like to stay with classical spacetime to develop meaning and a common vocabulary and wherever it takes us.

      • Jul 31 2013: Carlos,
        I appreciate the links with regards to spacetime. I'm familiar with the concept. Your original question (I.e. "how can God exist beyond space and time") deals with the concepts as separate entities (I.e space and time, not spacetime), as such I would suggest defining the terms separately and independently if one another. Secondly, you state that space and time are "physical constructs", but I'm not sure I agree. How does "time" (proper) have physicality? I would argue that "time" has no physical substance, but is simply a relational quality. The physical and mathematical qualifiers are not necessary. I would suggest definitions that can be more universally applied without qualification. As an example, "time" could be defined as an interval between two points on a conitinuum, a duration.

        Kind regards,
        • thumb
          Jul 31 2013: Steve,
          My original question is prisoner of language, That is I posited it as commonly used in theist vernacular.
          It seems to me that time exists as much as your "center of gravity" exists. Meaning, it doesn't really exist in any physical sense since it is an abstraction over our usual language of normal three-dimension existence. That said, it still "exists" in a different but congruent sense within a larger abstract framework. Time is something of a relational entity, in that it describes a relation between two moments (object-states) relative to some standard unit.
          At times I grab concepts like spacetime and lace them up as you say "physical constructs" Thanks for keeping me honest.
          Is it agreeable to you if we establish that an event must occur in space at a determined time tied up to a frame of reference?

          PS I don't think this is going to be a 4 day endeavor, may I suggest we build another thread to keep this alive?

          Be well,
      • Jul 31 2013: Carlos,
        Indeed, we are all "prisoners of language". I think that is an important sentiment in a discussion such as this. We all (religion and science) should be aware of and respect our limitations, and language certainly is one limitation. For the sake if our discussion, I'm agreeable to the premise "that an event must occur in space (not yet defined) at a determined time (not yet defined) tied up to a frame of reference". Note that in attempting to define "space" and "time", we have used the words "space" and "time", which seems to me circular. More than a definition, we have created a premise. We have not defined the actual content of either "time" or "space".
        I hope you will be as generous as we attempt to create a working definition/premise for the term "God".

        This may well be more than a 4 day endeavor, but I think it worthwhile. I've got nothing but " time".

        Best regards,
        • thumb
          Aug 1 2013: Steve,

          Let me shoot some arrows your way...

          So that we don't get "circular"
          Space: Three-dimensional extent in which objects and events have relative position and direction.

          Time: A dimension(math. as a way to plot in a graph) in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future, also the measure of duration of events and the intervals between them.

          See what you think.

          Be well.
      • Aug 2 2013: Carlos,
        My apologies for not getting back to you sooner. It's been rather busy as of late. With regards to the definition of "space", what is an "extent"?

        • thumb
          Aug 2 2013: Steve,
          The degree( scope - range - size -) to which something has spread- extent- I'm rather busy as well, so it surely looks as this needs an extension of time ( well defined or otherwise!) so we are both in agreement. What I'm getting from this small process that you and I are engaged in is that is not as easy as it may seem at prima fascia and I bet the source of many a misunderstanding between theist & atheists is the simple "failure to communicate". I understand you don't want to use classic relativistic spacetime for this conversation? is that correct? Thanks.

      • Aug 3 2013: Carlos,
        You will recall in my original post to this thread a quote that read, "what I prefer is clarity to agreement". I think if more people had that approach, regardless of the topic, you might find that most discussions which might at their outset appear to be fundamental disagreements are more often times than not, more simply a series of "failures to communicate". There are other times when when our ability to communicate is hampered by the limits of language and word choice.
        With regards to your question, I'm not opposed to use of any definitional terms (classical spacetime, or otherwise). I do believe it is important in definitional terms to separate what we know, from what we posit, from what we do not know. What I am suggesting is that the "classical" definitions used by physics to define "spacetime" lack in some key ways ( I mean no disrespect). We posit that our perception of spacetime has a "dimensional" quality to it, and we go to great length to document its relational qualities to our own senses, but we still don't ever define its content. In a material senses ( I believe you suggested you are a materialist), what is the material content of "space"or "time"?
        Once a premise is established (I.e. the concept of "spacetime" or "God") everything that flows after it can appear quite rational and logical, it even provides great meaning to many in providing a shared context in which to describe the events they see and experience all around them. Ask someone to describe the material content on which the premise is built and the true and difficult work begins.
        For the sake of our discussion, I'm ok with the definitional premise if you are. Provided we are both clear on what is known and what is posited.
        Best regards,
        • thumb
          Aug 4 2013: Steve,
          OK , so that we have operational definitions to work with , and since you are OK with spacetime, I'll say let's start with that definition with the caveat that if we both see that as we traverse this waters it needs revision so it better explains any other concept then we should get the wrench out. What's in the fabric of spacetime? Let's think of it as a geometrical construct (H,W,L + T). Space and time are not tangible 'things' in the same way that water and air are, or a medium like aether ,spacetime has a structural quality of the gravitational field. For example: We assume that light has constant velocity in vacuo, more precisely it is invariant between inertial frames, and follows the shortest distance between two points. We also know that gravity causes things to accelerate in it's presence. So what happens when light passes through a gravitational field? ---Light changes direction--- the speed is scalar so does not change, but change direction you change velocity(vector) (To accelerate an object is to change its velocity, which is accomplished by altering either its speed or direction and it accelerates). And that means light follows a curved path in the presence of gravity. What we are seeing is light following the shortest path( to us is a curve in 3D), The path it follows is spacetime. It is purely a geometric construct.

          Did that make sense?

          Be Well,

          PS My apologies for not being prompt we had a full house here today.
      • Aug 5 2013: Carlos,
        My apologies for not getting back to you sooner. Ive been quite busy as of late. Please let me know if you choose to continue the conversation. I still hold out hope for our little endeavor.

        Best regards,
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Jul 29 2013: Ziggy P,

        Please do join,see my comment to Steve L and give me your thoughts.

      • thumb
        Jul 30 2013: ziggy it would be helpful if you defined universe.

        what elements are outside the universe?

        3 first the net energy of the universe is zero. second universe creation capability does not mean all powerful. it just means simething is capable of creatung this universe, not every imaginable universe.

        4 are you saying the energy in the ubiverse has always existed. no need for a god then. also does this mean energy is part of the universe that you say had a beginning.

        how do you know it comes from the same source and wilk return?

        5. just an argument from ignorance

        it might also help if you define your concept of god.

        no evidence for god in your arguments so far.
    • thumb
      Jul 30 2013: good call asking for definitions.

      good luck on the god definition. there have been long ted conversations on this and lttle agreement.

      also most can not be verified or use the word for things or concepts that exist e.g god is the universe. god is love. god is what we can not explain. god is a feeling.

      god concepts are a confusing jumble many of which contradict each other.

      so many must be false.

      most of the rest can not be tested. others, well call it what it is, why personify ilove or the universe.

      lots of cultural memes and pschologgy going on here.
    • Jul 31 2013: Steve, It's too bad this thread has been so lost and derailed. I thought I was actually going to learn something. I think you had a great plan that could have brought this discussion somewhere. If you ever decide to take it up in another forum, let me know. I think you could teach me a lot.
      Best regards

      PS I too appreciate that "wise man". :-)
  • thumb
    Jul 5 2013: When I sit in the garden & watch the bees working the flowers, or the birds hanging from the feeder, it is obvious to me that God exists. When Dawkins gets red in the face insisting that God doesn't exist, it is obvious to me that he is angry with God. My tropical fish have no idea where I live. It is unreasonable of me to expect to understand how God lives; like my fish, I am just grateful that He does.

    • thumb
      Jul 8 2013: Peter,
      I'm also at awe at the Universe but that awe alone is not evidence for the existence of any Gods or the Wizard of Oz.Just because we can conceptualize anything but that alone does not make it real. I don't really know if Professor Dawkins is upset at a God he claims does not exists, I dare say that his contention is with humans, but what do I know?
      I have two Siamese fighting fish (love the color hues) and it would be unreasonable to expect that fish would figure out Quantum Mechanics or Pre-K Math. Just because a question is difficult to answer we can't say well 'God did it".

      "I baked some muffins!"
      "What do you mean - there is no how. I baked them - that's all that happened."
      "Did you use ingredients? Was there mixing involved? Heat?"
      "What nonsense questions. I already told you exactly what happened - I baked some muffins. That's the whole story."

