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".
        Regards,
        • 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

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdjQkuGTBMo


          Lenght contraction & Spacetime:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88WTEQwvJ9g

          Simultaneity and time Dilation:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRDN7ceu6UU


          Spacetime(University of Pittsburgh)

          http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/spacetime/


          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.

          Thanks!
      • 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"?

        Steve
        • 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.

          Carlos
      • 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.

        Thanks
      • 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
      Shawn

      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!"
      "How?"
      "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."
      "Oh..."

      Cheers!
    • 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.

      Thanks
      • 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.

          Thanks
      • 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 .

          Thanks
      • 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?

          Thanks!
      • 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 .


          Thanks
      • 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.

          Thanks
      • 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.

      Thanks
      • 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?

          Thanks.
      • 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?

          Thanks

          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?
  • 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.
  • 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.

    Thanks
    • 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.

        Thanks
    • 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?

    P.S.
    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,
      Wow!
      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 !

      Thanks!
  • 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.

          Thanks!
      • 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!

          Thanks!
      • 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!

      Carlos,
      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.

        Thanks
  • 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,
      • 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
    • 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:>)
    • 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

      Cheers!
      • 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

    • 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,

      If.

      Thanks
      • 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!


          Thanks.
  • Comment deleted

  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jul 31 2013: Alberto,
      Indeed,
      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.

      Thanks
      • 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.

          Thanks!
      • 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.


      Thanks!
      • 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.

          Thanks
    • 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),
    Bernard.
    • 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!

      Cheers!
    • 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?

      Thanks,
      • 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?


      Cheers!
      • 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

    • +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,

      Cheers!
  • thumb

    E G

    • +1
    Jul 25 2013: Carlos Marquez :

    You talk as if there aren't evidence for God --- but there are ; only that you can't just get up in the morning and realize all of the sudden that you are surrounded by evidence for God (especially if the type of evidence you ask for are more about reasoning , thoughts etc) ;
    If you want to know if God exists by reason you must think , you must research as well as the scientists do to prove their theories . And if you do this thing then you realize that there is absolutely normal to exist 40 000 interpretations of Christianities as well as there is normal to exist 40 000 interpretations of the theory of relativity ; but it doesn't mean that you can't see the theory of relativity beyond/in all of this .
    For example we call red a lot of nuances , does it mean there is no such colour as red ?

    Scientists make experiments to prove their theories , don't you think that in order to know if the theory of God is true we must make experiments too ?
    The kind of honest life I was talking about is not necessarily the same with the moral life --- the experiments that are required implies that type of life I was talking about . So yes , the moral life is not necessarily evidence for a deity but it leads to such evidence .

    I detect a kind of opposion between faith and reason in your comments ---- why do you have it ?

    There is no exercise in futility to try to find the truth .
    • thumb
      Jul 25 2013: EG,
      Just the fact that the Universe is -or that I get up in the morning is not evidence for any deity-.Deities are supernatural and thus beyond the realm of the scientific method for analysis.
      There are not 40,000 interpretations of Einstein Theory of relativity, Relativity equations are used in fields like GPS, physics ,and others but Relativity remains unchanged-unless you can point me to research that proves otherwise.Color and science are not religion -and what it empirically claims- You see EG Mormons(for example) claim that their version is "the" only way EVERYONE else is wrong now either they are ALL wrong or one is right (which one?) they are all mutually exclusive . Add to that all other world religions and their variations and repeat the process.
      I do not draw a comparison in methodology from science to religion- there is none-.
      The kind of evidence that you speak of is anecdotal & subjective. Is like measuring the supernatural vs 2 kg of Silver, ...
      Yes my point of contention with faith-based beliefs is that they are not questionable-why?!- faith ought to embrace questioning and examination. You see theist claim that deities are beyond any physical examination,evaluation,testing or measurement. Theoretically you can propose a God hypothesis , but to state unequivocally that such a god exists, and moreover is "the" god, is much stronger claim. Religious theists making this argument aren't stating a theoretical possibility in order to point out a potential flaw in atheists' argument, but are instead making a definitive knowledge claim. And how theists got there-by faith and revelation-most likely choices.
      Any alleged deity who is claimed to interact with the world we live in is a deity which should have empirical effects — and that constitutes potential evidence for or against the existence of said deity. Only gods without any impact on our world are beyond empirical investigation.

      Thanks!
      • thumb

        E G

        • 0
        Jul 25 2013: Look , let me put it this way :

        -we have text and we have the tools to get the rightful meaning of it (because we're people and we're smart people) ; may there be 10000000 interpretaions of the theory of relativity or of the sacred text , it doesn't matter ; what matters is that we can know the theory of relativity and what the sacred texts tell us .
        Which one is the correct interpretations ? Well, go to the texts and make their analysis . Unless the text is vague you'll find the correct interpretation , you'll find the rightful colour .

        I think you misunderstood me a bit --- I don't propose to use the scientific method to prove God ; what I propose is to use God's method to prove God . You don't need to draw a comparison in methodology from science to religion , all you need to do is to agree with me on how the things work , and science is a very good example .
        The story is this way : God has told us how we can establish contact with Him , He has given us the method . So if we want to know the truth why not try this method ? why not do this especially when logic tells we should do this , especially when science stays as demonstation ?

        I wans't talking about evidence , I was talking about the way we can get them ---- how do you know the kind of evidence I'm speaking of is anecdotal & subjective ?

        Ok , I understand why did you saythat a kind of faith in a deity is opposite to reason ; but what if faith in a deity leaves empirical effects behind ? what then ? whould that faith still be opposite to reason ?
        And also I'd like you to asnwer if you think that faith itself (not a kind of faith ) is opposite to reason ?
        • thumb
          Jul 25 2013: EG,
          There are not interpretations of the Theory of Relativity but rather Relativity applied to technical & useful purposes.
          What is the God(s) method to find him/her? Which religion? Which sect?- You are right I disagree (respectfully) with you on how things work.

          Indeed faith is the opposite to reason for faith requires no evidence-just belief-.

          Thanks EG,
  • thumb
    Jul 23 2013: Hi Justin...I thought you might be young. I happen to be 81 years old and I don't knowwhy I am even saying that as it is of not much consequence. Re the creation story in the Bible...There are many creation stories that are similiar in nature (not the Greek Stuff, that is quite a stretch) The Epic of Gilgamesh is similiar, one that comes to mind. The Bible contains much wisdom but it is not the only wisdom literature about.
  • Jul 22 2013: Humans tend to associate their views with social and personal meaning, but this tendency is irrational within the context of the physical world that is impersonal. Most people are inclined to address existential issues from the perspective of their desires, wishes and hopes.

    Taking into considerations that modern scientific epoch spans merely one and a half century (In comparison to the 1.6 million years since the time of Homo Erectus), it is not surprising that present day humans still hold the legacy of ancient societies, which assigned every external phenomenon to a certain animate spirit and anthropsychic agent.

    The urge to believe in the supernatural, human brain tendency to seek patterns where there are none, and the inclination to find meaning and purpose in realms that have no such attributes represent a complex issue and can be approached by multidisciplinary scientific studies.

    The understanding of the neurological and cognitive basis for the emergence of religious beliefs that yield the attributes of the religious mind such as cause-effects relations, social drives and emotional needs and commitment, and the assignment of supernatural agency to natural elements, is one key element in deciphering the dominating theistic mentality.

    As a result of the long history of human evolution, modern people strongly retain the legacy of millennia of religious thoughts, practices, and rituals that anchor the belief in the supernatural. This, inevitably, makes the religious mind immune, but not in irrevocable manner, to reason. The theistic mind fails to capitulate to the devastating arguments of logic and science. This illustrates why the discussion, along this thread, looks mostly as some sort of an exercise in futility; yet it is part of an immense useful process that would hopefully fruit, in the remote future, human societies where rational thinking becomes dominant.
    • thumb

      E G

      • 0
      Jul 23 2013: A Latif :

      Can we know something inpersonal ? I mean , we are persons , aren't we ? Then why do you say that the physical world is impersonal , it's just our world , isn't it ?
      I find that tendency very rational .

      If there are the logical and scientific arguments for an impersonal world then why wouldn't there be also for the supoernatural ?

      Let's imagine the time when the modern scientific epoch just spans , then you have behind only the legacy of ancient societies ---- how did logical thinking emerged ? Because if now

      " the ancient legacy .......... inevitably, makes the religious mind immune, but not in irrevocable manner, to reason. The theistic mind fails to capitulate to the devastating arguments of logic and science.'

      what then ? Wouldn't then be almost zero probability for the logical and scientific thinking to emerge ?
      Well, it looks like you already believe in the supernatural phenomena !!
  • thumb
    Jul 20 2013: Oh Deepak!
    I think we are not at the opposite sides of the screen but at the same side! It is only words and names what makes us seem differentiating.
    Coincidentally, the source of my understanding comes also from the Father! As He is the source of all understanding and knowledge.
    But my teachings show me there is NO hierarchy. Only differences in consciousness levels.
    And I also find using many names, no matter how sacred they are just brings confusion and will make occidental minds even more reactive to otherwise fundamental teachings.

    I do think there is one teaching which is basic and fundamental: Do not make images of God. But that does not mean, "do not make statues or symbols". It means: Do not make any ideas portraying God because God is beyond images or names.
    It is much better to Live with Him, to Play with Him, to Dance with Him and to Enjoy life with Him as He does, all the Eternal Present which is not Past or Future.
    And if you find time to do science and discover the inner tricks of creation, that also can be fun... As long as it does not become a "serious business" hiding from your clear Mind the absolute understanding of everything!
  • Jul 19 2013: To know God you should get rid of your concept of God, whatever it is.
    • thumb
      Jul 20 2013: Natasha,
      What you say reminds of the concept that I have to empty my teacup before it can accept more tea. The thing is that faith is to me, not a path to meaning & reason but to gullibility.

      Cheers!
      • thumb
        Jul 20 2013: You should think it over twice, Carlos.
        A baby does not get milk if he does not suck.
        A baby with a full stomach does not suck, then he gets no more milk.
        • thumb
          Jul 20 2013: Mike,
          Yes! milk, tea or honey are very real, and so is the Mommy & the baby.

          Gracias!
        • thumb
          Jul 21 2013: Mike -
          The moment kid believes he needs no more, he stops absorbing, what more there is.
        • thumb
          Jul 21 2013: Mike is saying that only "you can chose to "keep believing you are just a product of a random co incidences" or to - you are a part of "The ultimate ultirior ultirior ultirior x 10^x Purpose?
    • Jul 20 2013: I would like to hear an explanation of what you mean by that statement.
      • Jul 21 2013: Every word, every image used for God is a distortion more than a description.
        Saint Thomas Aquinas quit writing after he had an EXPERIENCE of GOD that made everything he had written seem irrelevant to him.

        Thanks for asking ! :)
        • thumb
          Jul 21 2013: May be you should formulate and present a fresh "new god purpose" with state of the art understanding all the science.
        • Jul 21 2013: Thank you for expanding on your thought. I would agree that our words and images fall very short of being able to capture the nature of God, but your statement sounds like all attempts to think or speak of God are futile.
      • Jul 22 2013: It's not exactly what i meant :)
        Carlos seeks the explanation for God ; something that must seem to be coherent with the existing body of knowledge. No good so far.
        Religion requires belief, no good either. ( For me )
        But once you have EXPERIENCE, this authentic thing, you don't need proof, you just have it. But it's hard as hell to talk about it !
        It's what Lao-tzu's dictum is about :
        Those who know do not say; Those who say do not know.

        Do you know the fragrance of a rose ?
        Put it into words :)
        • Jul 23 2013: Your making more sense to me. You shouldn't be so cryptic. :-) It is amazing that you mention describing the fragrance of a rose. I was thinking down the same lines: try to describe a cool shower to someone who has never experienced water in a liquid state.
          So now I'm curious about your thoughts on experience vs religion. I don't mean to be a pest.
          I will say I have had experience and then accepted religions ideas to make sense of my experience, but the religion falls short of the experience. Any thoughts you care to share would be appreciated.

          Be Well
      • Jul 24 2013: I think, that Religion as a phenomenon is a kind of a residue of the main event, which is Experience. The word 're-ligare' ( religion ) means 'to unite'. To unite ' mind' with its ' Hu' . In Sanskrit ' Hu' means breath of God ; 'man' - mind, it's the origin of the word ' Human'. To put it simply, initially Religion was supposed to unite an earthy being with its Divine part through sacred rituals, to help him to experience God, to become Human. But as someone aptly said : " When people start to sing together, they tend to forget about the song " I guess, it was the case; later ' re-ligare' was understood as to unite people, believers around the only true God. And so it begins...God has different names, different religions become the expression of the collective ego. When ego is involved it brings hierarchy, desire to dominate, love for power...you know the litany.

        It's a very short simplified version of the long story of Religion/Experience divorce :).
        I would say, that the whole story is a history of human psyche.
        Please, make no mistake, it's my version, i don't claim for truth.

        " I have had experience and then accepted religions ideas to make sense of my experience, but the religion falls short of the experience."

        I see.
        Religious God is the character, the concept..I think it creates a problem (political and social issues aside ). It helplessly fattens the thing. Where it was written that Jesus said he was God ? He didn't say worship me, he said fallow me. Jesus was/is a teacher.
        Try to fallow his advice " Ask and ye shall find."
        So, what you need is to ask deep in your heart.
        It works .