    • thumb
      Jul 8 2013: Peter and Carlos,
      When I sit in the garden & watch the birds and bees doing their thing, I see it as proof that there are birds and bees working in harmony with nature:>)

      I agree Carlos, It doesn't make sense that a person (Dawkins) gets upset at something that he does not believe exists. I think one would have to believe it existed to be upset with it.
    • Jul 13 2013: I haven't seen Dawkins "red in the face insisting that God doesn't exist." I have seen him close to red in the face when he talks to creationists who will just ignore any answers.

      Beautiful rhetoric Peter. But I find that, no matter how beautiful, rhetoric is not enough to get us close to any truth.
  • Aug 3 2013: To the materialists,
    Just to remind everyone, the question at hand is " how can God exist beyond space and time". If you are going to force others to define God in strictly material terms, shouldnt you do the same for "time" and "space"? What is the physical/material content of "time" and "space"?
    Classical physics typically posits that time and space have "dimension", and goes to great length to document and measure its relation to other things, but what is the physical/material content of "time" and "space"?
    There is an current and ongoing conversation string burried deep below between Carlos and myself in which we are attempting to define terms and build some qualifying structure around his initial question.
    Best regards,
  • Jul 31 2013: Why does something need space and time to exist? As long as this existence has no need to interact with current forms of energy and matter, it can exist anywhere, next to you and me, just like another form of energy which doesn't need to occupy any space. Right?
    • thumb
      Jul 31 2013: freshi,
      To your question: Why does something need space and time to exist?- because all that we know does-To exists implies that that existence it's in spacetime.
      There is no known form of existence that is independent of spacetime or like you seem to suggest , non-spatial, non- temporal.

      • Jul 31 2013: Before the proof of the existence of something, they all can stay in space-time in the form that we don't know, like dark matter and dark energy. Right?
        • thumb
          Aug 1 2013: Freshi,
          The laws of physics at the level of everyday life are completely understood. Any new kind of matter or forces that would interact in noticeable ways with ordinary matter would already have been discovered.
          Let's say I propose a field that at points of excitation gives us a particle "G" and when that particle interact with us- humans- it triggers a link to the broader field of G that has non-zero value across all points in the universe and since this happens simultaneously in many other humans you are also linked to them via the G field (forming a collective consciousness), moreover I could postulate that in the G field vibrations there is encoded information regarding the universe its formation and about how life was indeed created by this field and its interaction with carbon molecules,EMR, and amino acids to form life. Furthermore the G particle conveys information to humans "talks" to us via electrochemical impulses in our neurons, I can also postulate that the G particle is everywhere as a field thus being not bound by spacetime, it pops from past to future to the here and now, and from multiple universes and more.

          Now here is the short analysis: I'm proposing a particle "G" and lets say that it interacts with a proton and the "G" particle goes its own way, if that were true then I would be able to smash protons together and create "G" particles because if the interaction with a "G" particle is so strong that it will interact with a human brain it would have been found-and it hasn't-. So "G's" could exist, but if they do they are not strong enough to be detected, or it would be to heavy to create or too short lived to detect, thus not relevant in your everyday life,- can't blame "G"s for being in a bad mood -
          Could there be new forces in nature? -Yes- but they must interact with protons,neutrons and electrons and if they hide they must be either too weak or have very short range thus not relevant in everyday life.

      • Comment deleted

        • Jul 31 2013: Thanks for your point. Scientists also suggest multi-universe and 10+1 dimension, so when someone says space and time, does it mean our physical world or a broader concept. Before clearly define all of these terminologies, it would not be easy to carry on the discussion.

          I think Brain Greene's talk at TED might be related to what we are discussing here.
        • thumb
          Aug 1 2013: Alberto,
          There is no-nothing in Physics, The nothing with absolute zero value absence of anything is a philosophical concept. (no lab in the world holds a jar of nothingness) we don't know what nothing is in actuality so we can compare it to something.
          You are right 0 # 1
          All of our known physical laws breakdown at singularities due to the infinite curvature of spacetime. Hence, we say, "One second after the big bang..., An hour after the big bang..., etc." Because, we simply don't know what happened at the instant of big bang. If there were events before the big bang, we cannot use those events to determine what happened in its future, because our laws don't work at singularities.As far as we know, there haven't been a single consequence of the events before the big bang. So, it doesn't make any sense to talk about those events, Of course that doesn't mean the Big Bang theory is complete .

      • Aug 1 2013: Carlos, I don't know why there is no REPLY by your comment, so have to start this new thread.

        Do you think when you say YES or NO, your neuron behaves physically different?
        • thumb
          Aug 1 2013: Freshi,
          I don't know if my neurons behave differently when I say "yes or no"

          How do yours behave?

      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 1 2013: Alberto,
          In my example the "G" particle if able to interact with a human brain at an atomic,molecular level should been already detected, since that "contact" presupposes a strong interaction. That technology is already available , yet I must admit not calibrated to find my "G" particles or "G" field. I wish they were -I'll be up for a Nobel Prize-, (kidding!).

          That said there is a lot of unknowns knowns and unknown unknowns .

      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 1 2013: Alberto,
          If thee was a "nothing" as you postulate 0=0 I mean nada, zilch, -it just doesn't exists- now that said; If you know of any Research lab or otherwise that has a Jar of nothingness I would rather much like to take a gander at it.

          Otherwise BB and the other explanations follow suit.

      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 2 2013: Alberto,
          I can imagine many things but that doesn't mean that they exist, lets take 0/0 what does that means?IMO-It doesn't mean anything until we assign it value-or take 0 to the nth power where n is more than 0 as an integer so if 0^3=0*0*0=0 so n is the value where 0 occurs n times. But if 0 occurs 0 times the value has no meaning or you can say a^0 then (the value of a string where 0 occurs 0 times) but notice that a^0=a^n-n=a^n/a^n=1 for n#0 ,a#0, thus you can safely assign a^0 a value 1 when-when- a#0.

          Well , I'm not a famous scientist nor can I tell you with certainty in a singularity where the laws of physics break and engage it's spooky.
          Where will the "perfect nothing" (philosophical) would exist? -I don't know for if it was to exist in this universe it will be bound by spacetime and it will be "contaminated" with something. Thus IMO it has 0 probability to exist.

          Thanks again!
    • Comment deleted

      • Jul 31 2013: ya, usually, if the theory has a hole, it would take a while to find it and correct it.
    • thumb
      Jul 31 2013: Perhaps We really don't know if stuff exists or could exist outside space and time.

      When you talk about something being beside you you may be talking about another level to this universe. Beside implies it has spacialbpositioning.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jul 30 2013: Alberto,
      Yes- human understanding is limited , and look at the last 100 years and see all the progress we've made! Sure we probably are just flexing our noggins here , but I've learned quite a bit. It's the Universe quite an enigma?-yes-but just because a problem is difficult we should not stop questioning we keep at it pushing the boundaries of what we don't know.
      Think Alberto how many diseases we've conquered, powered flight, information & energy manipulation, and why not?-Physics-
      In my opinion you & I can stare at the universe and be awed by it and that is cool, but I want to keep pushing beyond to the unknown-even if I fail trying-
      Prof Einstein was a great man.

      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jul 31 2013: Alberto,
          Sometimes I think that this incredibly vast and complex universe, with its hundreds of billions of galaxies, its uncountable trillions of stars – all of this – was made just for us? hmm -Nah-
          I mean Alberto look at the Sun ( actually don't look at it directly-kidding-) it shines at the "perfect" temperature for us.
          If I understand you correctly the world was designed for us( by a Creator) and through revelation(from the Creator) we learn more & more. So if X is perfect for humans, therefore God (or some other creator) made the universe.( I do not mean any offense I'm just trying to understand you).
          Why is the sun perfect for us?- It isn't,- we have evolved to make use of the sun as it is. Plants have evolved to convert solar energy into food through chlorophyll. Humans and animals have evolved to harness solar energy for warmth. We have adapted to the environment in which we live.

          Science is not Divine revelation but hard work by talented folks,lots of trail & error And Natural Methodology, has brought Science to its present state.

          I fell a bit of teleological argument (universe designed with a purpose) but then again I could be wrong.

          What Prof Einstein believed is in his experience, and I respect his opinion and yours as well.

          There is an element of randomness to our existence take for example the asteroid that hit earth long ago and killed many lifeforms on earth changing the Natural Selection landscape.

          Thanks Alberto,
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jul 31 2013: Alberto,
          I think I have answered (as best as I could) your last post. or maybe I'm a poor communicator...

          You ask about randomness, Well I'll tell you this is how I see it:First, let's take a look at a couple of the basic definitions of random:

          1. Proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, purpose, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers.

          2. Statistics: of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen; where all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance. Unpredictable.