        And again....thanks for asking ! :))
        • Jul 27 2013: "When ego is involved it brings hierarchy, desire to dominate, love for power...you know the litany."
          I think this is where my struggle lies. Your comments remind me that Jesus was very hard on the religious leaders of his day. I can't believe he would not disapprove of what has been made of the christian church. I've seen everything from power heavy authoritative structures to what looks like Las Vegas night club acts in churches on Sunday mornings in America and Western Europe. For me, these churches are more of a distraction from God than a help to nurture my soul/spirit. Even though you and I could find much to disagree about on this subject, this short exchange has done more for me that a month of Sunday mornings sitting in church, and for that I thank you. :-)
          Jesus did claim to be God (John 8:58, Matthew 16:13-20) to name two. His disciples also believed it and died horrible deaths because of their belief. They must have seen something very special in him.
  • thumb
    Jul 18 2013: Ted Friend,
    Science is not faith based,
    In your first sentence did you mean: Are there questions that Science does not have an answer to? the answer: YES, and we are working on it! Example: Is there a cure for Alzheimer's disease? Can anyone alive in this planet explain to you how to rid ourselves from this terrible disease?: NO, it is unfortunately incurable. But think for a moment Chicken pox, diphtheria, and polio are only a few of the devastating diseases that have been managed with vaccines in the 20th century. And if you were to ask before the cure was worked out: Explain the unexplained the answer would've been the same: No, and is being worked upon.
    I do not claim to understand God-My thinking is that Deities are imaginary.
    Do I want to believe in God?!: NO count me out of that club please.
    Agree last statement Science does not have ALL the answers, & Theist are hiding God inside the "safe zone of faith where rational argument could not reach because the Theists say so, a pitty because it stops the conversation flat out. "drop my ego..." -Non sequitur-

    Be well!
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Jul 18 2013: Ted Friend,
        You state basically that "belief" in science is no more sound than belief in God.But to be fair I know that science does contain philosophical underpinnings which are unprovable, which thus require "faith" in the epistemological sense. And that said there is a vast difference between scientific beliefs and faith based beliefs; When a scientist makes a claim it has to undergo process, a series of filters,peer review, experiments etc.-Does it work?- look at the modern world and all the nice gadgets like the computer that you use to type this post which is product of the scientific"belief"-method-In contrast a faith based belief of -let's say-" life after death "(as a promised Heavens)can't be demonstrated-is gullibility-.
        Anyone with the resources to replicate a scientific experiment or the intellectual capacity to critique conclusions is free to do so. This leads to a continual challenging of the status quo and the development of a more complete and nuanced understanding of our world. Faith is not a tool of science, as faith does not promote greater understanding of the world in this same way.
        Religious faith is not a tool of science period.
        Scientists do not believe that they are "God"-way off base.
        Are theist bad people-non-sense- our left handed pitcher in our community league is a Lutheran, I'm glad we have him!!! And he is a good friend-no negatives-.
        We may have a different view on many things-but my challenge to you is to question your beliefs-I do the same as well - and let truth ring clear out loud.

        Be Well !!!
        • thumb
          Jul 22 2013: Dear friend....Sometimes the attitude is not available to the conscious mind of the thinker.
      • thumb
        Jul 18 2013: Ted Friend,
        OK in order to converse more I'd need your help. I think we need to build shared meanings, distinctions if you will. This is not a win-loose proposition, but a learning opportunity. Now let's build meaning_and leave the elegance to the tailor-
        What do you( I mean you) mean by Proof?
        What do you mean by Faith?
        And your last statement: "because most people believe that God is the power that holds the universe" then it must be true -unless (dare I say)- I can prove what holds the whole enchilada. Non -sequitur

        Thanks Ted,
      • thumb
        Jul 18 2013: Ted Friend,
        Ok so you answer the question with a question, but fine, -I'm up- Here we go:

        Faith--> Believe without evidence(any evidence, none whatsoever)

        Theory--> I'd suppose you mean Scientific Theory -right?- A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon. -(Hypothesis-->The basic idea of a hypothesis is that there is no pre-determined outcome. For a hypothesis to be termed a scientific hypothesis, it has to be something that can be supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation.A key function in this step in the scientific method is deriving predictions from the hypotheses about the results of future experiments, then performing those experiments to see whether they support the predictions.) I apologize for the lengthy explanation but i want to be as precise as I can.

        Proof---> I'd hope you mean Scientific Evidence- Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

        The difference is quite obvious methinks.

        "A man without religion is like a fish without a bicycle" --

        Thanks!
      • thumb
        Jul 18 2013: Ted Friend,
        Thanks for your response: OK, So my definition is faith is missing both eyes-got it-, Now as you state: "Faith is confidence or trust in a ..deity..doctrines of a religion or view. It can also be belief that is not based on proof"-your definition-
        A key word here is proof, so I Google it = Noun, Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
        Can we agree on my definition of Scientific Theory & Hypothesis ? please let me know.

        Thank you for the root (Theos) --nice touch-

        Awesome! we are having a dialogue!!
      • thumb
        Jul 20 2013: John,
        (I like the Einstein avatar!)
        OK John, I mean nothing personal, but you need to get more acquainted with the scientific method. I say this not as an attack -ad hominen- NO. but let's take for example the way you use hypothesis, proof- just to start.
        A hypothesis Must be a) falsifiable/disprovable, b) testable, and c) have predictive value, in order to be taken seriously by scientists. All your anecdotal basis , and ancient books fall way short of that.

        If I'm wrong you would be a Nobel Prize Recipient , for you would have provided a solid set of quantifiable, measurable reasons to be taken seriously. Please don't take offense I see many projects get rejected made by physics students.
        Proof--Evidence-- /// In Science there is not "truth"- in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. (but notice that faith based statements are considered "truth" -no questions asked-). All scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. Proof, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics (and whisky).
        This is just a Ted blog-nothing more or less- I'm questioning in light of the scientific method -as it is-
        How can faith(turn off reason) should be used as a path to truth? What discoveries in the last -let's say 150 years have faith based "knowledge" lead mankind into?
        Once again John I'm not trying to convert Anyone to Anything-A person must be the filter of his own thoughts beyond the frame of reference he or she is living in.

        Thanks John!

        BTW Pierluigi Campana of the teams at the European Center for Nuclear Research, or CERN, say they measured a particle called "Bs" decaying into a pair of muons, a fundamental particle.
        That is Big news! , -25 years in the making!- see how this scientists present their work to the world- that will give you an idea. Is PDF DL http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.6173 Enjoy!
      • thumb
        Jul 20 2013: John,
        OK , when you publish your experiment in a peer review journal I'll more than glad to read it, and will personally congratulate you in your Nobel Nomination. I'm eager to see your research in action.

        Thanks!
      • thumb
        Jul 20 2013: John,
        Take a breather-think for a second- if the God hypothesis as you state was so clearly demonstrated in regards to one or any of the thousand "gods" generated by mankind -it would already be done ( by smarter people than you,or me). Now if please be so kind look in Journal of Physics to name a few (none of that stuff from the Discovery Institute or such ID or YEC folks!):

        REVIEWS OF MODERN PHYSICS, PHYSICS REPORTS-REVIEW SECTION OF PHYSICS LETTERS, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS,FORTSCHRITTE DER PHYSIK-PROGRESS OF PHYSICS,EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS

        And many more,now all these-and many more- journals could act as independent third party observer to our little exchange. I'll bet you -I know- that your suppositions are no-where to be found anywhere in those pubs-Why?- because they are not scientific, period.

        Thanks!
    • thumb
      Jul 20 2013: Holly Mac!
      And I thought you have set aside your systematic negation.
      Have you consider the possibility you could be totally wrong in your denials?
      I've talk to you long time and now I see you just gave me "pats-in-my-shoulder"!
      To your dismay, MOST of the world sustains religious beliefs and most of scientists or science "fans" also.
      What differs is the kind of belief you support.
      I go for the most re comforting, spiritually enhancing, loaded with hope and respect for the Marvel, Beauty and Intelligence of the whole Universe.
      I am so shocked to see nothing of what I said opened a little window of understanding!
      • thumb
        Jul 20 2013: Mike,
        I respect your views-no doubt about that-. And I also think that we must keep pushing & question beliefs of all kinds. uncomfortable-maybe-
        Could I be wrong?-There is always that possibility- and so far I have not seen evidence to tell me otherwise.
        Mike I think that you are a courteous person -from our talks- it's cool. Regardless of how we may disagree here and there-as I said before beyond Physics or Religion and as you said human relations are more important (I paraphrase).
        I'm humbled by the majesty of the universe we live in as well...and how much we have accomplished in so little time...

        Cheers!
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jul 18 2013: TED Friend,
      Your thought is: Everything is held together by forces we do no yet understand thus everything in the universe is God.

      I don't agree just because a question is hard to answer you should not just claim"God did it!" Remember when in the pas ill people were demon-possessed ? It took hard work to untie that knot-And how about it no more Witches in Salem either.

      Cheers!
  • thumb
    Jul 17 2013: Shishir,
    Without going into the mechanics of relativistic time, just because you have a subjective experience in which you have felt that you lost track of time does not makes real.By the way you are right whether you count your heartbeats or not they happen is a succession of beats per minute ergo time and of course inside the chamber thus , space. Objective Reality is unavoidable.

    Thanks
  • thumb
    Jul 17 2013: Shishir,
    "What do I believe God saw?' Non-sequitur
    This contraption you speak of reminds me of Carlos Castaneda's books and the Yaqui Indian use of the peyote mushrooms to induce a hallucinations to find or get a "God" experience.Look, Dr. Feynman tried but he regarded the whole thing as mere hallucination with no other value past that,well maybe some other therapeutic value . But for sure nothing related to find the "Ultimate Truth" or God"Beyond Space & Time" for if it was I would've known about it, but none such.
    There is also another group sponsoring a "God Helmet" that was measured and found wanting...
    I care about meaning and truth-as close as we can get to it-, but this Isolation Tank- Come On - where is the research, the peer reviewed papers for all of us to sink our teeth into? If the Isolation Tanks were a highway to Heavens GE would be manufacturing them by the thousands! And they would be in available in every Best Buy Store. So like I'll pass on the Isolation Tank as I did on the "God Helmet or the mushrooms. I'll keep the 18 year old Single Malt Whisky (no "God" experiences there)

    Cheers!
    • thumb
      Jul 17 2013: You are still looking for results and not for the process, in certain areas we should but not here... an atheist is not a person who have stopped questioning and probing the facts on the contrary he is the one who starts to challenge the limits to find the truth and does not listens to what others are saying !

      As we all know if it is a "self realization" then it will mainly depend on "the believer" for how much he is willing to go deep to look for the truth. As it is a self realization one can not be compared and and hence can not be advertised by GE to make thousands, as simple as that.
      • thumb
        Jul 17 2013: Shishir,

        If it's all the same to you I'll wait for the peer review articles and we'll go from there.

        PS You would be surprised at the things GE, Rockwell and others are working on in the fields of consciousness.

        Thanks!
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Jul 20 2013: Juan,
        How you've been-long time no see-
        If I remember well that is Unamuno from a Letter to Juan Solis-I could be wrong,so long ago- I think that in those years -young Unamuno-thought that God was non-existent or unknowable, just unprovable abd conceptually indefinable.
        Thank you for your kind words, I'm to hear from you again!

        Cheers!
  • Jul 6 2013: Carlos asks, has science chased God out of space and time?

    I think many believe science has that ability but I'm not sure it is really within the realm of science to ever answer the God question. It seems that many believe that if science can discover and describe a process, or a force in nature, it has therefore comprehended it and ruled out the notion of God having anything to do with it.
    Peter Law used the example of his fish tank. Imagine the theories of their world his fish could have. A naturalistic explanation might theorize that fish food spontaneously generates at the upper reaches of our environment. Then go to great lengths describing how it absorbs water and falls through the atmosphere, measuring the speed of descent and documenting its eventual decay at the bottom of the tank. They may be proud and even arrogant as they mock previous generations of their fellow fish particularly the bottom dwellers who believed fish food sprung up from the gravel by the power of some unknown god. Their insistence on a naturalistic explanation as they continue to explore their environment blinds them to the evidences of Peter’s existence.
    The theistic fish may view the the appearance of food at the upper reaches as a gift from the hand of a god. They not only view science as a tool to better understand their environment, but as a means to better understand this being they believe exists (god or in this case Peter).
    Both groups approach their science with certain presuppositions. We all have to work from the presuppositions we choose and they will influence our course. True science can remain neutral on the God question. People like Richard Dawkins who insist on a naturalistic interpretation of the evidence studied by science, are nothing more than religious fundamentalists, the very people they admit they hate. If we don’t see things their way, then we are stupid (infidels who lack faith in their interpretations) and should be silenced.
  • thumb
    Jul 6 2013: God exists in your brain. You can make it exist however you like.
    • thumb
      Jul 6 2013: Linda: I don't see anything constructive in your post.
      A fact is: To understand other ways of thinking requires mind openness. Just like turning (momentarily) into a child.
      Abstract thoughts and perceptions cannot be described intellectually or by plain reason. It is necessary to use analogies or parables.
      The main flaw in agnostic, skeptic thinking is automatic intuition rejection and negation of inner perceptions. (Which are NOT reasoning)
      P.S. The only "things" existing in brains are: Nerves, neural cells, blood vessels and cartilages. Ideas are ALWAYS out of the brain. We use the brain to grasp perennial IDEAS. And of course: Ideas are NOT "THINGS".
      • thumb
        Jul 15 2013: Last I checked, God is not a thing. So it is an abstract idea which you point out are always out of the brain. So as far as I can tell, you are correct and substantiate my post.

        God exists in your brain. Make of it as you will.

        Stop trying to force it.

        Because God is NOT a thing, it is not bound by space and time. Space and time are reality. God is not.
        • thumb
          Jul 17 2013: Hello Linda! I am here because I got an invitation from the OP to express my point of views regarding the topic and not to engage in arguments with pragmatic persons. I understand your good will to defend the usual materialistic views but truly, I don't think this is the topic. It is my blame I expressed incorrectly when I said "ideas are always out of the brain". It is probably do to my native language, as English is the second one. What I was intending to mean was: "Ideas are BEYOND the brain". Let me explain in simple "materialistic words": A "cube" exists without the need of ANY brain activity. The "idea of a cube" is perennial, immaterial and exists by itself. The same with a triangle or a sphere. There is no need for an actual "solid" sphere to exist to demonstrate the idea of a sphere. The brain, supposedly "only the human brain", plainly focus or catches the idea. The idea is there without beginning or end. So, when we "think" we "have an idea", we actually never had it or will have it. We are just "looking" at it by means of our reasoning tool, the intellect. But the idea does not need us to exist; it is BEYOND the brain. By the same token, what you call "god" is just the fabrication you made with the intellect to be able to "destroy" it, as probably such idea is very crude and based on what you think religious people imagine about Deity. The idea of Deity is BEYOND the brain, as all ideas are. And be sure of that! The "idea" you have about other's ideas about God is just what your intellect is capable of understand as it is also the same for those having particular ideas of Deity. They are, including yours, only a minute fraction of the whole idea of Deity which is far BEYOND any brain. One thing is sure: Deity is so obvious you don't need to "force" it to see it. But it requires a totally different attitude and understanding of our limited rationality, which certainly is incapable of grabbing the whole of it!
        • thumb
          Jul 17 2013: Specially to Linda: As you might know the question of "What is time?" Is considered by physicists as the most challenging in science history and many reputed scientists simply evade any possible answer. It is not just to say "Of course time exists!". It would be of interest to read what is in the next Link, although not as a claim of authority but as an extension of the baffling question. The article linked does not in any form support any theory of time, but it explains why is the most difficult dilemma to resolve. I suppose you will find it interesting and understand why I reasoned the way I did! http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism/201202/does-time-really-exist Mike
    • thumb
      Jul 8 2013: Linda, your post seems logical to me, and your comment that "it exists however you like" seems very open minded:>)

      Mike, you say...."Abstract thoughts and perceptions cannot be described intellectually or by plain reason. It is necessary to use analogies or parables". You really believe that? Why?

      You say..."Ideas are ALWAYS out of the brain".
      Here are just a few links that indicate there is idea/brain/creative activity......in most of us anyway!

      http://writetodone.com/2011/09/09/make-your-brain-creativ/

      http://www.mindtools.com/brainstm.html

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/neurophilosophy/2013/mar/28/50-human-brain-ideas

      http://loryrich.hubpages.com/hub/ideas-origin

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstorming

      http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/1564146685

      http://www.brainreactions.com/category/new-concepts-ideas/
  • thumb
    Jul 5 2013: God lives in belief of s/he who believes.....no logic/reasoning is needed for that.
  • Jul 5 2013: God is like every thing else.
    Nothing exists.
    Take out the letters "e" "x'" "t" and "s".

    Everything just "is".

    We don't know why.

    Also, time doesn't really exist. Time can never move forward,. It never goes into the future.
    It ends immediately and simultaneously in the now and can only be measured moving backwards, never forward.

    Space is only potential, potentiality or possibilities. Those are not material, physical or tangible in any way.
    But they do exist as nothing.
    We cannot prove anything really about it through religion or science.

    I personally do not like scientific orgasms.
    And of course, religion doesn't like orgasms at all.

    Unless of course, they are blood-letting.
    • thumb
      Jul 5 2013: Random,

      "I personally do not like scientific orgasms.
      And of course, religion doesn't like orgasms at all.

      Unless of course, they are blood-letting."

      That was cool! But I like the way Science breaks it down.

      "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." Einstein

      Its hard to experience the world other than through myself subjectively, but I would say that things exist without me, and that things exist with you... I think the question just poses a lot of semantic confusions, considering the word 'nothing' is associated to something so broad.

      I could not help to think of this dialogue in "The Matrix"

      Spoon boy: Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth.
      Neo: What truth?
      Spoon boy: There is no spoon.
      Neo: There is no spoon?
      Spoon boy: Then you'll see, that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself.

      Cheers!
      • Jul 6 2013: Hi Carlos.
        Not sure I understand your comment about the word 'nothing' being associated to something so broad.
        Could you be more specific for me? I'm kinda dense and things take a while for me to understand.

        For me, nothing is.....no............thing.
        Absolutely nothing. But nothing does mean or contain potential and potential is also nothing.
        So it doesn't have to be something, in something, in order to be.
        That is all that is needed.
        • thumb
          Jul 8 2013: The ambiguous speculation of "nothing" used in metaphysics is useless -is not real-, No one ever held a jar of nothing ( as defined by philosophers) to compare it to something, it also has no indirect way to be detect it like let's say dark matter. The closest is as you know the Quantum fluctuations in a vacuum. You see there has been all sorts of contortions and manipulations with nothing.
          also see:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

          Thanks
  • thumb
    Aug 5 2013: Not,
    Or other avatars you've used-Friend- you need help. I don't mean it as an insult and forget the thread"winning or losing" here is not going to change anything.. nor you nor me, or anyone else, that does not really happen in TED forums, I gather that you must morphed into more avatars than Cesar B de Mill used extras in his movies,

    Does this brings a feeling of euphoria for you? It's fascinating, it may be a new thread here in TED.

    Take it with a grain of salt-get help-
  • Aug 5 2013: Just to remind everyone, the question at hand is " how can God exist beyond space and time". It seems the discussion is spiralling out of control again(I.e. into an us vs. them, science vs. religion, science vs.creationist, etc, etc discussion, which is disappointing and obtuse). The number of comments does suggest a legimate interest by many in the subject matter.
    A proper definition of terms is a good way to start. Followed by a mutually agreeable determination of plausibility, standards of proof, and then perhaps a discussion of "how God could exist beyond space and time."

    To start, 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"?

    I'm still holding out hope.

    Best regards,
  • thumb
    Aug 5 2013: Science -hardnose science is done the good ol'e fashion way , in the lab and the field, ID instead uses lame legislators , cable news, internet forums instead of doing well-science- I predict that it will flop flat on its face. I see it as a new generation in our universities are not blinded by such bronze age ideas and seek to know & explore with an uncluttered mind.

    Anything else will be intellectual Laziness.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Aug 5 2013: Not,
      The Cleveland Indians have nothing to do with it! Mankind studied nature & certainly used events as seen in nature but the applications that you speak off were produce by people l..I've never seen in any classic textbook of science such an assertion "...raw materials were place by a designer for man and all the relationships necessary for mankind to build science..."

      Not, if you wish to believe that is indeed so, please be my guest, you are entitled to think as you may...


      Thanks
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 5 2013: Not,

          Do I get the sense that now you can think for ALL posters in this thread? Wow your acumen is really unearthly!

          And you can keep score as you morphed in this talks!

          How childish, my friend, but if this makes you wholesome, more power to you!
  • thumb
    Aug 5 2013: Friends,
    Argument from Design were proven to be a push to promote religion & once more see the Dover trial

    Thanks
  • thumb
    Aug 5 2013: an all powerful all knowing whatever can be used to explain everything and anything.

    its basically saying magic.

    not accepting or not having conplete scientific explanations for everything is not evidence of magic.

    just because intuitively magic is a more comfortable gap filler or aligns with religious beliefs, its not a good reason to assert this position.

    its an argument from ignorance to assert magic is the only explanation that makes sense to you.

    relativity and quantum mechanics is counter intuitive.

    the universe does not owe us an eady explanation.

    besides saying a magical agency can fill any gaps doesnt expain anything, like how it happened.

    there could be hidden agency everywhere, but ignorance, or comfort with agency, not being able to comprehend is not evidence.
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Aug 5 2013: Not,

        So all major universities worldwide are categorically wrong, but you are 100% correct. I'is that your position?

        Please explain...
      • thumb
        Aug 5 2013: Not,

        You assert without evidence, is like you are a barrio kid bragging that you have the best fastball the world ever' seen, yet you are not willing to play Major league Baseball. !?

        hmmmm?
  • thumb
    Aug 5 2013: Not,
    Argument from design, Teleological argument. All cleared up at the Dover trial.

    Thanks
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Aug 5 2013: Not,

        All science is falsifiable and subject to revision-claro es-

        Dover Trial exposed ID as a push for religion-punto y coma-

        The problem with religion is that none of the Thousands 37,000 god(s) & counting are subject to be falsifiable or to revision, why? because when you start doubting religions risk the peril of going down a slippery slope .

        Religion and Science are not the same in their conclusion nor by methods, nor ID produces any beneficial by-products to mankind as science have

        Danke!
      • thumb
        Aug 5 2013: Not,
        Even if we had 37,000 scientific theories discarded, does that means that by default the universe was de facto created by God(s)?

        hmm?
      • thumb
        Aug 5 2013: WOW!

        Like I said that is your choice ...

        Thanks
  • thumb
    Aug 5 2013: what i find odd is creationist state the universe can not come from nothing. then contradict themselves and say a univerrse creator could make a universe from nothing.

    so it is possible if you allow for magic.

    if there was nothing then doesnt that include no creator beings.

    if the universe needs a creator then why not the creator.

    either the creator evolved or was created or always existed.

    so if a creator evolved or always existed why not the preconditions for a universe naturally.

    its a special pleading fallacy to say the preconditions for thevuniverse could not exist naturally outside time but a universe creator could.

    nothing with a god is not really nothing.

    so many logical fallacies in this position.
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Aug 5 2013: how do you know the creator was no created by an even more powerful creator. o

        you dont.

        you dont know if there is acommittee of creators.

        you dont kniw if they are magical unicorns in another dimension.

        you dont knowvif our universe is the resukt of the digestive process of some other dimension being.

        yiu dont knowvanything necause there is no evidence.

        you just propse one god because you are predisposed to monotheism perhaps.

        once you invoke magical agency anything is possible.
    • thumb
      Aug 5 2013: Obey,
      Indeed, another particular point that creationist use is that everything else other than creationism is mere speculation. Science is by "design" (pun intended?) falsifiable, but creationism is unquestionably infallible & true in all aspects according to our creationist friends.

      Thanks
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 5 2013: Not,

          Science is man-made,

          Do I feel Deja-vu? I think I've has this conversation before!?

          BTW you know-categorically that is- that Science existed before man, I'm sorry man but that is one wild assertion!

          Thanks
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 5 2013: Not,
          The Cleveland Indians have nothing to do with it! Mankind studied nature & certainly used events as seen in nature but the applications that you speak off were produce by people l..I've never seen in any classic textbook of science such an assertion "...raw materials were place by a designer for man and all the relationships necessary for mankind to build science..."

          Not, if you wish to believe that is indeed so, please be my guest, you are entitled to think as you may...


          Thanks
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 5 2013: Not,

          Call me when you pick up your Nobel Prize for ID.

          Thanks!
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 5 2013: id is currently bunk. it is an argument from ignorance.


          so technology is based on the physical universe. yes. this doesnt point to desgn of the universe.
  • Aug 5 2013: If we take into consideration that this big bang was created due to the density of gravity then it fails to explain how this gravity managed to create the universe we see today for the simple reason that this gravity had only one shot to do it with, what I mean by this is that if you had a gun and a tiger was coming to attack you and your gun only had one bullet then you only have one shot at the tiger, if you miss to the left you are dead, if you miss to the right again you are dead, hence I fail to grasp how the big bang could become accepted to explain the creation we have today and the precious delicate cycle of life." "In other words if you had too much gravity in the big bang then all matter would have been dispersed too far apart and there would not of been enough time for particles to fuse hence no atoms would exist to create the stars or the matter that even we are made of hence the result being no life, if we had little gravity then again the same problem arises, we would not exist because the gravity required was not enough to expand the universe or to later create particles for atoms to form."
    "What we do have today however is that the big bang portrays a universe that was supposedly created by the density of gravity getting it right first time with one shot, I find this hard to believe and too much of a coincidence. Further to this one need only think that if this big bang was the beginning of time and space then obviously it seems we have a direct contradiction because the primeval atom can only had existed if it resided in a time prior to the big bang in order to have existed in the first place and we all know that that combined with the question as to what the universe is expanding into have been the biggest thorns in the scientific backsides. I rest my case as to how it would be possible for God to reside outside ttime and space let alone our current scientific understanding that the universe appeared from nothing, the answer is Apha and omega
  • thumb
    Aug 5 2013: Not coincidence,
    A philosophical "nothing" does not exists, otherwise you are saying that the Universe is so complex that it had to be "designed" just because it can not be explained any other way, mankind can't just throw their hands up and say "well God(s) did it!-imagine if mankind gave up to find a cure for Polio,just because it was difficult!?

    Your use of the word "coincidence" is not correct as it applies to Natural Selection , Google the Dover trial transcripts. What you write reminds me of the Discovery Institute, and do notice that none,none of those claims have made it to any textbooks in CALTECH,MIT, Princeton, Harvard,Yale,West Point etc. Don't take my word for it contact any of those Institutions Dept. Of Biology and ask away.

    Thee is no designer just by stating it that it was so.

    One thing that I agree -I'm also at awe at the universe-,

    BTW which God(s) designed the universe-There is a pick of over 37,000 deities created by man throughout history, and once you pick one then you most likely have to pick a denomination-and of course who created the creator?-bad for occam's razor.

    Don't take anything at face value go and find out for yourself to whether Creationism better explain the universe. Dare to start with a tabula rasa and see where evidence leads you. Then let the chips fall where they may.

    Thanks
    • Aug 5 2013: Carlos Not Coincidence was clear , you only got to read his first line to see the impossible that scientists are trying to impose on us ? created from nothing ? how stupid is that ? if I stood infront of you and made a chocolate orange appear and told you I made it from nothing would you believe me ? The entire scientific understanding of the universe is based on what carlos ? gravity that also must of supposedly appeared from nothing ?
  • thumb
    Aug 4 2013: John,
    you say " there is no outside of space or time where God resides" , how do you know that to be factual?

    thanks
    • Aug 4 2013: Ok carlos mate , here you are in this thought experiment ok , lets put you in the middle of the universe ok ! there you are floating with as many wishes as you like, first wish take away all the matter before you ok , second wish take away the void that you float in ? ok what is left ? NOTHING carlos ok nothing the void is nothing and only matter energy exists ok, how can you possibly use another wish ?

      another one for you , you have won a one way ticket to the future or to the past which ever you choose ok so there you are in the space ship with two buttons past or future ok now press one ok which way do you go or which way do you point your ship ? its the void carl;os its all there is mate no other dimensions , time holds us here and time is light .SORRY LET ME FINISH , IF YOU TAKE AWAY LIGHT WHICH HAS A GENTLE PRESSURE UPON OUR UNIVERSE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN ?
  • Aug 4 2013: How can God exist beyond space and time? that was your initial question, it leads to many avenues, what makes you think God is beyond space and time ? what if God is what we observe ? if you are religious then one would accept that God is the light and the life ? how you interpret that will always be connected in anyway you observe or question our existence, God to me is light and is also the reason for our ability to sense time, light is time ? if light were faster the universe would be further apart and probably nothing would exist, if it were slower the same would apply all would be closer and nothihng would have evolved, but no light has a speed a constant speed for a reason, it travels to and from the borders of the past and present holding the universe in levitation, its the very reason why we can sense time passing us by, It is important to understand that the effects of time that we take for granted in our everyday lives actually cause a major headache for those delving into its yet unproven properties, its effects are however experienced by one and all which can perplex the most experienced space scientist daring to investigate the realms of its mind boggling time’s arrow. We depend on light for everything ? why then would a force like gravity which has not been discovered yet and supposedly has an inverse square law have superiority over light which does exists and has a gentle pressure that in a weightless environment is a tremendous force to be reckoned with and has not only an inverse square law and can be sensed and felt and is required for all to exist be left out of the equation when the reality is that something has to be holding up the universe otherwise we would not exist, We fail to notice in our quest to search for life that we are the children of the life we observe and that the universe has many children, its impossible for anything to exist beyond the void as it is endless, there is no outside of space or time where God resides.
    • thumb
      Aug 5 2013: isnt light and life just light and life.

      what do mean by calling these god. are you personifying nature?
  • Aug 4 2013: The point being made here is related to a watchmaker a universe made by design, all within is related to life, most think that darwin and dawkins have the upper hand on the orign of life, thats the reason for posting my views , beside from darwins own account below.What we must not lose faith in is that Darwin’s notion of natural selection fails to explain the origin of life whilst giving an explanation for the origin of the species which are two separate important facts that have to be interpreted correctly; one must then be made aware of the twisted interpretation and differentials made by those intent on expressing such with verbal shadows.