          OK, I would use the definitions above depending on the exact context or situation.I don't dispute that there are patterns in the universe, though, and even in truly random sets — like sequences of numbers — patterns will emerge. The existence of patterns does not contradict the existence of randomness. I also think that, in many circumstances, all members of a set of possible outcomes are either equally likely to occur, almost equally likely to occur, or if not then it's not possible to predict which is the most likely to occur. Theists may often believe that whatever happens does so as part of God's plans for them and the world, or God guiding events and causing certain outcomes to occur rather than others.
          I could be wrong but under your lines you think that I believe in an universe without order — that randomness entails disorder — and that therefore the existence of order in the universe means that some God must exist.
          The equation of randomness with disorder is incorrect,My thinking does not entail that the universe be disordered and order can in fact arise spontaneously, without any directed intervention from a conscious being. It can't be denied that the universe has order, structure, and patterns. I don't accept the idea that order, structure, and patterns are incompatible with randomness or that they require the prior presence of some "designer"
        • thumb
          Jul 31 2013: Alberto,
          I appreciate your line on the thread but to the question: How can God exists beyond space & time?

      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 1 2013: Alberto,
          Obviously there are patterns in our universe , we can calculate the orbit of the moon or the rotation of Earth for example, and yes once there was more spacetime available after the BB-and the energy"thinned out"- some (things were cooling down), matter began to form. And the mechanics of such events are known. This is also true for solar systems, galaxies, the calcium in your bones or the iron in your blood.
          Your other inquiries for spontaneous life, or life with no purpose is off topic but I think that you are implying a fine tuning of the universe and a designer -so fine-tuning, if it existed, would demonstrate design.That argument assumes teleology in regard to life as a premise in order to prove teleology. It is, to a certain extent, a circular argument.

          Also you are assuming that order cannot come out of chaos?-it has- we are here.

          Still, order randomness chaos, patterns etc, the questions still remains: How can God exist beyond space & time?


          PS sorry for late reply I've so busy , thank you for your patience.
    • Jul 30 2013: Alberto,
      I agree with you with regards to the inconsistency of any attempt to define God as a coporeal being (God by definition would not be God, if you could). I'm puzzled, however by your statements that "it is laughable....". Is it the " belief" that makes it "laughable", or the attempt? Surely you understand that both the religious and the scientific mind attempt to "explain the forces that created the universe...", they simply do it in different ways.

      Best regards,
      • Comment deleted

        • Jul 30 2013: Alberto,
          Laughter is a good thing. We should never take ourselves too seriously. We also should understand and appreciate our limitations. But just because we have limitations does not mean we should not attempt to learn as much as we can (both scientifically and spiritually) about the universe in which we live. These limitations never seemed to stop Einstein in his pursuit. If anything these limitations simply provided him a heathy sense of wonder and respect.

          It's the pursuit not je end that is worthwhile.

          Best regards,
      • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jul 31 2013: god in this sense seems to be describing our ignorance about the universe.
      what it is and why it is this way.
      not necessarily a person or intelligence.

      to assume a person or intlligence is behind these unknowns is simoly an argument from ignorance.

      the order in a crystal does not require any agency. as to the fundamental nature and existence of the universe there is no sign of any agency just human nature to assume one to explain stuff we dont understand.

      there could be agency but just in the same way little gods might be arranging atoms in a crystal. they could be. but know way to know if magical undetectible agency behind anything and everything.

      the reasonable position seems to be to withold belief on the claims of invisible agency whether it be for crystaks, gravity, disease, universe origins etc until there is sufficient evidence.

      ignorance is not evidence for agency.
    • thumb
      Jul 31 2013: then why explain with or label what we do not understand, god?

      seems to be personifying ignorance?
  • J R

    • +2
    Aug 5 2013: The subject of how can God exist outside of space and time has been discussed and the subject has evolved , that is normal simply because if one for example talks about the existence of say a carrot then the subject will evovle, overall we acquire a greater and wider understanding, time and space however have no material existence, time is but a man made sun calander time and space is the void with matter in it , space itself cannot be touched seen felt , its the very question einstein would fail to answer me if I asked him how he managed to fuse time and space to create spacetime by which his GR is based upon.
    As for the existence of God and the creation of life to continue the subject below then the odds of a complex molecule as noted by the astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle made a statement using Rubik’s cube in order to illustrate the likely odds of acquiring a solitary biopolymer molecule. These biopolymers or to be exact biological polymers, which are large molecules, such as found in nucleic acids or found in proteins. Sir Fred then demonstrates by the illustration below as to the improbability of evolution and natural selection managing anything.
    At all events, anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the Rubik cube will concede the near impossibility of a solution being obtained by a blind person moving the cubic faces at random. Now imagine 1050 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling at just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only biopolymers but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.
    If one delves deeply into scientific hypothesis one will realise that proof of anything within seems lacking other than they have the dogmatic presence of science dominating.
  • Mind S 30+

    • +2
    Aug 4 2013: Ross,
    I notice that the talk of Dr. Gerald Schroeder forms the corner stone of your posts. I like to share with some reflections.

    A scientist, particularly one with a religious commitment, isn’t expected to always behave and think scientifically and some scientific workers still bear medieval mindset. Persons of this sort have psychological drives, emotional tendencies and a legacy of theistic programming that decelerate the horses of reason and logic. A bench mark is that these people can’t get along with uncertainties/unanswered questions (as though one has to decipher all ultimate puzzles in one’s life time) and thus feel an urge to accept absolute, final, though irrational, answers to find personal peace, tranquility and comfort. These non-scientific drives make some smart people say very stupid things and commit gross errors.
    It is like the example of that scientist who was attending a conference on smoking and cancer with a cigarette in his mouth and when he was asked why he said “I know that what I do is non-logical but I can’t do otherwise”.

    On the necessity of ethics and honesty I completely agree with you and this also points to the fact that acquiring intelligence or talent in certain discipline doesn’t guarantee personal maturity or foster humanitarian attitudes. These aspects represent other traits of the human personality (note how a genius like Newton was actually an aggressive, revengeful man and participated actively in anti-Catholic politics)
  • thumb
    Aug 2 2013: Friends,
    The past few hundred years have witnessed a significant degree of tension between science and religion. Since very early on, religion has provided a certain way of making sense of the world -- a reason why things are the way they are. In modern times, scientific explorations have provided their own pictures of how the world works, ones which rarely confirm the pre-existing religious pictures. Roughly speaking, science has worked to apparently undermine religious belief by calling into question the crucial explanatory aspects of that belief; it follows that other aspects (moral, spiritual, cultural) lose the warrants for their validity.
    In ancient times religious concepts and mandates were unquestionable-some still think that way today- and state enforced(today that also happens) Can God exist beyond space & time (spacetime) ? would've been sacrilege.
    With the refinement of the scientific method science reaches conclusions based on observations (filtered by scientific process) rather than just stating : "Venus IS the goddess of Love" a non-seen(or measured) event. The answers is to hide Venus in a realm beyond measure, making the goddess either unknowable or impossible. The only Venus left to mankind is the one inside the person mind and to that "version" of the goddess aim worship and praying.

    Osiris was very "real" to the Egyptian charioteer, as Ares to Greek archer, countless people in these and other cultures believed in the veracity of their faith.They "baptized" children they consecrated homes , they pray for blessings etc.Just as we do in 2013.
    I'm looking for a complete, coherent, and simple way for understanding reality, Deities make things complex, there are alternative explanations which do not require anything outside a completely formal, materialist description.God(S) are a venerable conclusion, brought up to date by modern cosmology; but the dialogue between people who feel differently will undoubtedly last a good while longer.

    • thumb
      Aug 3 2013: Dude, the further I scroll down the more comments I see deleted, more than in other conversations... am I next?... what is going on?...

      Anyways, I think you would really like a four volume work entitled 'The Masks of God' by Joseph Campbell that traces "religion" through Primitive Mythology, Oriental Mythology, Occidental Mythology, and Creative Mythology. Most people have NO IDEA how close-minded and culture-biased their deepest, most sincere, most individualized thinking is. Time and space are much better cult leaders and brain washers than anyone gives them credit for. A large one volume recommendation would be Sir James Frazer's 'The Golden Bough'

      Once you see the continuity in how humankind has conceived of the world and their place in it through all the advances (evolutionary, technologically, and otherwise), it becomes sooooo much easier to see how how f-ing complicated and yet eerily clear things are....
      • thumb
        Aug 3 2013: Daniel,
        The long arm of TED is at play(i guess). It's been volatile at times, I remember "The Power of the Myth" PBS series & book , I think I have it in my library ,I'll dust it off and have a gander.