    A Statement made as follows by Charles Darwin himself in his letter to Asa Gray, an American biologist which was written in 1861 and sent to him two years after the publication of The Origin of the Species.
    "The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder."

    Denton expresses his thoughts in writing concerning Darwin’s troubled statement regarding the complexity of the eye:
    "It is easy to sympathize with Darwin. Such feelings have probably occurred to most biologists at times, for to common sense it does indeed appear absurd to propose that chance could have thrown together devices of such complexity and ingenuity that they appear to represent the very epitome of perfection.... Aside from any quantitative considerations, it seems intuitively impossible that such self-evident brilliance in the execution of design could ever have occasionally hit on a relatively ingenious adaptive end, it seems inconceivable that it could have reached so many ends of such surpassing ‘perfection.
    • thumb
      Aug 4 2013: John,
      Darwin's Theory of evolution by Natural Selection does not explain the origin of life as you post" most think that darwin and dawkins have the upper hand on the orign of life, ".

      Maybe this might help you: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

      Just stating that the universe was created is a vacuous statement.

      Thanks
      • Aug 4 2013: vacuous statements are made by theoretical scientists and absorbed by those who believe them, most of space related science is made up of nothing less otherwise the phenomena like black holes dark matter dark flow dark energy would not exist ? the list is endless , the universe has been portrayed and understood due to scientific misinformation and has been made too complex, why ? because its theory of gravity has lead them there ? I can explain the universe without gravity and that means everything, the origin of the galaxies the expansion of the universe, black holes you name it including how the sun shines and even the effects of gravity at the atomic level not forgetting the origin of life ? may TED will call me and then I will send them my book .
        Ok Carlos its been great to read everyones views here but we do have alternatives and I do not want to blow my own trumpet here , it always leads to abuse hence why I wrote my book as an allternative , good luck in your understanding mate , you will know when you are sure of your opinions I guarrantee you.
        • thumb
          Aug 4 2013: John,
          WOW! you state that:
          " I can explain the universe without gravity and that means everything, the origin of the galaxies the expansion of the universe, black holes you name it including how the sun shines and even the effects of gravity at the atomic level not forgetting the origin of life ? may TED will call me and then I will send them my book ."
          That's tall order! would you please share as to where we may read your white papers?

          Thanks
      • Aug 4 2013: Been here before carlos with those wanting to disprove my alternatives, had my arguements on forums which is why I wrote my book, and nope not putting a link here to it, search my name on amazon if you like , I dont impose or imply that I am correct, just have alternatives and feel that its a very complex issue to dislodge scientific beliefs.
        Maybe Ted will call me is what I meant to state, and before you go any further I have gone as far as putting in for a complex call for proposal on the ERC website on the topic fusion , so mate yes am serious with my alternatives, check out the global research methods used for fusion , totally never going to work and definately not how our sun shines. Carlos I wish you well with your inquisitive mind , dont give up and hope what I have answered you which helps you ponder alternative avenues, we are here to put forth ideas not arguements of who is right or wrong.
        • thumb
          Aug 4 2013: John,

          Tossing ideas back & back that is cool! Content & context-substance- and stand back and watch the fireworks!

          Thanks
      • Aug 5 2013: How wrong you are carlos, you obviously do not like being cornered, that is not what sharing ideas is about, ideas are put here for others to take into consideration, nobody can change a self opinionated individual, science is based on such dogmatic principals, why have a physics degree when one disagrees ? hence one places ideas here for others to consider, thats the only way one can change scientific views, I stated a while ago that my opinions can at times come across as offensive to those who stand by their scientific beliefs, its obviously showing and I havent even started yet, but little light is left , passing my ideas and sit back is that not what this forum is about ? you stated fireworks I ? am still here answering you, have you not answered my above alternatives yet ? no you wont will you ? but you will remember these alternatives point made , cant change others opinions only offer alternatives ok.
        • thumb
          Aug 5 2013: John,
          Well established Scientific theories are not "changed" in TED forums, via legislation, Talk Radio or cable news.
          Hard nose Science is done the old fashion way -in the Lab- .IMO is Intellectually laziness to do otherwise.

          I don't seek to "convert" anyone-there's plenty folks already doing that- I ask questions-

          Thanks
    • thumb
      Aug 5 2013: what does darwin say immediately after that quote?
      • thumb
        Aug 5 2013: Obey,
        Your Biology is better than mine, can you shed some light please?


        Thanks,
    • thumb
      Aug 5 2013: i agree there is no well established scientific explanation to get from chemistry to biology, to the self replicating molecules.

      but we have all the building blocks naturally available.

      and not knowing is not evidence of magical agency.


      this assumption of magical agency to fill gaps is similar to assuming gods, spirits, demons resonsible for diease, earthquakes, the
  • thumb
    Aug 4 2013: John,
    Natural Selection has nothing to do with "the origin of life", You may mean abiogenesis...Is off subject, but ID is mostly a political tactic than raw science, argument from design has been cleared up already , once again & for reference read the Dover trial transcripts or go to DR K Miller (theist) website.

    Thanks
  • Aug 4 2013: The body is built of an awesome complexity of its internal workings such as hair skin eyes and the billions of differential human face features . Our DNA determines the arrangement of our body’s structure for the 206 bones, 600 odd muscles and between 10,000 or 12,000 auditory fiber nerves. In addition we have on average 2 million optic fiber nerves with 350 billion plus feet of blood vessels and 80 billion plus nerve cells including the capillaries etc the list is endless in explaining the complexity of a human being. The sophistication of such a life form that to take into account the abundance of so many other life forms bewilders anyone or any great thinker.The solution and answer can surely only result in intelligent design at the heart of such wonderful creation the spark of life, if then God is the light and the life (and I make a point that I question him not) then I must surely be the only one here on earth at this moment understanding his mind. Molecules are found to be so small that a mere average 1/4 teaspoon of tap water contains on average 1024 molecules which vary from the very simple to the very complex. Any given simple molecule will consist of only a few mere bonded atoms, an example being as found in water itself being two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen. A complex molecule of protein will on average contain 50,000 amino acids or chains of simplified molecules. The point being made here is that when one is intent on pushing natural selection and evolution as the origin of life then the verbal shadows being vomited to overcome the watchmaker seems to always smother the true impact of the complexity of life not just on the simplest molecule but dares to even attack the most complex molecule due to avoiding their true significance of their existence, the odds of a complex molecule arising from evolution or natural selection are never mentioned or questioned for the answers would surely bury the likes of Darwin or Dawkins.
    • thumb
      Aug 4 2013: Its explained by evolution. You can disagree with science if you want, that still does not make design the default explanation just because the human mind and knowledge is limited and struggles to grasdp the complexities of lifevasnd the universe.

      Just becasuse there is complexity that baffles our mammalian brain is not evidenced of design and agency.

      It is apparently natural for humans to assume agency where there is no evidence, but we are like dogs barking at the wind, or humans assuming spirits or gods are behind disease and other things we did not under stand in the past.

      The chance argument is bunk.

      No time to respond further right now.
      • Aug 5 2013: No but the case for a grand designer carries the default answer due to the level of complexiety required for life to form, The God of creation is also the light and the life of which you depend upon to breathe and eat and enjoy his creation. Proof can only reside in ones faith , thats all that matters to God,
  • Aug 4 2013: The vastness of the universe is awesome, our planet being a mere speck filled with an abundance of life of all varieties has to originate from a mechanism that not only will seem to result in being highly dubious and on universal scales but originating from a source that one would surely find themselves heading direct to the local nuthouse for the comprehension of such a thought backed by an accountable discovery would be extremely too much for the human mind to sustain and handle, it is then that mankind will realize the awesome variety of watches, it is then that mankind will observe the abundance of potential origins of life , it is then that mankind will know of his maker his creator his watchmaker the light and the life our one and only omnipotent God who would then deservingly have the right to revel in his glory.
    If one considers the complexity of molecules and cells then the chances of two of these extremely very simple things evolving to a state whereby one would then have a feasible argument with natural selection and evolution to contest the origin of life originating from a watchmaker then consider the following process and information.

    A single drop of blood contains 35,000,000 red blood cells.
    A single red blood cell contains 280,000,000 hemoglobin molecules and each molecule containing 10,000 atoms.
    An average single man contains 27,000,000,000,000 red blood cells.
    • thumb
      Aug 4 2013: John,
      That's an argument from design, but it has been looked at thoroughly check the Dover trial for reference,
      And by God did you mean the God of Christianity? And if so which of the thousands denominations?

      Thanks
      • Aug 5 2013: Carlos there is only one God, I do not have religion either, the arguement from design will never be over , thats like saying science or religion has won ?
    • thumb
      Aug 5 2013: the universe is complex so therefore god is poor logic and not based on evidence.

      what would a universe without a designer look like.

      what is the probability of a being existing capable of creating a complex universe like this.


      there is no way to work out meaningful probabilities if no basis.

      the probability your parents had you is near impossible. if they had another million offspring its near impossible a gentic match would occur. yet here you are.

      part of this may be the incomorehensibility of the universe being inappropriately plugged with agency.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Aug 4 2013: there is no evidence the universe is designed at all.

      it is just an argument from ignorance by humans who assume agency without cause sometimes.

      it could be designed. just no compelling evidence.
    • thumb
      Aug 4 2013: the designed for life universe assertion ignores we dont find much life in the universe we observe. if designed for life its a poor design as 99.99% of the universe is inhospitable to life.

      and life survives by eating and killing other life. great design.
      also its like saying a puddle is perfectly designed to fit the hole it is sitting in.
    • thumb
      Aug 5 2013: i suggest plenty of intelligent people dont assume a designer is the only explanation.
    • thumb
      Aug 5 2013: asserting the universe is designed is not proof.

      its complexity is not evidence.

      i suggest jumping to magical agency is poor logic and not evidence based no matter how smart you are.

      there is no direct evidence that a universe creator exists. it is usually an unverifable construct.

      assuming agency because no other expkanation makes sense to you is not a compelling argument.

      at best we dont know if agency was involved.
  • Aug 4 2013: First of all, it's one thing to acknowledge the timeless, and another to fill it with gods. I'm only going to address the former here. I know everybody enjoys the technical twists and turns, but I feel something essential is being lost in fixating on them.

    To cover the technical, I recommend reading a webpage called -- the theory of relativity in words of four letters or less. After you read it, if you would, consider,

    isn't it surprising that scientists are so averse to acknowledge a timeless realm that science itself discovered and verified?

    In my responses and responses to responders to Sam Harris's proposal to mix up morality and science, as well as Daniel Dennett's discussion of dangerous memes, I hope you find some helpful elucidation as well. Scientists with an agenda have turned science into a hyper-religion claiming to understand everything. This is very unscientific. Even religion doesn't claim to offer a hole free scheme, just nodes of a constellation. Hole free. How suffocating. This isn't science itself. Science is naturally humble. Sad that those who don't doubt their views on both sides are the ones whose voices get heard. More of the religious doubt in faith than doubters doubt their doubt. Whoever is so sure is, frankly, an idiot.

    Chinese philosophy is useful here. Read Lao Tzu. I intuit constantly that I don't know or see everything. If we are beaten over the head with admonishments against these intuitions, they go away, but all the world's wisdom asks them to stay. Clearly we don't and can't know everything. The unknown or yin (the feminine hole, versus the yang, the masculine matter) is equally operative in our experience. The idea that -- if right now we can't touch it or see it, it doesn't exist -- isn't that terribly hubristic, when reason and again, even science, have verified that space and time are very crude constructs used to reduce the world to something we think we can control.
  • thumb
    Aug 4 2013: Friends,
    Once again Thank you for participating in this thread-what a ride this was!-Thank you for the learning experience!

    Thanks again to TED for providing & monitoring the forum.

    Let's keep exploring,discovering, & questioning everything! I urge all of us to liberate ourselves from the cultural frame of reference that fostered our thought and look at the broader context from a scientific & historical point of view and watch the scenery as it changes-widescreen- and the "sandbox" gets a bit larger.

    See ya around.

    Thanks Again to Everyone!
    • Aug 4 2013: whoops -- hi Ross. Not closed yet. The date wasn't updated on my screen, it said there was more time left, so I'll just leave what I said up there, hoping you'll see it. v
  • Comment deleted

    • Aug 4 2013: Right...but Greek and Babylonian observations of celestial phenomenon is a form of science. One could say that there observations are a part of theology, however, they had no rational process with which they could verify supernatural claims. Science and theism should never mix. One deals with observation, hypothesis, and truth and the other deals with mysticism. When the two fields mix we end up with people, such as Schroeder, who think that verified facts and superficial insights can verify the supernatural. As a modern scientific society, we have no excuse to allow this to happen. Ancient people had little to no understanding of the universe so they had no option but to turn to spirituality, theism, and religion. It's time society grows up and accepts its fallacies.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Aug 4 2013: Alexander,
      The "math" was just a wild idea not an attempt to solve anything,Just like my "G" Particles and field theory.

      I took a gander at your thread -very interesting- lively conversation indeed.

      Grants? I'd rather see funding go to a Children's Hospital or many orphanages.

      From here the changes we can make are perhaps academic-I suggest to all of us to get involved in our communities- volunteer to help and assist those in need, for we are very fortunate that we can spend time in TED typing away, we should also do the right thing and reach out in a more quantifiable way in our communities at large.

      Thanks Alex
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Aug 4 2013: Ross,
      I appreciate your zeal & passion, rarely seen in this day & age. There are many pitfalls in the science business, I'm in both eyes open wide. -Indeed-

      And -you are right- , if unchecked there are hidden dangers in applied science, citizens need to arm themselves with knowledge, as much as they can.

      Thanks Ross
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 4 2013: Ross,

          Thank you and have a good night! I truly enjoy typing away alongside your comments.

          Vale
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Aug 4 2013: Ross,
      Nice link, Thanks for sharing!

      IMHO The big bang is not the beginning of everything, just the universe as we know it.Prof. Einstein’s theory breaks down at the first moments of the big bang, thus it can't say anything beyond that. If anyone comes with ideas about what came before or that it is the definite beginning, it's pure speculation (that includes the multiverse theory!).

      I guess the main point is that the universe as we know it has a finite beginning (when it comes to endings you'd need to go back to the speculation, as far as I’ve heard the "heat death" seems to be the most prominent theory), but since the laws of physics as we know them break down at this beginning, we have absolutely no reason to think this was the beginning of everything and there was nothing prior to it.

      Beyond that, speculate all you like!
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 4 2013: Ross,
          I've seen it before, Dr. Schroeder is a good man, we just disagree. I don't think he knows what happened before the BB & to fill that gap with God(s) is a far stretch for me. If you are OK with it is fine with me.

          However do notice that in any Physics Textbook of MIT, CALTECH, Princeton,Oxford etc none of his conclusions for ID or creation are found... Could you explain why please?

          Thanks
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 4 2013: Ross,
          As I said before Dr Schroeder is a good man that , however that is not the question.

          Funding? is not the question there is plenty of "creationist" funding available specially in a country where the majority are theist. Try science committees in congress .

          Or let's say the countries like Venezuela ,Italy, Spain,India and others , is everyone worldwide in it to discredit Dr Schroeder? If not why his ideas and conclusions are not part of Physics textbooks worldwide?



          Thanks
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 4 2013: Ross,
          My "theories" are not the point... I'm not that smart anyways...

          So can we go back to my question please?

          Thanks
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 4 2013: Ross,
          I agree with mainstream science and take a curve here and there, But if I had no theory the above question remains both valid & un-answered.

          Thanks
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Aug 4 2013: biological life is complex and well adapted therefore must be designed?

      no.

      argument from ignorance.

      by the way in a few hundred years of science we have surpassed some natural capabilities e. g space flight. but long way to go.

      And the scientific method that got us to the mmoon, and vaccines, shows we evolved.
      if everthing complex needs a designet who designed the designer. or special pleading fallacy.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 4 2013: you seem to assert complexity is always from design.

          You haven't proven this.

          So no.

          You need to prove that, not me.

          We understand DNA better than you suggest perhasps. But even if we don't know everything, just because you feel desdign makes sense this is not evidence, our ignorance is not evidence.

          All science points to natural causes wherever we have worked something out , lightning, floods, earthquakes, the diversity of life etc.

          The diversity of life is explained by evolution, and our relationship with other species in our DNA. Whether you agree or not, the science is well established.

          Even 200 years ago before Darwin, gods or designers are just speculative arguments from ignorance, unless there is evidence. Our lack of comprehension of the complexity of the universe is not evidence.

          The superficial appearance of design from adaption is explained by evolution, which goes on to explain our common decent and similarities with other animals. We breast feed and reproduce like over mammals. We have skeletons and camera eyes as per all the species that evolve from fishlike creatures.

          We find no evidence of any agency whether it be snowflakes or the variety of species.

          Argument from ignorance. Just because some people think a designer or agency is the only answer, its not evidence. Show us the designer. Show us the designer at work.
    • thumb
      Aug 4 2013: Ross,

      IMO there is no "designer", and yes scientist & engineers have creatively borrowed many, many ideas from nature-and some folks were made richer by it.

      Thanks
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 4 2013: Ross,

          I enjoy the search, "solving the puzzle", (I call it "torquing reality"- I know is not true I'm not torquing anything-just my phrase!).

          What you say reminds me the Manhattan Project, Dr Oppenheimer and the Army Brass locking horns more often than not, You do have a point we must be vigilant of the military industrial complex-things could get very hazy quickly- And that's what I will say regarding the subject-it is easier to sell books, and be in the talking circuit .

          You have a point there. As I posted before a class in ethics should be an integral part of any science curriculum.


          Thanks
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Aug 4 2013: Ross,
      I appreciate your views on ID, But that thesis has no traction within the scientific community at large.
      Many have tried to ram it into the public classroom in the USA rather than work relentlessly at the lab, I've seen it first hand. And what I get is that at its core is a religious agenda, Once again see the Dover case.

      Thanks
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 4 2013: Ross,
          Evolution by natural selection is well tested -like over 150 years of testing

          - Yeah Hitler was out of his mounting bracket and no head-space timing for, a monster- him no doubt- but noticed- who carried the orders! now that is scarier!

          BTW I've been to Dachau & Bergen-Belsen (Anne frank) very somber places, that will call anyone to reflection, on how such a thing is even possible.

          IMO Evolution theory as taught today ( well depending where you live in the USA) is fine.

          Thanks
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 4 2013: Ross,
          Abiogenesis is not evolution.
          Yes no scientists have created "life in the lab" -what that has to do with anything?
          Evolution is a fact. Darwin's is the most accepted theory worldwide.
          Has nothing to do or it does not promote wild ideologies.
          And I've render to you my thoughts on Dr Schroeder's video, Its getting late I'm actually catching up with work as I type to you I will watch it again probably Tues evening.
          Thanks
  • Aug 3 2013: Theology isn't science. It doesn't matter what universities or titles one has under their belt.
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Aug 4 2013: Ross,
        Science explores, asks questions and if we find somethings that works -Good!-if it is like an onion and we have to peel & peel then that's the way it is! We should not presuppose (scientists as well-) we should investigate and find more about it, are you going to categorically find answers to deep philosophical questions by finding out more about nature?-Who knows?

        Religious stories are too local , to provincial(Like the Mormons)- (IMO)Religions also have many "theories"-conflictive amongst each other- But in science i can say,"no, no this theory is wrong let's redo the work in another direction that agrees with observation,everything we had is possibly wrong" Try that concept on religion like "Transubstantiation may be wrong let's revisit it"-as soon as you do that you start sliding on an edge which is hard to recover from(in religion)-
        I can live with doubt & uncertainty-is cool- I have approximate answers and degrees of certainty-I'm not sure of some things -and others I don't know anything about. I don't feel frightened by not knowing.

        Thanks
        • Aug 4 2013: I don't understand why our buddy Ross would delete his comments. Perhaps the logic is just to painful for him. Theists, like him, are in no position to bite off more than they can chew. Especially in an increasingly scientific society.
      • Aug 4 2013: Ross, you are not getting it. I have thrown out very few opinions. I've only presented facts and a few irrefutable opinions. Scientists produce theories because they must hypothesize about the workings of the universe. Theorizing, ultimately, leads to factuality. One cannot just sit down and hope the answers will just come to them or praise a dogma with a mind adrift in never never land and think that such behavior conveys any truth because, frankly, it doesn't.
        • thumb
          Aug 4 2013: Kevin,
          I've seen the video and posted on the thread to that regard.

          Thanks
      • Aug 4 2013: Once again, theology, by nature, cannot be factual. The psychological games played by our forefathers were designed to keep the evil fire of theism burning and they have done a very good job of that. Theological methods do not include observation, analysis, and record keeping, which is the very foundation of learning. Your hero in the video can sound as formal and as convincing as he desires, but he is no exception to the herd of sheep, that is, the faithful. There are plenty of people equal to or beyond Mr. Schroeder's intelligence. In fact, he is in the minority in terms of universal view. When a society forms a group of intellectuals and said group separates into mostly atheist and insignificantly theist, the case on dogmatism doesn't seem very intelligent. TRUE knowledge modifies civilization in physically drastic ways. All of the technology and understanding you see in the world today is a result of researchers using the scientific method. The only truthful ways that theism has altered reality are listed thus: wasting of money, causing immoral behavior, interference of progress, and the scaring of children.
  • thumb
    Aug 3 2013: Of course God is real, though neither bound nor bounded by space and time. "He" is as real as Beethoven's Ninth. Just as that old musical genius placed lines and dots on paper that we can interpret into a very real ecstatic experience, so spiritual geniuses from centuries ago spoke and wrote words that help us bring forth the equally real experience of God.

    Neither the Ninth nor God can be found by searching the physical realm with scientific apparatus. They must be maintained and recreated anew out of the human spirit, for their reality belongs to the realm of spirit. When humanity is gone, they will be gone, but while we live they are powerful and real evocations that speak to our needs.
    • thumb
      Aug 3 2013: Paul,
      If I read you right -I agree- Deities through history fill a need to answer deep cosmological questions, bonds societal groups, and overall stability, and- yes- we've convinced ourselves that deities are real; No minds-no God(s).

      I can appreciate Renoir's Dance at Le Moulin de la Galette for the vibrant hues & saturation and the use of light and candid expressions, the feeling of motion- is like an impressionist snapshot of a typical Sunday afternoon at Moulin de la Galette in the district of Montmartre in Paris. I know where to find that art piece,the- Musée d'Orsay : http://www.musee-orsay.fr/en/ (highly recommended).

      The "real" experience of God(s) has traversed historically with us in about 37,000 revisions. Yes I definitely agree that is a man-made construct.

      Thanks.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Aug 3 2013: Ross,
      Science works fine without faith for any theory, there are plenty of industrial processes in use worldwide that are scientifically based and require no faith-to include spacetime (GPS clocks) and yes as our ability to examine nature increases then theories get re-evaluated , look at germ theory of disease -Louis Pasteur- or X ray machines CAT or CT scans,- yes- theories do evolve,is a good thing.

      IMO scientists or not we should question everything-everything-, back in the middle ages if you or I were to question the church it could have been detrimental to your health-terminally- And in some modern societies that is the case still.
      Science has indeed learned a lot from nature and is still learning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

      I don't agree with the Intelligent Designer idea specially as is part of the "wedge" strategy by the Discovery Institute to promote religion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy, moreover ID got caught trying to pry itself into the public classroom the wrong way see :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
      Why work at the court instead of the Lab?hmm?

      Science and religion do not use "the same" method to arrive at conclusions.

      And again all of us are entitled to think as we please.

      Thanks
      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 4 2013: Ross,
          Sorry It's been quite a day-albeit great- for me, OK,
          Of course the universe came before science-yes- and we use the raw materials available to us in the only universe we know.

          Science is generic in nature-take for example a hammer you can use it to help build a house or...you get my point, but the hammer is just a tool . Now the person behind the instrument, well that's another 50 cents.

          One great collateral point bundled in your last paragraph is that I think that a course in ethics should be taught to all science majors.

          Thanks
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 4 2013: Ross,
          Great read .As we've evolved from hunter-gatherer societies it would've been useful to track hunting parties back to camp, and those early humans that inherit that trait -I bet- were "chosen"by natural selection to produce more offspring.

          That said, I think there is a vast difference from that "skill' to a GPS SAT , but I get the metaphor.

          Thanks
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 4 2013: Ross,
          I don't know that what you are saying is correct, In fact I don't partake with your opinion, But I'm quite sure that you do and that is fine with me.

          Be Well
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 4 2013: Ross,
          Just because an immediate answer cannot be found to any problem -let's say to cure polio-we just can say "God(s) did it!"

          And just like you say we've decoded the human genome, Isn't that worth celebrating?

          Thanks
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 4 2013: Ross,
          I understand your passion, As I've posted before science it's not an entity into itself, people misuse all sorts of things.
          I'm sure that scientists -of all fields- working on classified projects worldwide have reservations about their work, and some do not, it all depends how information regarding any project gets compartmentalized,-but that is beyond me-

          My funding- Man! hard work & skills pays the bills-And I sleep fine at night.

          Thanks Ross
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 4 2013: Ross,
          The achievement is worth celebrating, the traction that we may gain to do bigger things -absolutely!

          "If is worth doing , is worth celebrating"

          Thanks Ross
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 4 2013: Ross,
          That sounds spooky"the evil scientists" theme-it was good-

          Who knows was being ccoked at area 21, or at Los Alamos, or Fermilab ( you should hear something by 2015), CERN,(24/7 ) and "other "locations worldwide" my basemen?t-nah not my basement.

          You sound like a good man with rooted beliefs, is fine. I admire your zeal.

          Thanks Ross
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 4 2013: Ross,

          Is fine, if they need you they come knocking at your door if they don't they won't . Is all about what can you do.
          And the problems you can tackle in the infield. Hold a sec*2 I'm already employed!

          Thanks
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 4 2013: Ross,
          I'm OK,- and you are right some ,well most science folks are funds dependent.

          Thanks
  • thumb
    Aug 3 2013: okay, partner, we've reached a stalemate, which you depend upon and I don't, which is where I ask you in return: "do you have proof of god? can you explain the meaning of god? does god have a material existence? does god have a material existence? please enlighten me"

    Notice how I used the grammar of a first-grader to substitute god for every use of time and space. Now, can you answer this proxy-first-grader's questions?
    • Aug 3 2013: Am baffled partner but an answer does not require or institute a reason to offend another on his grammar , I type as I see fit , you however are quick off the mark hence why you look but do not observe the fact that I had made a point which is plainly obvious to any would be graduate .

      One can question the existence of God as one can question the existence of gravity, neither can be proven to explain for sure the existence of mankind’s observations above and is down to each individual to accept their beliefs. obviously you missed this above point .
    • Aug 3 2013: Dan,
      The question at hand, just to remind everyone, is "how can God exist beyond space and time". You are arguing the materialist position (I.e. asking for God to be defined exclusively in material terms). Could you define the content of "time" or "space" in strictly material terms? What is the material content of "time" or "space"?
      Carlos and myself are having a current and ongoing discussion buried deep within the comments/posts below on this very subject, which might be of interest.

      Best regards,
  • Aug 3 2013: I stress that the universe itself does not recognise any laws other than a self existence, if this existence is the mind of God then he is an entity an existence of energy of no shape or form, How huge is this energy is surely beyond human comprehension. Our observations based on mankind’s mechanical instruments and theoretical assumptions do not in any way have superior word over an entity that existed prior to us appearing into this entity. The reality is that all our observations and laws of calculations have yet to actually prove that these measurements relate to the existence of our observable universe and the movement of mass.
    These are black holes dark matter dark energy dark flow origin of galaxies the big bang expansion not forgetting neutron stars space and time the fundamental forces and the origin of life within the universe that our laws have yet to be explained by a physical method of proof.
    One can question the existence of God as one can question the existence of gravity, neither can be proven to explain for sure the existence of mankind’s observations above and is down to each individual to accept their beliefs.
    I have my understanding of the universe and I am at peace in my biological nut house, I accept that light itself is the light and the life and is the answer to our universe and the reality is that whilst God has said that he is the light and the life then we know for sure light exists and can be felt upon ones face, light itself also has an inverse square law like gravity yet we have no proof for gravity, this then suggests that light in a weightless environment is a tremendous force with such a gentle pressure, any given mass will then block this pressure allowing mass to fall or orbit mass. The origin of the universe is far beyond what we will ever observe, the multiverse is a galaxy where the galaxies within are universes one of which we humbly live to observe and experience a wonderful existence of this omnipotent Alpha and Omega.
  • thumb
    Aug 3 2013: In reverse: How can Time and Space exist beyond God? Well, that's a trick question, because time and space created God, therefore they existed before God. God is, like, totally, you know, like, uh, um...HUMAN.
    • Aug 3 2013: Do you have proof for time ? can you explain the meaning of space ? does it have a material existence ? does time have a material existence ? please enlighten us
  • thumb
    Aug 2 2013: The difficulty in answering your question begins with preconceived misconceptions concerning what God is. The Catholic church separated God from science after its attack on Galileo. People today are trying to explain God as something apart from reality when in fact it is not. God is the foundation upon which all reality is based, which makes everything a part of God and God a part of everything.