    • thumb
      Aug 3 2013: Eerily clear.... I mean, like, send a satellite/spaceship like Voyager out into the unknown with a little treasure trove of human-kind-so-far on it.... a little of the best of all of our something out into such great nothing and that really puts everything into perspective...
  • thumb
    Jul 31 2013: Did space, time, matter, energy, etc. exits before the big bang?
    And could there be a parallel dimension in which the big bang never happened?

    Here is an imagination exercise: Try imaging a dimension a in which the big bang resulted in light instead of matter.

    *We have 118 chemical-elements; it has 118 light-elements.
    *We have conscious life made of groups of chemical-elements; it has conscious life made of groups of light-elements.
    *We have time, and I would think Albert Einstein would say “time is meaningless there”.
    *could the life there be what religions calls Angels?

    HeHeHe, enjoy!
    • thumb
      Jul 31 2013: Don,
      You ask an extremely important and valid question that dazzles scientists all over the world (folks get up every morning to work on it)! It's still an open question. Perhaps nothing existed, Perhaps another universe or a different version of our own. Perhaps a sea of universes, each with a different set of laws dictating its physical reality.
      To your second question: a second parallel dimension in which (our?) BB did not happened? or it didn't have one of its own? -to me?-unknown-

      Man, what a Question !

  • thumb
    Jul 30 2013: I take a fairly simple approach to this question. What does space and time exist inside of?

    We know space and time exists. If everything must exist inside of space and time... then that would mean that space and time would have to exist inside itself in order to exist, but that doesn't make any sense. Therefore there must be some property which allows space and time to exist without it having to exist inside something else.

    Objects within space and time are spatial and temporal objects, and therefore require the spatial and temporal dimensions, via space and time, to exist. SpaceTime itself cannot be a spatial or temporal object, for it would require itself to exist before it could exist... within itself. Since spaceTime doesn't need to be a spatial or temporal object, then I imagine it isn't too far of a stretch to say that there are other objects that are not spatial or temporal. Some of these non spatial or temporal objects may very well be used to generate space and time itself, like some trans-dimensional machine, but thats an idea for a later date.

    So not only could God exist beyond spaceTime, many many other things could as well.

    That's my opinion anyway, not scientifically proven fact by any means , but I think it holds up pretty well.
    • thumb
      Jul 30 2013: Sterling,
      Spacetime is "all else" at any given point in the known universe is "the" container.It does not require a "place to exist , it is "the" place itself." objects that are not spatial or temporal" is not logical since "to be" in any place(in this universe or other) any object would have to exist in a place and a time(otherwise there will be no object to exist).
      We can postulate the existence of a place that is beyond our known space & time but so far no-one has come up with the goods.

      Interesting post Sterling!
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jul 30 2013: Some,
          No contradiction-Even those particles that pop in and out existence posted in our space- time continuum.

          Is Space, there is no-nothing, and things do exists in spacetime.

      • thumb
        Jul 31 2013: Carlos,
        Do you think that existence depends solely on having a place and a time assigned to something, allowing it to exist? If yes, then why?
        • thumb
          Jul 31 2013: Sterling,
          Something or anything that exists in this -our universe- exists(or existed) in objective spacetime. Short answer-Yes-
          I don't follow Plato's form theory,
          I think about it in this terms: Let's say I have a glass jar and inside of it is the "perfect" medication that cures cancer. You and I will see that is empty(unfortunately).

          So,we may imagine a medication that indeed could cure such a disease,but in the realm of the imaginary or the ideas -well is useless - unless, unless the idea is available as a fact in this spacetime that is, it can be obtained in a place and a given time. It will be a lot of hard work,-even luck-who knows? to bring such a blessing to mankind.

          Or like in Engineering, you can have an idea of the "perfect bridge" or you may think that a "perfect bridge" is independent from your conscious idea of it and has some sort of metaphysical existence of its own (who in a metaphysical realms needs bridges, or perfect bridges for that matter?) but to me the "bridge" is the we one that was planned and built and folks and vehicles transit on.
          Are my ideas the "truth"?- I don't know -but they sure work for me.

          Thanks Sterling.
      • thumb
        Jul 31 2013: Interesting Carlos.
        To make sure I am following you: Do you think that, just because all that we know exists in spacetime, everything existent must be in spacetime? Does that not sound like a limited answer to you?

        As I see things there is a vast unknown that we are discussing, and heck that's what a good chunk of science is based around, the unknown. I, along with others, am simply proposing ideas to explain various possibilities of existence outside spacetime. So just because we don't know of existence outside of spacetime doesn't mean that it's not possible, but you seem to make it sound completely impossible. Just because a problem is difficult we should not stop questioning, we keep at it pushing the boundaries of what we don't know. I want to keep pushing beyond to the unknown, even if I fail trying.
        • thumb
          Jul 31 2013: Sterling
          Man I can't agree more! we should keep questioning everything, absolutely! (sounds pretty much as something I would've said!)
          In the other hand you can fly a kite really high as long as your feet are on the "ground".

          Now can we have an idea of a being existing in realm that is not "this" universe? -yes!

          And yes everything must exist in the spacetime we live in-this universe- , Now does that means that maybe another physicists may demonstrate such "realms"possible in such a way that we can reproduce results or look at their math etc,in other words "something to sink our teeth into" I would love to see the work.

          But this is all we have, (IMO)

          And that said folks have the freedom to perceive reality as they may.As I posted prior think of the ancient Romans & Greeks, imagine how many of them lived and died in a culture that worshiped deities that today we consider just "figments "of ancient imaginations( yet we don't think that way of the Acropolis or the Colosseum or their literature and ideas that were the underpinning of our western civilization) Imagine how many Roman & Greek soldiers pray to their alabaster or marble deity figurine before combat. IMO we have not changed much in that regard.

          Let's keep trying even if failure lurks in the shadows!

      • thumb
        Jul 31 2013: Carlos I thank you for this very fun back and forth discussion!

        While we may not agree fully on the matters of existence within or without spacetime I think we are at the point where we can, at the very least, see respect in each others opinions. :)

        I'd like to leave you with a final thought of mine. I came up with an idea when I was around 12 or 13 years old that stuck with me for awhile. Bear in mind it's just an idea and I understand this fully, but it could serve as a starting point for proof toward non-spatial and non temporal objects.

        When approaching a black hole time begins to slow. The closer you get, the slower time will be. Now we mathematically can describe what happens, but only up to the point BEFORE time slows to zero. After that we are not sure, but there you may possibly find evidence for non-temporal objects because there would be no time, theoretically of course.

        I also noticed that similar things happen when approaching the speed of light with time dilation. Time slows, but interestingly enough length also shortens from the viewpoint of the object. If you take a photon, from its point of view time would be standing still and the length of the universe would zero. Light itself, at least from its perspective, may not be spatial or temporal. Maybe thats why light doesn't take up space.(also theoretical)

        I know there are plenty of far fetched things I have mentioned and they may just be the product of an overactive imagination, but hey Einstien did say "Imagination is more important than knowledge."

        Thanks again Carlos!
        • thumb
          Aug 1 2013: Sterling,
          In order to move from one place to another always takes a little time, no matter how fast you’re traveling. But “time slows down close to the speed of light”, and indeed at the speed of light no time passes at all. So how can light get from one place to another?

          Photons don't have a past or future and instantly go from birth to death, so to speak from their point of view(if that was possible). They don't even have mass so they can bounce off things and would never even feel it if they had the time. The entire universe is contracted into an infinitesimally small point in front of them so they can't see anything if they had the time. I'm sure it would be pretty boring except t they just don't have the time to begin to get bored.

          My pleasure Sterling!
    • Jul 30 2013: Great post Sterling!

      Your description of the universe as "the container" and spacetime as "all else" within the container, reminds me a bit of Platos Allegory of the Cave. Are you familiar?

      Best regards,
      • thumb
        Jul 30 2013: Steve,
        I was using the idioms of Sterling, or paraphrasing to what I thought he was trying to convey on the above post, and yes I'm familiar with Plato's Cave Allegory.

  • J R

    • +2
    Jul 30 2013: There is nothing that exists today that has not got an outside area to it? apply this to the big bang theory and explain how it could possibly not only have started the expansion with a given force, but to actually continue the expansion when it is evidently obvious to any would be scientist that the big bang would have to increase the force on a continuous basis to continue the expansion given the fact that the universe requires a greater input of energy to expand its boundaries ie if you were to blow into a huge balloon as big as the earth then you would require greater input of energy as it got bigger otherwise the outward pressure would force itself back onto you ? in short has anybody measured any extra energy to this day ? It would be impossible to expand an entity like the big bang seed into an area that it would create itself; you simply cannot create a space with a force of energy and expect that space to continue to expand unless the rate of expansion had an ever increasing source of greater energy.
    Let off a bomb under water and see the source of explosion fall back unto itself and fill up with water again? How would you keep that from falling back into itself?
    I think it’s time that we got rid of the big bang as so much stands against it and its only because it sounds good that the scientific media keep it as a basis for a beginning, big difference however from having a void that is infinite as in reality there can only be nothing but an endless void, explaining the matter within this void however leads to science and religion who never agree.

    What must not be forgotten is that we must not oversee our ability to delude ourselves when it comes to theoretical physics, none of which carries any sure fire proof including the theory of gravity from which most if not all space science relies upon? Yes we have a measurement but we have no actual gravity or graviton or gravitational waves yet we have ended up with so many space phenomena beyond comprehension.
    • Jul 30 2013: John,
      I sense your frustration. I would disagree with you on your assertion that we "get rid of the big bang theory...", in much the way I would disagree with anyone who wanted to get rid of the concept of God. The big bang theory conveys a sense of meaning and wonder to many, in much the same way that the concept of God does for others, and we should respect that.

      We all (science, religious, or anything in between) should recognize our limitations and approach one anothers views with an attitude of humility and respect.

      Best regards,
      Best regards,
      • J R

        • 0
        Jul 30 2013: Steve Lokers , me frustration no mate I have an Analytical mind and unfortunnately I may also have a larger conscious, my thought experiments bring forth an alternative understanding , the downside is that they also tend to put many cats amongst the pigeons. The big bang is an obstacle preventing us from understanding the universe, we have been given the view by science as it understands what it observes in conjunction with mechanical instruments, place all this with its laws of physics past and present discoveries along with respected professors and we find that science and all the related space sciences have become master magicians.
        Reality is that the picture that science portrays has been painted with many ( IF's ) using invisible ink, ? If we are to understand the universe and thoroughly teach those that come after us then we must be clean and to the point when we teach certain space subjects.
        Gravity has not yet been discovered ok its the basis for all that science stands upon, its space science main foundation and has been on shaky ground and will remain on shaky ground until it is either proven or disproven, all related subjects based on gravity are based on theoretical assumptions ok ? blackholes are called such dark matter and dark energy and dark flow are all based on a big bang begining ok yet nobody ever questions that hubble got it wrong ? yes he observed galaxies moving away and due to their light waves concluded that the universe was and is expanding ? ok lets take another theory , lets suppose the universe began with a humongous shpere or a star of creation ? this ejected matter and that matter ejected matter in all directions, eventually the last final matter ejections which are now what we call the galaxies , then hubble came along and saw that looking back then he would conclude that the first set of matter ejections travel further and the second matter ejectiosns would travel less until a universe is created oops we have an expanding universe?
      • thumb
        Jul 31 2013: isnt the bbt based on evidence and observations.

        whereas god beliefs are generally cultural contructs or more generic assumptions of agency out of ignorance.

        science provides explanations of the processes along the way.

        intelligent agency hypothesis essentialky fill knowlege gaps with magic.

        dont know. god did it. how? magic.
  • thumb
    Jul 23 2013: Colleen....Hello there. Thanks for the thumbs up. You know I always value your input. (Especially if you agree with me) lol
    • W T 100+

      • +1
      Jul 27 2013: Helen, please do not reply to this comment from your email directly.

      I have shared this information with you before, here it goes once again.........if you reply to TED comments directly from your email, by clicking "reply to it Here".....your comment will end up appearing on the conversation as a NEW comment. And, the person who you are attempting to converse with WILL NOT KNOW that you answered them......

      Please, take the time to come back, and hit the "Red Reply" button next to the name of the TED member who you are speaking with, so that you can actually enjoy a conversation, because they WILL get an email alert that you have replied to them.....Otherwise, your wonderful replies will show up like these four.......just sitting here, without any responses.

      I hope you don't mind my trying to help you one more time.

      Sending smiles your way......Mary

      [All capital letters used were used for emphasis, and not because I was raising my voice]
      • thumb
        Jul 28 2013: Mary,
        Helen has been participating on TED for a long time, she pops in and out every once in awhile, and I have the idea that she knows what she is doing regarding the reply option. Helen's comment was clear to me, and I didn't feel that it needed a response.
    • thumb
      Jul 28 2013: Hello there Helen:>)
      For what it's worth, I saw your comment above the day you wrote it, and didn't feel that a response was needed:>)
    • W T 100+

      • 0
      Jul 28 2013: So, Helen, is Colleen right?

      Do you reply to people like that on purpose?

      I'll wait for your reply, and then I'll delete my suggestions.
      • thumb
        Jul 29 2013: Hi Mary...Thank you for your advice, but I do use thered reply button when it is available. Sometimes thre is simply nothing there so I usually address it to the person I am trying to reach.(:>)
  • thumb
    Jul 21 2013: I just hope that you realize that the metaphysical claims of religion are saying that they know something they can't know. Yes. That's what they say, that God is too complex for our understanding and offset from the universe. Yet they "know" he exists. They are claiming to know something that they can't know but are saying so anyways.

    Claiming to know of spirituality is also another claim often made. There is no spirit within me. What's in me is a heart pumping blood.

    You see, humans have the presumptuous burden of pattern making. We see the universe and ourselves and how it looks so neatly put together and come to the conclusion of well, someone must have designed it! This then builds upon itself with claims and rituals and coincidental sacrifices. But no one's mind is truly open till they are free of this pattern.
    • thumb
      Jul 22 2013: Brendan,
      Well said,That's the burden: that reason burns on one side and faith comforts on the other-yet mutually exclusive- ,a cognitive dissonance looking for consonance-sometimes at any cost-. I gather that model is doomed to failure as a young generation with more access to information -at least in most western cultures- can see science for what it is instead of the semantic contortions shot from different pulpits.

      Look at the KKK(I'm not saying that the KKK is the same as mainstream religious groups or good people in general) and their twisted views, -some of those KKK member attended church -like clockwork- Now, as a product of old fears and bigotry they died down as new generations saw trough their ignorance, and by Heroes like Jackie Robinson and others, that showed how patently absurd their beliefs were. And so from having huge numbers and congressmen etc, today they are juts a small minority confined to local townships and soon a thing of the past.It was a belief system that unfortunately took the lives of too many people- just for a belief with no evidence-. With no open dialogue in a respectful manner: And from individuals to Nations that is where the crux lies.
      Here in the USA you have vestiges of public ignorance, when you hear government officials stating that women have a biological mechanism to stop a pregnancy(legitimate rape) as they are being raped, abortion leads to cancer ,masturbating fetuses, Darwinian evolution is "just a Theory", Global warming is bogus etc-. And this drives a cultural wedge nationwide that is at its core religious.

      “Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.” ~ Rep. Michele Bachmann USA

      Thanks !!
  • thumb
    Jul 19 2013: Enjoy the ride Shawn. Try to remember this is supposed to be a collaboration, not a competition. I have failed to remember that occasionally. I'm full of penned up anger,and frustration, for a thousand classic reasons. I also have a deep need to be part of a polite, nurturing, environment of intellectual curiosity, mutual support, calm sensible conversation. The discussions have been great. I'm afraid I have let some of my anger cloud my responses once or twice. Unlike other sites I find the people here are generally more intelligent, and willing to engage in the art of reason.
    Keep calm and stay mellow. No one is hear to attack you. Unless you say something really stupid : ) I've never been guilty of that : ) "Chow!"
    • Jul 20 2013: Again I must thank you. Man you got my number. I love what your saying here and it is my goal live up to it.
  • thumb
    Jul 14 2013: For all my friends out there who are trying to sort out their individual view of the world I have a suggestion. Take the time to watch an old PBS, series by Joseph Campbell, and Bill Moyer (The Power of Myth ) available free at Google Videos It's not exactly the easiest to make sense of. He discusses his life's work of studying the (myths, and religious practices) of hundreds of cultures around the globe. In doing so he provides us an opportunity to explore our own myths, and perceptions of our own universe. One sees the commonalities that exist between powerful wide ranging religions, like Catholicism, Islam, and primitive cultures rituals of animism such as the Crocodile people In New Guinea' . The big thing I took away was the concept that each ritual, or belief system fulfilled a primitive human need. They each did it in their own way. It demonstrates the human propensity to simplify the world in order to make sense of it, and control it to the extent that he can. Hundreds even thousands of gods have been filling the psychological needs of mankind. Who's the owner of the truth?
    • thumb
      Jul 15 2013: Peter,
      "Who's the owner of the truth?" In the religious context - Objectively-none, Subjectively- all. The use of religion to seek answers is akin to using a saw to tighten a screw.