    Every hydrogen atom in the universe has the same structure. The structure allows for all atoms of the periodic table to form by reason of fusion, and the resulting atoms all have the same basic structure supporting them. The structure is universal. No one knows how or why this is so. Furthermore, what we call structure is supported by quantum fields, which have no structure per se. They fill the universe, which supports the scripture you cite, but its explanation in modern times is clouded in superstitious myths and rhetorical dogma so that it cannot be viewed from the perspective of quantum physics, when in fact, that's what it boils down to.

    To say that ancient cultures didn't know this is to assume that knowledge can only be gained through education. I had a spiritual experience when I was nine that explained the above, long before I received any instruction on quantum physics. I have reasons to believe that ancient cultures had similar experiences, but their ideas have been corrupted by politics and the quest for power and control.

    I have researched religion to quite a degree and have found that what is being taught in church's today has little resemblance to what it started out as. I wrote a book on the subject.
    http://scienceandreligionconverging.com
    • thumb
      Aug 3 2013: Roy,
      Welcome aboard,
      You categorically state: "People today are trying to explain God as something apart from reality when in fact it is not. God is the foundation upon which all reality is based, which makes everything a part of God and God a part of everything" -How do you know that and which God?

      I agree with the symmetries in nature irrespective of geographical / astronomical position, chemical history, temperature, and so on. The success of chemistry as a discipline means that there's something to that basic tenet.

      Roy, are you suggesting that let's say the ancient Babylonians "knew" about QFT, QM? ( please do correct me if I read wrong) And you also state that as a child (9 y/o) you had a spiritual revelation of sorts that instructed you in knowledge similar or equal to that of ancient cultures that were also familiar with QFT/QM., Did I understand you correctly?

      The mechanism of religion(s) as a tribal survival tool in diverse cultures worldwide is unquestionable. It even helped to propel science. And today is used by many as a instrument to parse & implement "Pax Religiosa" with a short fuse for intolerance. Add to that unquestionable beliefs and practices and you won't get "brotherly love" to have a large radius. That is not to say that religious groups have indeed helped many folks worldwide with various forms of assistance.
      To answer your post bellow there are theories for human thought take for example the "Gestalt psychology" as a theory of mind & brain. Indeed Science & religion are not offering the same knowledge and for sure not by the same means.
      Now I agree with you that a course in ethics should be taught as part of any Physics (any science) curriculum , take for example Roy the "X ray laser" issue back with Pres. Reagan ( but now rescued as a measuring device) also think about Dr. Oppenheimer and General Leslie Groves as they" locked horns" regarding the flow of information-you get my meaning-

      Thanks Roy
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 4 2013: Alexander,

          Thanks,

          Also notice that folks understanding of such a a subject is directly proportional to the difference between their cultural attachment of their frame of reference and inversely proportional to their ability to care care for mankind measured in actions per life-cycle.

          No more coffee for me.

          "All you need is love & gravity"cm


          Thanks Alexander
      • thumb
        Aug 3 2013: Which God? There is only one God upon which reality is based. It has many names and a host of misconceptions to go with it. Religion speaks of it but provides little to understand it. Only through spiritual experience can one go beyond the misconceptions. Science is now providing us with information that deals with universal symmetry.

        Did the ancients know of QFT,QM? Maybe not as we do but I give the story of Moses in Pharaoh's court as an example; the ancient world saw things in right brain associations. The serpent was chosen as a symbol representing deity because of its attributes. Deity was an association of the forces of nature personified. In the story, Moses throws down his staff as a symbol of his power and it turns into a serpent representing a monotheistic God. Pharaoh's magicians all do the same with their staffs. The many serpents of Egypt's gods are all swallowed up in Moses singular serpent. What does the story mean? If you know what the serpent meant to these people, then the story portrays the unified field theory of physics from a right brain perspective, a truth that was only discovered by science in the last couple hundred years.

        Did I experience a similar revelation? I most certainly did. I knew that everything in nature was reducible to a common denominator when I was in the third grade. It would be eleven years before I was able to confirm what I had experienced in a spiritual revelation.

        Does religion lead us to the truth? Current religions are a far cry from the truth. They warn of deception, of moral degradation, of selfishness and greed, and yet we often find them caught up in those very issues. The seven energy chakras of Eastern philosophy are divided into lower and upper subconscious, Christ being the highest level achievable. And yet we find most people in the lower levels of self, sex, and power. The higher levels are still out of reach and I hear little about them in church.
        • thumb
          Aug 4 2013: Roy,
          "There is only one God upon which reality is based" out of 37,000 which one and once named which denomination? And I don't follow "spiritual experience" and I also respect your beliefs.

          I remember(way back when) the symbology of the serpent -Caduceus,Gk.-Tammuz Ancient Mesopotamian culture -Apophis was "the serpent of darkness,-Egypt etc so one role connected serpents to the heavens by having them represent deity, creative powers, and healing. The other linked them with the underworld and associated them with evil, harm, and destructive influences.So what we get? worship on one hand and abhorrence on the other.

          But QM, QFT from the R/side of the brain? Is a long stretch for me.

          I mean why the divine did not given more practical things like how to treat Parasitic disease -- from roundworm and tapeworm infection to schistosomiasis, strongyloides, and malaria -- were rampant among the ancient Egyptians (who compiled their own catalogues of parasitic worms). Sand pneumoconiosis, which is caused by the repeated inhalation of sand, was common, as was tuberculosis. Signs of polio have been found, as have indications of plague and fairly good evidence of smallpox. Who needed Quantum Physics, when other practical larger issues were at hand?-just a thought.

          I do not agree with the Eastern philosophy of chakra energies, but I respect your choice.Interesting how you combines eastern religion with Christianity.

          Thanks
      • thumb
        Aug 4 2013: 37,000 denominations means that they can't agree among themselves. Definitely a problem.

        I don't follow "spiritual experience". Without spiritual experience, I don't know how anyone can understand religion at all. Religion isn't about believing in God. It is about coming to understand what God is. It is only through spiritual experience that I was able to weed out fact from fiction. Spiritual experience aligns the thought processes with the creative forces of nature so that there is harmony. Once there is harmony, then understanding can take place.

        Creation and destruction are not from separate sources. Good, bad, or indifferent, it all comes from the same source. So your analogy of the serpent being equated with both creation and evil is a common theme in ancient religions. The reason for the choice of the symbol is many-fold. The serpent has a double phallus and forked tongue, symbol of duality. It sheds its skin every year, symbol of regeneration. It crawls on its belly, symbol of humility. Yet it is very agile, symbol of resourcefulness. Snakes are beneficial to ecology, yet some are deadly, symbol of the forces of nature, which are necessary for life, but can become deadly. It is shown swallowing its tail, symbol of cyclic nature.

        What did the ancient cultures know? The great pyramid of Egypt is composed of 2 million stones ranging from 2-5 tons each. It was supposedly built in 20 years. Do the math; there are only 10.5 million minutes in 20 years. They would have had to lay the stones in place at the rate of 288 per day. They obviously knew something we don't. Unless of course you believe in the ancient alien theory.

        I don't have an answer for the diseases that they suffered. It certainly is a quandary in need of an explanation. A very good thought, not one to be dismissed.

        I have found many correlations between Eastern philosophy and the Judeo-Christian tradition. It explains much of what the priests can't seem to explain.
    • thumb
      Aug 3 2013: Roy,
      I'll add your book to my reading stack.

      Thanks
  • Comment deleted

    • Comment deleted

  • Comment deleted

  • thumb
    Aug 1 2013: Friends,
    8/01/2013 Let's not forget Maria Mitchell (8/01/1918) American astronomer who, in 1847, by using a telescope, discovered a comet which as a result became known as "Miss Mitchell's Comet".

    We are almost to a close,but not before saying THANK YOU to ALL participants in this thread, I appreciate the fact that all of you took the time and effort to write down your thoughts, read others and shared- I've learned a lot-. I know that this question which borderlines between the metaphysics and science can get controversial-and that's OK- My main quest seeks process more than answers, and then more questions (at the end answers are boring -just like finishing a 1200 pcs. puzzle).

    I would also like to thank TED for providing and monitoring the forum.

    I do hope to "see" All of you within TED in one form or another. I feel privileged that all of you took time from your schedules to read & post in this thread.

    As far as the question itself : How can God exist beyond space and time? to the best of my understanding in the thread metaphysics: There is a realm beyond our natural universe where the divine with such attributes exists;

    Physics says is not possible.

    The question forced us to examine some basic structures of the Universe, spacetime, origins of the universe,/// History of deities ,different religious views, agnosticism, atheism and plain'ole common sense.

    Part of me see that we are "trapped" inside this universe in our planet,in our time, in our language, in our history, in our science , in our theologies, in our cultures and in our minds.And the fact that my question is also "trapped" inside those boundaries makes any answer somewhat limited. And part of me asks: What sense the question makes outside the "trap" if there is any "outside" at all.

    Thank you ALL!

    Carlos Marquez

    PS. We still have little over 72 hrs left so we can still put them' to some good use!
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Aug 1 2013: Alberto ,
        Thanks to you man!

        OK so you seem to state that :There are natural laws which govern the universe,All laws have a law giver, That law giver is God -I hope I've got it-
        Now some laws(human creation-concept-) are prescriptive-established by us to tell us what is acceptable or not as behavior- and if we break those laws we may be punished Natural laws, on the other hand, are descriptive(another human creation-concept): they are human concepts that describe how some aspect of the universe behaves. For instance, Newton's law of motion "F=ma" describes how solid objects behave when acted upon by a force. If a person or object breaks a physical law, then it is the law that is in error, since it obviously does not adequately describe what it seeks to describe. However, there are natural laws that are at odds with one another and are still taken to be true because there is a clear and consistent pattern. For example, entities governed by the laws of quantum mechanics do not follow the same thermodynamic laws that govern the macro universe.Like Russell used to say"You know that even in the remotest depth of stellar space there are still three feet to a yard. That is, no doubt, a very remarkable fact, but you would hardly call it a law of nature."
        IMO there is a difference between a conceptual abstraction and concrete reality.
        The laws in question are descriptive abstractions of what the universe does, not prescriptive legislations about what the universe can do. As such they do not require a law giver, Then if , you would have to select which out of about 37,000 deities or such created those laws
        Prof. Einstein disapproved QM(dice) – it was(is) probabilistic, nonlocal, and linear. Despite this opposition he realized that it was a successful theory within the scalar domain of its applicability. And 57 years after Prof. Einstein death mainstream Physics opts for QM-That is until another "Einstein" comes along.

        Thanks!
        • thumb
          Aug 2 2013: Carlos,
          Your comment here is very valid for scientific laws of nature. The problem is that such laws don't exist for human behavior. It is too complex and diverse to say that any specific law pertains to human thought. We have no way of quantifying a law pertaining to thought. That creates a quandary that can't be defined specifically, thus the difference between science and religious presentations.
        • thumb
          Aug 3 2013: Funny how even calling the fundamental physical constants and their relationships laws encourages some people to put these in a human context and assert a law giver agency is required.

          Any way the premise all laws have law givers is false or unproven depending on what is described as a law.

          Also bit of a categorisation fallacy if bunching everything we call laws together.
          Constitutional law
          Law of the jungle
          Law of attraction
          Law of gravity

          Not same casteghories.
      • Comment deleted

    • Aug 2 2013: Hi Carlos hang on a minute mate its not over yet ! first lets recall that the universe has been here long before man came along, it is then only our race that has accumulated information of mans surroundings using mechanical instruments and adding his theoretical assumptions based on his observations which are calculated using measurements made by mankind. Based on these calculations we now have an understanding as best mankind has in order to continue his understanding of the universe and all within it.
      These measurements however whilst providing a scientific picture are not absolute proof ?
      There is a link between the observable universe and our minds too much to explain here , but the universe reflects similar to the nuerons and the void reflects similar to our limitless conscience.
      However my point as stated that our observations of a big bang or space or time or gravity etc are not absolute proof then the reality for all on here that general relativity and special relativity are the two main gods of science then remember this that einstein never gave us a proper scientific explanation for GR or SR, ?? space and time are two entities which have no material existence ? ok time is man made and has no material form , space is also an area of emptiness, if you do not believe me then look up space in a dictionary and argue with the intelligent individuals who write the dictionarys to explain or define the term SPACE ? OK SO CAN ANYONE HERE EXPLAIN HOW EINSTEIN MANAGED TO FUSE TIME AND SPACE CONSIDERING THEY HAVE NO MATERIAL EXISTENCE IN ORDER FOR THEY TO HAVE AN EFFECT ON MASS IN SPACE ? how did einstein come to fuse these two entities to form spacetime ? on paper yes but that does not prove their existence let alone actually fuse them ? as for the existence of God then why should the universe itself not have a conscience considering it resembles our own minds, God himself states that there are to his knowledge no others like him or where God himself orginates.
    • Aug 2 2013: Carlos
      Thank you for hosting an interesting talk. This was my introduction to TED and I really enjoyed it.
      I wish you the best my friend.

      Shawn
      • thumb
        Aug 2 2013: Shawn,
        Thanks kindly Shawn I hope to "see more of you around the TED world!

        Best Regards

        Carlos M
    • thumb
      Aug 2 2013: I'll join Shawn in thanking you, Carlos, for hosting this busy thread and working to keep it civil and professional through your always cheerful and courteous example.
      • thumb
        Aug 2 2013: Fritzie,

        Thanks for your kind words, I hope all of us took something useful from this thread, -I'm still learning- and stick around I'd hope to get back at it yet again.