      "Truth is by nature self-evident. As soon as you remove the cobwebs of ignorance that surrounds it, it shines clear"- Gandhi

      • thumb
        Jul 15 2013: Theres a lot of cob webs hanging around these days. Time for some dusting I think. I hate labels, because they restrict people, their personalities, and beliefs, to little boxes that don't fit. People might describe me as agnostic. I grew up Irish Catholic. I say (Irish catholic), because that contains a huge set of characteristics that go along with it. I saw through the silly fantasies of religious dogma early in life, but the concepts of (love thy neighbor as thy self ) service, frugality, compassion, sobriety, and civil justice stayed with me. These are the good messages I took from my experience as a former Christian. I've thrown away the poison of superstition, dogma, and sectarian religious separatism. We all get to decide what truth is for ourselves, by using our own senses. The concept of a deity is something personal to every human being. Until they lash out in judgement, and hatred in an attempt to impose their personal interpretation on others They have no enemy in me. Fundamentalist radicalism however, is a cancer on civilization. We need a vaccine.
  • thumb
    Jul 8 2013: Books like the bible, and Quran are certainly powerful literature, and a solution for some. They allow people to unload the burden of introspection, and exploration. They prescribe a strict set of guidelines for behavior and the nature of existence. It's a map to guide them through the complexities of life without worrying about the details, a method of social control. Unfortunately for many millions, it leaves them hopeless, confused, empty, and bitter when the realities of this temporal world must be confronted. There will always be far more mysteries than religion, or science can explain. One has to use the only tools we have to understand the world. That is the use of our senses, sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch, and thought. On the level of the infinitesimally small one has to confront the reality that at one time, space itself, and light which defines our world, and matter which gives substance to it didn't exist according to the latest greatest calculations, at least in ways humans can perceive. Yet instinct and experience tells us that all things come from somewhere, the question is where, and how. Beyond the deepest darkest reaches of our telescopes and our mathematical equations lies yet other questions of boundaries or the lack of them.
  • thumb
    Jul 5 2013: Take a look at quantum physics and you will start to see that things are not what the seem.
    • Jul 5 2013: Take a look at the human genome and things are not at all what they seem. Absolutely.
  • Comment deleted

    • J R

      • +1
      Aug 5 2013: That was an awesome read , enjoyed your views , many do not realise that the majority of scientists working in the fields of cosmology are amazed at the grand design and have seccumbed to the conclusion that given the beauty of the universe that there has to be a grand designer. Most obviosly will refrain from speaking about it due to the system making them ostracized should they speak up, ie eric laithweight was an example.
  • thumb
    Aug 3 2013: @Carlos Marquez - I have learned one thing here, & one thing only, & I shall always value that knowledge. The alternatives are clear. And each alternative comes with it's own set of consequences.

    To clarify, I offer a concept that Psychiatrists/Psychologists call "reality testing." In evaluating a patient for mental disturbance, the goal is to determine how "in-touch" they are with the world around them. The medical question is: "Is 'reality testing' intact? Or is 'reality testing' impaired?" If impaired, there is a medical problem! More work for the doctor.

    "Reality Testing" is how you differentiate between a hologram, a virtual image, an hallucination, or a tangible object you can carry in your pocket! Is the marble on the pedestal substantial & real? Or just a virtual image. The way to tell is to touch it. "Reality Testing" is how you find out! Everything else is just daydreaming; or worse, delusional. Hallucinations are no substitute for reality.

    1. Valid, reproducible, measured, & productive science is real. Valid science is "reality tested." If that's how things work today, that's how they will work tomorrow. If something goes wrong, you have more science to do. That's how you tell! That's "Reality Testing." Perhaps "science" is not a noun but a verb. Let's "SCIENCE" that idea! Let's 'reality test' our thought. That is the very substance of human progress. That is what is real. We should 'science' our reality.

    2. The alternative is not good. I value religious traditions. I value ideas based in cultural paradigms. And if anything, this thread demonstrates the need for RESPECT in regard to those values/ideas. But when those notions begin to oppose science, and concepts of valid, reproducible, measured, reality-tested, science, we risk impairment. We risk delusion. Hallucinations are no substitute for reality.

    @Daniel Early - I deleted most of my stuff here because I didn't believe it anymore. It made the thread better.
    • thumb
      Aug 3 2013: Juan/Alexander,

      That ol'e relationship between subject & object no wonder is called objectivity.

      Be well friends!
  • Aug 2 2013: If we assume there is a God and that He created both time and space, along with all known and unknown matter He'd have to be harbor pretty bad ass scientific mind (think molecules on the ancient pertri dish eventually turning into modern society after a few billion years).

    Having said that, since He hypothetically created it, His sheer knowledge of His creation would allow for a completely scientific explanation for such a phenomenon.

    Its not that it is impossible- a lot of perfectly wonderful advancements have been made by the rational mind in regards to scientific knowledge that, prior to discovery were thought "impossible". Human beings just haven't figured out how to do it themselves yet.
    • thumb
      Aug 2 2013: Darlington,


      • thumb
        Aug 3 2013: Wait, wait, wait. I'm not sure if I thumbs-upped correctly. Excuse me for being blunt, but I don't believe there is a god at all and I'm not sure now if you think there is or not. I still want to thumbs-up you because it is a really good topic and I've enjoyed reading ALL the comments whether I agree or disagree or laugh, outloud and long, even though inwardly I'm snickering derisively and haughtily while painting a face onto the rock I am going to start worshipping with the beginning of the next full moon.
        • thumb
          Aug 3 2013: Daniel,
          I'm glad that you've been entertained & informed. I don't believe there is enough evidence to support the thesis of the existence of any deities they are either impossible to know or impossible logically,undefined and Indeterminate (like dividing by 0)

          What you write reminds me of a Tom Hawnks movie in which he mentally morphed his bloody hand print on a volleyball surface into an imaginary friend "Wilson" Happy trails!

  • Comment deleted

  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jul 31 2013: Alberto,
      I see the design argument: order and purpose in the universe as evidence of it having been created by God. This view is found in Cicero and the ancient Greeks and was quite likely the oldest reason people had for believing in God. The Design Argument is a 'teleological' argument based on the evidence of design a lot of people see in the world around them, and as such has the possible strength of being based on empirical observation rather than the abstract reasoning.
      There is certainly not perfect order in the world, with, for example, the universe expanding until eventually there's nothing left. But what order and design there is is still impressive, and you might say that it is fantastically unlikely that it came about by chance, even if a God is not proven. The Epicurean hypothesis of ancient philosophy comes up with a convincing answer to this, saying that even in a random, chaotic universe order would still develop. There is such a thing as an ordered, constant, self-perpetuating state of affairs (we are living in one) and once such a state came about by chance (the current order took several billion billion years of prehistory in the universe) it would tend to stay for a long time, otherwise it would not be order.

      Of course, the most famous natural explanation for apparent design in the world is evolution.Which explains apparent design in humans and (other) animals in terms of natural selection whereby those animals who develop the best features through random mutation of the species survive to pass on those genes, while those who don't die out. This explains why we don't see any completely undesigned animals: they've all died out.

      "Which one is wrong ?" that is completely up to you & me.

      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 1 2013: Alberto,
          I don't claim a universe ex nihilo, BB is just fine with me as a naturalistic explanation, and the heavily tested theory of evolution by natural selection is also well accepted by the scientific community and me.

          There is plenty of math describing the way the universe behaves from gravity to EMR,sound,blood pressure, orbits, etc.

          I'm not interested in getting into an evolution v creation debate at this thread, I think that has been looked at on another threads. Still a conversation worth having, but not our topic.

      • thumb
        Jul 31 2013: hi carlos my understanding is evolution is not all about murations. some of the changes in gene frequency are do to variation. taller offspring may survive to pass on tall genes more often in some environments. until being too tall becomes a net negative.
    • thumb
      Jul 31 2013: The scientific view is based on what is supported by evidence.

      It acknowledges there are gaps

      It doesn't fill in gaps with unsupported speculation or overly creationist beliefs that are are not supported by evidence.

      You misrepresent some of the science. Natural selection is not entirely random for example.

      The scientific view may seem cold and meaningless.

      To me the truth matters, not what some would like to be true.

      The position based on evidence has a better standing than super aurist speculation.

      I would add that to me what science tells us is awe inspiring.

      While we don't have evidence to say we are the plaything of magical brings or even loving creations, you can still find meaning in life without some arbitrary god given purpose.

      In summary some of what you say is scientific is a bit wrong, but science is supported by evidence. The other is a speculative possibility we can not verify. The tone about how you feel about life and the universe if you just rely on science is yours, not mine.

      The natural universe as per science is magnificent and my short time in existence is something I value.

      The creation
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 1 2013: Firstly the idea of turning 0 into the universe is pretty much the level of detail you have from creationists. Some traditions say some god for which there is no evidence or explanation spoke the universe into existence with no details of how. Magic.

          Secondly as I stated we don't have established theories on absolutely everything. There are gaps. We haven't figured out the laws of physics right to t=0. But through quantum mechanics, relativity and observations looking back billions of years we have a pretty good idea in lots of parts of the evolution of the universe. The explanations of what we know through science are complex and detailed and there for you to investigate. Physicists are not making stuff up with no physical basis. Look it up.

          While it is not a done deal, the scientific examination of the universe shows we have a universe that has the properties of something that could come from nothing. Eg the net energy is 0. You ask for a formula in layman's terms 0 = 1-1. The positive energy is offset by the negative energy of gravity.

          A lot of this is counter intuitive. Matter bends space and time. Gravity acts on light etc.

          Now if your position is you think a supernatural agency is the best answer, for which there is no evidence, until every detail is worked out to your satisfaction, thats just the god of the gaps, an argument from ignorance.

          If we had stuck to this thinking then invisible agents would still be used to account for lightning, disease, floods as per Zeus and Yahweh.

          Finally, the scientific explanations deal with the natural universe there could still be gods holding atoms together or causing gravity etc. We can not tell. So there is still space for unverifiable gods. But my view is a god forvwhichb therre is no evidence and doesn't seem to be required might as well not exist, but there is the possibility.

          A few hundred years ago we hadn't figured out evolution, we only knew of one galaxy, this one, or that the sun was mostly hydrogen.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 2 2013: im okay not kniwing everything and not plugging the gaps with supernatural explanations.

          assuming an agency a law giver is just n argument from ignorance. a fallacy.

          you seem uncomfortable with not having natural explanations for everything. you seem to ignore that we have a lot of science on the universe, its nature and evolution.

          yet on the other side you seem accepting of suoernatural agency. you are comfortable with magic based on ignorance and personal increduality no evidence and ignore how far we have come with science.

          i find the different standards odd.

          if there is a law giver then there must be a law giver giver to explain the law giver, if your argument assumes magical agency whenever you like.
        • thumb
          Aug 2 2013: theres some whacky logic in your law giver argument.

          its not evidence of a god. its an argument from ignorance. you dont have any evidence of the law giver let alone of it making the laws of physucs or how it did it.

          you just assume agency is the best explanation just like people assume invisible magical agencies are behind disease, lightning.

          how do you know an agency is the only explanation for the laws of physics?

          where is the evidence of agency doing this.

          there is none. you cant think of a better explanation so assume some undetectable unexplined supernatural magic.

          just because we can define a magic plug for any and every gap and you dont know or dont acceot natural explanations doesnt make it a logical or evidence based argument.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 2 2013: an egg is not a universe. that is a slight categorisation fallacy.

          if i see a mountain do i assume a mountain layer laid it?

          it is completely illogical . its an assertion with no evidence.

          its an argument from ignorance.

          and i guess followed by the fallacy of special pleading.

          what agency created your law giver.

          you have made some insightful and interesting comments. however this statement is logically bonkers, im surprised you can not see why.
        • thumb
          Aug 2 2013: what proof do you have that the physical constants must have been created by some agency.

          not fallacious comparisons. where is your evidence to support this assertion. not the bogus fine tuning argument from ignorance.

          show us how you know. prove it.
    • Aug 2 2013: Well Alberto, most of the universe is in a constant state of chaos. It is a rather obvious coincidence that our planet would allow life simply due to the sheer number of planets in the universe. The universe may seem perfect, but it is actually an extremely harsh place. Eventually, it will completely disorganize due to the second law of thermodynamics. The second law is also one of the many reasons why an omnipotent being cannot exist. Your deity is supposedly capable of infinite existence and infinite power, however, no organized system can remain organized for an indefinite amount of time without decaying. This effect can be observed wherever you look. The claim of infinite power also runs us smack dab into the law of conservation of energy, that is, no system can use in infinite amount of energy in a finite amount of area. The universe is finite , therefore, only a certain amount of energy can exist. The universe is expanding from a central point and thus must be finite. We know this because of the Doppler shift of distant galaxies. Remember, we humans don't just imagine these laws, we observe them in action. Just because you don't understand the universe does not mean that the gaps should be automatically filled in with theological claims. You do nothing but cheat yourself by doing so simply because theology offers no rational basis for its contents and instead offers immoral concepts and silly hypotheses. Theology arises from ignorance.
      • thumb
        Aug 2 2013: you said much nicer than me
        ignorance and increduality are not evidence or reasonable justification to plug in gap filler gods.
  • thumb
    Jul 30 2013: I think in today’s terminology it would be stated that there are three parallel dimensions, God, Heaven, and the dimension we are currently in.
    God and heaven are beyond are imagination/comprehension, for reasons like they do not follow this dimension rules like time, physics, cause and effect, etc.

    Here is some Food for thought;
    It has been said before enlightenment Buddha lived in the past, future and (rarely or not at all, I forget) in the present, but after enlightenment he lived just in the present. I feel there is a clue in this, but it beyond my comprehension.

    In other words;
    Schroeder’s cat’s death can be thought of in the past, present and future and the same time.
    So is God and heaven in a state of quantum mechanics?
    • thumb
      Jul 30 2013: Don,
      I agree that God & heaven are beyond the comprehensible, for it seems that such can't be pinned down by our rules of Physics etc,

      How do you arrive at the statement:" Buddha lived in the past, future and (rarely or not at all, I forget) in the present, but after enlightenment he lived just in the present." because ( please no offense intended) what process ,methodology was used to conclude that, and what does it mean?

      Schroeder’s cat's box once opened collapses the probability wave. And there is a cat & a box dead or alive.

      • thumb
        Jul 31 2013: With both Buddha and Schroeder (past, present and future) is a state of mind and/or a way of thinking.
        And our current state of mind and/or a way of thinking limited by our current body and/or dimension.
        But in another dimension and body/vessel we possibility have no limits in ways of thinking and experiencing events. And thus time is meaningless.
        • thumb
          Jul 31 2013: Don,
          Buddha & Schroeder-non-sequitur (at least I can't).

          Yes, we are limited by our frame of reference,state of mind, body limitations and if by dimension you mean spacetime? -then Yes-.

          "But in another dimension and body/vessel we possibility have no limits in ways of thinking and experiencing events. And thus time is meaningless." Don, I'm sorry I don't know what that sentence means.

          Please elaborate for more clarity.

    • thumb
      Jul 31 2013: again depends on your concept of god and heaven. there are and have veen many.

      i note the koran claims you can reach heavan by winged horse.

      i also note for your comment that heavan and god may be beyond somprehebsion and certainly not able to be tested. kind of speculative. and perhaps just a concept that can barely be defined so hard to determine its exustence. seems odd to believe in these based on logic and evidence.
      • thumb
        Jul 31 2013: As I said “in today’s terminology”, so a prophet may say the afterlife is in a quantum dimension.
        But if a prophet said “heaven is a quantum dimension”, hundreds or thousands of years ago it would have made no since to the people.
        And like wise in hundreds or thousands of years from now saying “heaven is a quantum dimension”, will sound primitive.

        Your right faith in god goes beyond evidence, if god wanted us to have proof we would have proof. So that would mean we are not meant to have proof, and lack of proof just means we can’t outsmart god.
        I have no dilutions of figuring it out, but find it a fun mental exercise.
  • Jul 30 2013: Some Christians will say that God is separate from our universe and therefore entirely self reliant. This, however, is a simple attempt at avoiding factual criticism. Saying that God is separate from space and time is a logical monstrosity simply because if it can interact with space-time it must be a part of space time. If something is not fundamentally a part of something else then it cannot intervene in anyway. Creationists will say anything in order to avoid rationalism.
    • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

      • Aug 2 2013: The difference is rather irrelevant in the context of my comment.
  • thumb
    Jul 29 2013: Wow. I haven't been on TED for a while. My honest answer is always a to ask about definitions before I can answer (sorry to be a pain). If you define things in such a way that "Time and Space" is equal to (or within) the mathematical set of "Existence", then if God is outside this set then you can conclude that God can't exist. However if you allow the possibility that things can exist which are outside time and space then God can exist. Does that make sense?
    With regards to Lawrence Krauss, I lack an understanding of Physics to Comprehend. So my answer is "Does not Compute". (Sorry!).
    Kind regards (as always),
    • thumb
      Jul 29 2013: Bernard,
      Hello old friend!
      We could use your common sense and input on this collaboration with Steve Lockers, I know you are a fair man and I hope Steve will see that as well. So if you want to hitch a ride here we go!