        Thank you.
      • Comment deleted

  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Aug 1 2013: you can probably add to the list:
      nothing
      existence
  • thumb
    Aug 1 2013: 553 comments in less than one month? This is about the most active conversation I have seen in the 3 months I've been on TED.
    • thumb
      Aug 1 2013: I think the grand prize (most posts ever) was a conversation on gun control.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jul 31 2013: Alexander,

      Interesting!- please go on-...


      Cheers!
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jul 31 2013: Alexander,
          You have a gift-
          Religion has been used -historically as a bonding and control tool. In Hispanic countries-I can tell you- the grip is unearthly to the point of fanaticism. And the issue is that some countries and or groups within countries want to impose their views on everyone regardless opposite religious or sectarian views, and sometimes by any means necessary, that of course is not new.
          You are right- I don't take Science to a point that sterilizes Jazz to just part of the EMR spectrum, or for science to spoil a hot fudge sundaes, or Bocelli next CD. Family, friends,music,art,literature, education,man even pizza , are relevant to this life.
          I guess that in that sense I'm existentialist-I choose my life's purpose- I like it that way-

          "But let's not over-science it all. Not so that we lose the joy of it. Or the truth of it. Or entirely lose the meaning of it - by declaring all religion, or civilization, useless nonsense too quickly."
          hmm let me chew on that some more.

          Thanks!
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jul 31 2013: Alex,
          Absolutely! When you are dealing with masses, governments have historically used a synthesis of control tools.
          If I remember well atheism was banned within the SS with all SS men being required to list themselves as Protestant, Catholic or "believer in God" (German: gottgläubig), atheism was outlawed within the SS as Himmler believed it to be a form of egoism that placed the individual at the center of the universe.
          I agree with your view on USSR & China. I also agree that religion is not "alone" and there is more to it.
          Have I been the subject of retaliation? -Yes- I get the hate email, and threats, but these folks miss the point they see my line of questioning as an attack-far from that- I see it as an invitation to question core beliefs for if you only you share ideas with folks that agree with you-then is like an echo chamber-, Or like a TV set if folks don't like what they see or hear they can opt out.
          Neither I'm looking for to win or loose here in TED threads,- life is bigger than that- but an exercise of honest,civil discussion.

          Thank you
    • thumb
      Jul 31 2013: nice one.
  • thumb
    Jul 29 2013: Friends,
    The thread has taken an interesting twist as Steve Lockers and I have agreed to collaborate in order to find more meaning to the question above, all done in bona fides, as we try to build a commonality moving forward. In that spirit if anyone decides to join the door is open and there is a chair at the table for you.

    Remember it's not a right or wrong issue, we want to see "how deep the rabbit hole goes"... It may require its own thread.

    Cheers!
    • thumb
      Jul 31 2013: must say i enjoy your cheerful facilitation and thoughtful responses carlos.

      contrast my bleak comments.

      typing on phone is a pain.
      • thumb
        Jul 31 2013: Obey,
        Thanks for your kind words,

        It is always a pleasure to have you on board, you are impartial & insightful, and-True Story- when I started reading this threads, I followed (still do) your postings. You inspire me to crack the eggshell-if you will- so Thank you.

        PS I do not enjoy typing on phones either.


        Best regards!
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jul 29 2013: Alexander,

      In humans what is this "ground state " characteristics & composition? Please explain.

      Thanks
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jul 31 2013: arj in regards to your last paragraph i suggest people do consciously and unconsciously try to twist or selectively perceive science observation experience to fit their world views or religious paradigms. ala young earth creationist excluding radiometic data and red shift and fossils etc.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jul 29 2013: Hello (again).
      I found this a rather odd argument. It reminds me of C.S Lewis's argument from desire. Is that correct? So that due to us seeking mastery, purpose and autonomy it means those are within our grasp? Well those listed (and studied by Daniel Pink in his book "Drive") are achievable. Yet if I desire for something which is logically impossible, say a Square Circle. Then under C.S Lewis's line of argument I am meant for another world.
      I am unsure of what you are trying to argue!
      Kind regards,
      Bernard.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jul 29 2013: A fine response! :D
          I guess Science hasn't killed God, because there could still be deity's which act via the laws science has discovered.
          I view, with regards to transcendent purpose, a view rather similar to Michael Shermer. That is there is a transcendent morality and purpose due to humans having shared traits, in other words that due to humans sharing similar traits we have similar needs, thus morality and purpose transcend the individual.
          However I do not believe there is a "transcendent consciousness", due to findings which have impacted me greatly in Cognitive Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience.
          With regards to "Cogito ergo sum", I am not even sure of that. After-all, I could be a figurement of someone's imagination (or a piece of code). Yet I would still exist in some form (in-fact I have to logically exist in some form), but probably not in the form you think of.
          It is important to note that I find an existentialist belief rather logical in some of these circumstances. That is, some things you just have to accept. It just "is". There is no other reason. Life is no accident, nor does life have no transcent purpose. Life just "is".
          While this quote I think sums up my views rather nicely :
          ""Maybe, just maybe, there is no purpose in life. But if you linger a while longer in this world, you might discover something of value in it, like how you discovered that flower."
        • thumb
          Jul 30 2013: hi bernard. we may have covered this before but there does not have to be some grand design for us to find meaning in our lives.

          rather than ask what is the meaning of life i suggest asking what meaning do you want your life to have.

          the illusion of some grand plan or purpose may help others. i personally dont need to invent a belief in a god or borrow one of the thousands of god concepts around in order to find meaning.
        • Jul 30 2013: Obey,
          By your own estimation, is meaning found/discovered or is meaning given/bestowed? Similarly does one come to a belief or is belief invented, or could it be both?

          When you speak of a "grand design" or "grand plan" are you referring to science or religion, or both simultaneously?

          Kind regards,
    • thumb
      Jul 30 2013: i thought the abrahamic tradtions had not perished. yawah is a genocidal vindictive murdurous deity.

      at least according to the bible. hell. global floods. human sacrifices.

      civilisation and .morality has progreesed so i guess religious practices have.

      but the god of the bible is still described in it as a monstor of epic proportions.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jul 30 2013: i appreciate your balanced viewpoint.

          im both relieved that the majority of bible believers chose not to kill adulterers or keep slaves, and amazed at the mental gymnastics to pick and choose and ignore the reality of the evil deity bits.

          even the core christian doctrine of the blood sacrifice required to atone for original sin is cruel, iron age thinking. eternal damnation is the epitomy of evil.

          loving god would just forgive.

          i guess it is both the hulyprocrasy of the selective reading, and thefact that the homoseual killing verses exist and may be used at will that concerns me.

          those that focus on the sermon on the mount, all good.

          your principles of faith seem to me to be simply good principles potentially independent of faith. no issue if a belief system reinforces them, but why not use reason alone to decide how best to live and avoid the mental gymnastics and selective verse picking and hell, and original sin, and the dissonance from the fact it is probably all man made.
    • Jul 30 2013: Theology is hardly an academic discipline. The demand for religion arises from the lack of knowledge with regard the natural world. If ancients 2,000 years ago held the knowledge that we have now then we probably wouldn't ave any theological sectors in society.
  • Comment deleted

    • Jul 28 2013: George/Carlos,
      1.)Suggestion: In a discussion board such as this, I find it helpful when responding to a post made by another to hit "reply" to that specific comment. Otherwise by not doing so, it makes it very difficult to follow the various conversations. Other fruitful discussions tend to get lost in the mix.
      2.) Can we all agree that the argument on the basis of authority (I.e. what others think or believe) has already been hashed-out below and elsewhere, to little net effect either for or against? In the end all we are left with is ourselves, the thoughts and beliefs of our dearly departed, our interpretation of them, and our own experiences, ability, and willingness to choose what we believe.
      3.). How do these arguments relate to the principle question, " how can God exist beyond space and time."?

      Best regards,
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jul 28 2013: And your opinion about Lawrence Krauss is free. That's a polite way to say that its worth nothing, unless one believes nothing is something like Lawrence Krauss.
      • thumb
        Jul 28 2013: Pabitra,

        His Book -Universe from Nothing- was a gift, I do value Prof. Krauss work & opinion. He is a good man.

        Thanks!
        • thumb
          Jul 29 2013: I have been following Prof. Krauss in the internet for quite some time and I agree with you.
  • Comment deleted

    • Jul 28 2013: George,
      I like Einstein as well. No need however, to impune the character of others. It certainly doesn't contribute to a healthy, open, and honest dialogue. How does his relate to the principle question, (I.e. how God exists outside space and time)?

      Best regards
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jul 28 2013: Honey child,
      Still argument from authority & evades the question of the thread.Still non-sequitur it does not follows unconditionally in the sense of being logically necessary, you may use it as statistical data-but that's about it-

      I was listening to the link of DR. Collins- his evidence-There is something instead of nothing,The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics,The Big Bang-Collins claims that since we cannot look to a point before the BB then it "seems" that "something came out of nothing"(against conservation of matter) Dr. Collins asks "if Nature was not able to create itself How did the universe got here? Dr. Collins says that it could not be a natural force because then what created that natural force?-so Dr.Collins drops the hammer concluding that the ONLY plausible explanation is a "Supernatural Force that did the creating" & OF COURSE that "Force needed not to be limited by space or time.Now Dr. Collins calls the creator "God"-supernatural-not bounded by space or time and a "pretty good darn mathematician" then he turns to the fine tuning of the universe,Morals and his thesis that reason and science supports evidence of God.
      1.There is something instead of nothing- Well I don't know of any Physics Lab world wide that holds a jar of "nothing" to compare against "something".Then there is the issue with "Quantum fluctuations"These are particle-antiparticle pairs that come into existence in otherwise empty space for very brief periods of time,They produce measurable effects(not enough space to talk about Lambda Shift and the Casimir-Polder force) These particles are not anomalies; they are so common that some physicists argue that if we think of empty space as nothing, then there is no such thing as nothing, because space never is empty—it is always filled with virtual particles.According to quantum theory, there is no state of "emptiness".Emptiness would have precisely zero energy, far too exacting a requirement for the uncertain quantum world.
    • thumb
      Jul 28 2013: Science Major,Honey child
      Dr. Collins- As I was saying-
      2.The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics-The basic problem with the use of mathematics in physics is precisely its unreasonable effectiveness. If you have enough parameters, you can fit a curve, but that really doesn't tell you anything about the underlying reality.Or the existence of any deity- Mathematics is the brainchild of mankind, sometimes right, sometimes wrong but is it evidence for a deity-No.
      3." Nature was not able to create itself How did the universe got here? see Big bang http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
      4. A "Supernatural Force that did the creating" no supernatural explanations are needed, Quantum Physics, BB explain in natural terms the universe we live in and with evidence: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
      5. Dr. Collins has not presented evidence for the "Force" that he claims is non-spatial-non-temporal, where is the math behind that assertion?
      6.Fine tuned universe- Life developed within the universe, and so life has to be evolved TO the universe. Life cannot develop dancing to the tune of another universe – this is nonsensical. Therefore, any life that starts in any universe, by definition, must be ‘fine-tuned’ by that universe and thus every life-permitting universe will appear to be fine-tuned for life.Then of course-What are the odds?- Aah, large numbers. Whenever large numbers and stacked odds are mentioned, God is invoked. I wonder what kind of world we would live in if every scientist simply turned to God in the face of something difficult or seemingly unlikely?
      Of course Dr. Collins believes in a Christian God of his particular denomination, making all else"wrong"(Islamism is wrong Jewish are wrong ,Hellenism is wrong, Quetzalcoatl is wrong-too many-).

      Dr. Collins is a fine person, I just do not see the logic in his position

      Malbec w Pasta got to go!

      Cheers!
      • Jul 28 2013: Carlos,
        I'm not so interested in defending the beliefs of Dr. Collins, but find this an interesting place to jump back into the discussion. To your points 1-5, it seems to me your assertions work to a very limited extent, but don't really address the concept of infinite regress (I.e. "why" something exists, and if it exists where did it come from, at some point in the the discussion you come to the point where something comes from nothing). If we are being honest, isn't that really the issue for both science and religion? It seems to me me both science and religion work to address the issue just in different ways.
        In point number 2 you state "mathematics is the brainchild of mankind, sometimes right, sometimes wrong...". To which i ask, couldnt the same be said for physics? In point number five you state "Dr. Collins has not presented evidence....where is the math behind that assertion?". It seems to me you are saying that on one hand mathematics (being the "brainchild" of mankind) is "unreasonable" (both to physics and also as a proof for God), but then you turn around and use mathematics as the standard bearer for proof/evidence of God. Which is it?
        Call it God, call it Physics, I appreciate your sense of wonder in the pursuit of meaning. We all come to meaning and wonder in different ways. Stay open and honest to all paths toward meaning and a sense of wonder. You would do well to continue questioning your own beliefs, just as ardently as you question the beliefs of others. And, please, along the way try not to monopolize the experience for others.

        "To whom much is given, much is also required"
        Best regards,
        • thumb
          Jul 28 2013: Steve,
          The infinite regression model does not fit the creator hypothesis because it doesn't' answer: who created the Creator? and so on... The idea that something comes from "nothing" depends on how "nothing" is defined. In Physics there is no-"nothing, as in the metaphysical "nothing"(absence of anything- if you will-). The "nothing" of physics is not nothingness.In my answer, the quantum vacuum fluctuations occur in empty spacetime(there are others). So creation ex nihilo -out of nothing-bears the underpinning of understanding nihil In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion. And I'm being as honest as honest can be.
          I do agree that Science & Religion address the issue in different ways.
          To point #2 reasonable or otherwise Dr. Collins presents no field equations for the fundamental "force " that he postulates(unless he has published a paper that I'm not aware of) good ,bad or indifferent I would Love to see the Math.
          I apologize if in my enthusiasm in pursuing the line of questions, If I've inadvertently offended anyone,- even though I've been attacked personally by many here in TED-It's OK- I knew going in that some folks are hypersensitive to questioning core beliefs. But then again this is TED -open forum- If I wanted to talk to folks that just agree with me-well I don't see progress there- I've learned a lot in the since the opening of this forum and met very nice people on both sides of the aisle(and anywhere in between)

          "Life is a Journey,not a destination"-Emerson

          Thanks, Steve
      • Jul 29 2013: Carlos,
        I disagree with you with regards to infinite regress. You said, "the infinite regression model does not fit the creator hypothesis because it doesn't answer: who created the creator", but that is entirely the point. Infinite regression by definition does not provide an answer (first cause), in much the same way the big bang theory does not provide an answer to who/what created the elements involved in the big bang, or why they existed in the first place. Both models (I.e. creator theory and big bang theory) provide profound meaning and insight to many people, but in order to provide meaning both must presuppose initial existence (I.e. something existed before from whence all other things came forth).
        You find meaning and wonder in physics. I understand and respect that. I find meaning and wonder in physics as well. You have frustrations with closed-minded people and dogma, so do I. What you will find is that dogmas and closed-minded people are not the exclusive birthright of religion, but come in many forms (on both sides of the proverbial aisle). keep yourself open and honest to other people and paths toward meaning and wonder. The world needs more open minded people on both sides of the aisle, and the beauty of it all is that I think the concepts of God and Physics are big enough to handle the debate. One could spend a lifetime and never fully probe the rich depths of either (God or Physics). So many amazing things, so little time!