    • Jul 29 2013: Bernard,
      Agreed that definitions are of the utmost importance in a discussion such as this.
      What is meant by the phrase "mathematical set of Existence"? Could you elaborate?

      • thumb
        Jul 29 2013: A Great Question.
        One, unfortunately, I may not be able to answer to a satisfactory level. Yet I shall try nonetheless.
        The Mathematical Set of Existence, is the set which contains all the proprieties we commonly associate with Existence. So for instance does God exist? Well if you choose to define existence as things which are in the "Natural World", and God is not within the "Natural World". Then by definition, God does not exist. However if you choose to entertain the possibility, as Francis Collins does, that some things may exist outside the natural world then God "can" exist.
        This is effectively, If I drew a circle. In that Circle was Existence, and all the properties you required to be considered "existent". Then if God did not match any of these properties God would not exist. However, as said, this depends greatly on what you view "Existence" is.
        You can run into even more dilemma's. For instance : Is there a difference between "Essence and Existence"? (In my view : Not really).
        I hope I have explained my view. However the problem with this, is that you can also define God into existence. Take this Tautology :
        God is "Truth, Goodness, and Beauty in its purest forms".
        "Truth, Goodness, and Beauty" exist.
        Therefore God exists.
        It's quite complicated. Would take me a while to explain. However I think you get the gist.
        Definitions matter to the most important degree, before you can have any meaningful discussion.
        One Priest (and theologian) I once knew, put God into a category of Experience and argued that due to experiences being indefinable (which I disagreed with), then God was indefinable. Then I argued this conversation could go no further due to us having no shared meaningful definition. However then you can ask the other person to describe this experience, and ask why other people have different experiences, and why can't certain animals have this experience?
        • Jul 30 2013: Bernard,
          Thanks for the comments and summation. I would generally disagree with a definition of time and space as "the mathematical set of existence" on the basis that existence (which I believe includes you and I) is more than mathematics. I believe that physics might suggest the same.
          Agreed that tautology brings its own complications.
          I do believe that mutually agreeable terms can be found and that a shared and meaningful conversation can be had.

          Kind regards,
  • Jul 28 2013: It seems to me you're trying to explain something in terms that do not apply. "Existing yet not existing" is a self-contradictory statement. Something either exists or it doesn't. But our models may be insufficient to describe it.

    So, what we can't describe comes under another model we call God. There are many interpretations of what God is and we bring much to the table in describing attributes, but the one thing upon which I think we agree is that God is Spirit.

    There is no accounting for Spirit in the Standard Model. But the way in which it operates might be explained by entanglement. My layman's understanding is that particles having once been in contact may act as if they are still in contact even when separated by great distances. The influence of one to the other is not limited by the speed of light.

    If all particles were one at the BB, then they may all still be in contact today, influencing one another in ways that are not predictable because our model is insufficient. Spirit. "Supernatural" simply means outside our understanding. So, we apply a different model. We don't know as much about this one yet as we do our more familiar ones, but if it accurately describes the phenomena, why not investigate further. Even if it means rewriting the familiar.

    B.F. Skinner and Timothy Leary both did research at Harvard in the 50's on behavior modification. Skinner's ideas were accepted and Leary's rejected because Skinner used traditional methods and Leary's were non-traditional. But 60 years later, Leary's methodology (not the method of LSD, but the method of evaluating conditions and responses) is widely accepted. It's not Aristotelian, but it does describe phenomena usefully. It augments Skinner in ways his traditional methods could not predict.

    A variety of models might be necessary to describe what a single model cannot. We can know velocity or position, not both. That might be because we're using just one model.
    • thumb
      Jul 28 2013: Why not call what we can,t describe stuff we can not describe.

      Why personify it, or use the loaded word god that has billions of different interpretations.

      Other word god is almost useless for discussion.

      Ask people on ted to describe god and you get so many different interpretations becasuse there is nothing we can point to as evidence of their existence let alone their nature and desires.

      Ask people to define or explain spirit, whats it is and how it works and you are in the same mess becasuse its usually a mix of real stuff and magic with no evidence so people can speculate whatever.
      • Jul 28 2013: " its usually a mix of real stuff and magic with no evidence so people can speculate whatever."

        That's right. I'm just naming the model in a common way. Not trying to give it any particular attributes beyond those necessary to describe the phenomenon. There are endless interpretations, but the only ones that matter in physics are those observed to be physical in nature. Hence the "God" particle. It names the boson in a way that describes a heretofore predicted but unobserved physical phenomenon with characteristics that explain qualities we could only comprehend by using the term "God". Using that term does not seem to have interfered either with our quest to understand it or unduly influenced our conclusions about it based on observed behavior.
    • thumb
      Jul 28 2013: Kirk,
      I am trying to make sense of how can anything- let alone anyone- is right now beyond space and time. It may be either unknowable or impossible yet many of our friends do state it as a matter of fact. And that to me is where the crux lies.
      I do not agree that God is spirit for we have not defined neither.Just stating their existence like stating a realm beyond reality as a matter of fact does not make it true.

      Entanglement (IMO) does not explain spirits, nor I can find it in a Feynman diagram or as you say in the Standard model.

      Is a metaphysical question that some claim is real as apple pie, How do someone arrives to that conclusion?

      • Jul 28 2013: Carlos,

        We can't discount the possibility of things outside our space and time because our comprehension is limited. If at one time, the entire universe were contained in a single elementary particle, in what space did that particle exist? The question is framed this way because that's how we understand things. We cannot conceive (at least I can't) of all the universe reduced infinitesimally to a singularity without picturing it inside a space. I think we must adapt our thinking to the model insofar as it is reliable. But so far it has yet to explain how we must adapt to meet the requirements it places on us. Until we know how to adapt to this concept, that next step will be elusive.

        I'm not looking for entanglement to justify the existence of spirits, simply offering that this concept explains phenomena otherwise attributed to them. See my reply to Obey about the "God" particle.

        Accepting something as beyond space and time is useful for explaining our current results and providing new directions to explore even if it they are beyond our comprehension. Only by getting results from these postulates will we have comprehension.

        It seems you would like to be at this point. Can't say I blame you. But for me, different models explain different things. What works in one may not work in another. There's one choice when you work in physics and another when you work in social services. What makes the world go 'round? Money or Newton? The answer depends on how the question is asked. And if you don't know enough to ask the right question, you can expect a confusing answer.

        Please don't take that last statement as critical of you, Carlos. I think you have great questions. I've had them, too.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jul 26 2013: Juan,
      The classic battle: Reason vs Faith, to point a few,Voltaire, Kierkegaard, Kant, Unamuno, Wittgenstein, Russell, Feynman , Spinoza , Einstein, Galileo, Copernicus, Gosse and you too man!

      "El sueño de la razón produce monstruos" Francisco Goya
  • thumb

    E G 10+

    • +1
    Jul 26 2013: Carlos Marquez :

    Of course there are interpretations of the theory of relativity -- for example the meaning I give to it , the meaning you give to it , the meaning a peasant give to it , the meaning Einstein gave to it ......... etc . How can you say otherwise ? It's true that the relativity is applied to tehnical purposes but before being applied we already have it in mind , we already have an interpretation .

    May I know why do you disagree with me on how the things work ?

    The method is found in what is supposed to be God's message for us -- e.g. the Bible . You have the tools the get the rightful message out of it --- Which sect ? You'll find out then .

    In my opinion if faith (just belief) requires no evidence doesn't mean it is opposite to reason --- if reason is the capability to make sense of things and faith is belief then we can have a belief which make sense , therfore a reasonable belief . That's what scientist have all the times before they bring evidence for their theories .
    I think faith and reason are two complementary capabilities that human beings have .
    • thumb
      Jul 26 2013: EG,
      "Variations" on the Relativity based on subjectivism? -non sequitur

      You are assuming that the Bible is God's message, what about the Qur'an is Islam also God's message to us?
      Or the Epic of Gilgamesh? Or the Vedas? or just Only Christianity as you define it to be?

      Scientists do not use faith in the Lab, and your opinion of faith and reason is.. well your opinion.You are entitled to it.

      OK back to Quarterly Reports,