        "what lies before us and what lies behind us are small matters compared to what lies within us".
        "when you think you have all the answers it's time to find better questions."

        Best regards,
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jul 28 2013: Honey Child,
      Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Isn't that cool?

      Cheers!
    • thumb
      Jul 28 2013: honey child,
      something to consider,

      "I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."

      Albert Einstein (1879-1955) German-American physicist
      Letter to a Baptist minister (17 Jul 1953)

      Cheers!
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jul 28 2013: Honey Child,

      I've got my signed copy for free!, Prof Krauss hmm lets see has published in scientific journals, has written many books on physics, is sought after worldwide to hold talks- the man even has a documentary!
      The board of Directors at Arizona State University (theists on that board too!) listen to him and seek his opinion. Even Major motion pictures studios consult Prof. Krauss to validate the science in their films. Prof Krauss has appeared in every major TV & Radio broadcasting network in the USA & abroad (I don't think he has been invited to TBN, but I bet he would not refuse an invitation!)

      But once again you are entitled to your opinion,

      Be well honey child!
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jul 28 2013: honey child,
          I suspect John S, or is it Science major, or Sandy Burns is at it yet again..
          But you know as I prepared this question I knew that folks that like to offend etc will be part of the equation, and true to form voila!- just as predicted-.
          The funny thing (as I get emails) is that folks cans see right through.Good people move away from folks that spread insults and hate and of course here is directly proportional to the evidence for all to read. Great work anonymous avatar! You bring evidence to my position!

          Caveat, not all theists are spiteful, there are some good , gentle , intelligent, theist, to have dialogues with.(same is true for atheists and anywhere in between)

          Thanks honey child... or whatever avatar you may morph into!
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jul 28 2013: Science Major,Honey Child
      Ultimately whether Professor Einstein believed in Spinoza's version or the Hebrew version or 7 day Adventists (who knows?) is non sequitur. Even if Prof. Richard Dawkins together with Prof L. Krauss were to become Southern Baptists this very same evening with half of CALTECH, is still no evidence for a deity in and of itself.

      There is this "tug of war" for Prof. Einstein on both sides, theist claim him ,atheists claim him, Physicists claim him, the list goes on. That is of no interest to me- As I read Prof. Einstein field equations there was not even one variable for a deity, when Newton wrote his equations for the Laws of motion none of them were assigned a "god" variable or Descartes or Copernicus or Galileo and so on...(sorry about Galileo & the Church!) Still is an argument from authority-

      I know many brilliant Scientists that pray to a personal deity, they tell me that honestly there is no logical explanation-other than it feels right - and that is cool & honest.

      Thus the question still is: How can God exists beyond space & time? I hope that the answer is not : "Because many bright humans had various beliefs in deities, then God can exists beyond space and time"

      Thanks!
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jul 28 2013: I guess most people today and perhaps more in the past followed their cultural religion.

      The great Babylonian scientists following maduk. Those born in Europe followed Christianity etc.

      I guess smarter people than me used to think the earth was flat or the centre of the universe. They didn't know about us being in a galaxy with billions of stars, or that there were billions of galaxies. No idea about evolution or germ theory.

      Are their more atheists amongst top scientists today. Yes.

      I guest most scientists in the middle east are Muslim. Doesn't mean Allah exists and the quaran is correct.

      Most in Thailand are Buddhist.

      We also know there is no good reason or evidence for gods.

      Just because newton believed in alchemy and some god obviously didn't stop him doing great work. Doesn't make him right on the god and alchemy bit.

      People can believe in different conflicting god beliefs and be scientists.

      But we know all but one at best is ccorrect and there is no compelling evidence for any.

      We can not detect any gods or faeries. We can only imagine their existence.

      Science without religion works fine. In fact you leave talking donkies and unverifiable beings out of it.

      Science is about testing hypothesises, about disproving stuff. If the same rigor is applied to Yahweh, Bacchus, or even some generic deity you get no where.

      Smart people can theists or deists. But there remains no compelling rationale or evidence for any gods. Lucky science doesn't set the bar so low. No evidence for biblical talking do kids, or koranuc flying horses. Or any gods. Just feelings and faith and fallacious arguments, mostly from ignorance or authority.
      • thumb
        Jul 28 2013: Obey,

        Agreed ,

        There is 18% of the population in the USA (56,504527.2) that thinks that the Sun rotates around the Earth (Gallup).

        Scale that statistic with your reasoning and see the educational chasm and twisted reality some folks live in.


        Thanks Obey!
        • thumb
          Jul 30 2013: scary. and about 40% in young earth creation and biblical end times coming.
    • thumb
      Jul 28 2013: Science Major,Honey Child,
      Thank you for bringing such a distinguished list. But it sounds like an argument from authority. Millions of persons believed in deities but that does not make the deity true.

      BTW A year before his death Einstein wrote: "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These [...] interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.
      http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/einstein-god-letter-auction-article-1.1176971

      http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/8/prweb9771671.htm

      Essentially, what Einstein was saying is that the word "God" is meaningless, and silly because he believed in somewhat cosmic energy that existed in nature, and because of this, the word "God" is basically saying that we are ruled over by someone because we are weaker. He believed the tales of the Bible, such as the world being created in 7 days and the Tower of Babel, were honorable stories, but false, and the original texts of the Bible were meant to guide one on the path of morality. He also said that he is proud to be a Jew, but does not see them superior to any other person.

      I hope this helps,

      Cheers!
      • thumb
        Jul 29 2013: I have never been able to decide about whether Various Top Scientists believed in God the more I study them. Take Darwin. Darwin changed his mind LOTS in the last three years of his life. So I kind of conclude that Darwin was everywhere. And when you get all the bits of evidence about Einstein's beliefs, it is hard to understand whether Einstein was either a "Pantheist" "Deist" "Agnostic" or "PanDiest".
        Kind regards,
        Bernard.
  • thumb
    Jul 28 2013: Well, we have just found the largest accelerator we can get access to, the Van Allen belts. Amazing, it was right under our noses (I've only just read about it) The tricky part will be trying to insert some instrumentation. They say particles accelerate up to 99% the speed of light in a series of acceleration kicks. I hope it doesn't cost 10 billion like cern only to have them fried upon insertion.
    • thumb
      Jul 28 2013: Ken,
      Indeed,
      Let's see what the Van Allen probes yield so we can better understand the phenomena.

      Cheers!
  • thumb
    Jul 27 2013: There was a comment below that essentially seemed to be suggesting genetic analysis may indicate there was an Adam and an Eve (not necessarily with those names) as stated in the bible.

    Experts can correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to be another example of trying to find a parallel between a religious text and modern science, but with wrong conclusions.

    - Mitochondrial Eve is just our "earilest" common female ancestor down the female line. Her mother and grandmother etc all the way back before modern humans are also common ancestors.

    - We have common ancestors that are pre homo sapien e.g. a fish like creature in the devonian period

    - We share common ancestors with chimps some 8 million years ago.

    - Y chromosome Adam is just our earliest male common ancestor. Given males can have hundreds of children with different females (rulers, warlords etc) it is likely our first male common ancestor is much more recent. And he would have had fathers going back to before humans existed.

    Our first common male ancestor probably never met our first common female ancestor.

    If you consider we have 1024 great x 8 grand parent going back 10 generations
    Over 1,000,000 great x 18 grand parents going back 20 generations
    Over 1,000,000,000 great x 28 grand parents going back 30 generations
    very quickly this number is bigger than the population of humans at the time so there must have been interbreeding, common lineage at some point.

    Also we had a many different ancestors every generation, not one. We just all share some back thousands of years.

    The bible says god made adam then eve from his rib maybe 6-10 thousand years. Completely different from what science tells us.

    Science also tells us there is no one couple from which we all descend.

    We also have ancestors going back to before humans existed and we share ancestors if you go back far enough with many species.

    If anything the adam and eve story and science and evidence and logic essentially conflict on this.
  • Comment deleted

    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Jul 28 2013: I thought the net energy of the universe was 0. Just like all the electrons cancel out the protons in terms of electrical charge.

        -1 + 1 equals 0
        • thumb
          Jul 28 2013: Obey,

          If you do the math, you find out that the sum total of matter in the universe can cancel against the sum total of negative gravitational energy, yielding a universe with zero (or close to zero) net matter/energy.

          Cheers!
  • Comment deleted

  • Comment deleted

  • Comment deleted

  • thumb
    Jul 27 2013: Friends, Y otros mas,
    Deities-non-spatial / non -temporal require definition & justification
    Defining the Divine should be a start:Deity X has attributes A,B,C & D all of which requires justification. If changing the position to Deity X is energy that defies definition then is a non adequately formed concept to have a belief about (it turns into non-sequitur)
    So as the Divine definition gets more specific there is more to justify conversely the more vague the more it ceases to have any practical relevance.
    Deity X is non-physical-then it can't be tested,quantified,perceived objectively -even in principle-.Literally nothing to work with.Is not clear what a being with no conceivable physical characteristics is supposed to mean. Could life forms exists of greater intelligence and power beyond our capability of detection? Possibly so, but even if found is that evidence for deities?

    omne ignotum pro magnifico

    Cheers!
    • Jul 27 2013: Carlos
      What would you accept as evidence for deities?
      • thumb
        Jul 28 2013: Shawn S,
        What a good question! I would need a first hand experience like "doubting Thomas".

        Thanks!
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jul 26 2013: Juan,
      I love Physics.
      John Hopkins University(D. M. Van Wie) Physics Department in MD is actually working on plasma devices for controlling and enhancing aerodynamic phenomena encountered in atmospheric flight vehicles since the plasma generation generally operates using electrically controlled phenomena, the frequency response of a control system can be very fast relative to hydraulic and electromechanical systems, so new control strategies can be explored. Imagine Juan the potential system level impact. Also the USAF is studying the impact of plasma based controls in hypersonic flights.

      Available already is the MPD Magnetoplasmadynamic Thrusters(NASA, JPL) in short the MPD turns Megawatts into thrust. Sounds like science fiction but I assure you that is very , very real.

      Physics is Cool!

      Cheers!
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jul 27 2013: Juan, Como anda?

          Sus palabras me dan aliento, muchas gracias,

          To me Physics is amazing, so much to learn and only a single lifetime!!
          To your point: http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/ , Man I was (still am) geeking out about that site!!. Imagine the logistics, testing,etc is a very,very ambitious project . I think best to build small and set a baseline for reliability before going epic. Plus imagine the money involved with our current economic woes.
          Now I do remember that in the old days there was NERVA (Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application) a conjoint project of the Dept of Energy, NASA & Nuclear propulsion Office.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA The XE version was tested in Area 25 in Nevada (Jackass Flats).
          USA needs more passionate Physicists -some are getting old- and some are busy doing book tours abd videos-I guess that is needed- The best thing to do to start the trip to PHYS101 is the following:
          Exponents, roots, and scientific notation - ability to add, subtract, multiply, divide, and take powers and roots of variables and numbers expressed in scientific notation.
          Algebra – Ability to solve linear and quadratic algebraic equations, including use of the quadratic formula. Ability to solve for one variable in terms of other variables. Ability to solve a set of two simultaneous equations.
          Geometry – Basic knowledge of angles, triangles, perimeters and areas of figures.
          Trigonometry – Ability to use sin, cos, and tan functions and the Pythagorean theorem.
          Graphing – Knowledge and ability to work with graphs of linear and quadratic functions, including understanding slopes and intercepts and ability to write the equation for a straight line based on knowledge of the coordinates of two points on the line.
          High-School Physics – Some elementary questions at the level of high-school physics courses.

          Sounds like a lot but I bet that you have most of these, What no math can give you is the passion for discovery!

          Adelante, Vamos!
        • thumb
          Jul 27 2013: Juan, Amigo
          You know what forget that long list try this instead: http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theorist.html

          I think this will inspire you: http://www.space.com/ check out their spacecraft section.

          It may be more practical,

          Here we go!
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jul 26 2013: Sandy,
      I posted to that subject already on this thread.

      Be well.
  • thumb
    Jul 26 2013: Friends,
    The notion of the "present" takes time to process, thus we are really playing catch up from the past.

    Cheers!
  • thumb
    Jul 26 2013: @ Juan..It's a pleasure to be able to express yourself without being disrespected. It is my belief that Jesus was speaking of the God part of himself. Don't forget he was also fully human. We probably will attain full communion with him in the afterlife Have a blessed day.
  • thumb
    Jul 26 2013: Well, why not? I could never get there because there is no there where ever there might be, in fact none of us can say anything. We can't reproduce something that we have no experience with. It's just like the CMB, did you know you can use it in any cosmology? it's there so you can put it in but i'm not saying that this explains why people believe, people can believe whatever they want to believe. It's only harmful when it's coercive.
  • thumb
    Jul 26 2013: The statement comes from a God belief looking for a gap to hide in.

    Because a God can not be proven to exist in the reality we can measure they have to hide it outside of the universe.

    Now we think time had a starting point for this incarnation of the universe, their God has to be outside time otherwise it is not eternal and independent of the universe they want to believe their God created.

    Its working backwards front to find some way their God concept can exist without really existing in reality, consistent with their being no evidence etc.
    • thumb
      Jul 26 2013: Obey,
      Thank you for your posts. I enjoy your argument structure,is lucid & clear -no fluff-.
      I think as this thread goes on that our theists friends ET Al, have a decision to make -either reality is independent of consciousness or is not-. In my conscious I can give any "being" any capabilities as my imagination allows,but that doesn't make it real. The wall clock behind my station reads: 12:40h, I can imagine it to read : 19:30h but objective reality reigns supreme.And MLB Baseball players do "Santeria" rituals over their bats for luck.

      I gather -from the thread- that deities exists as a form of consciousness in and out of the known universe at all points of the time flux(past-present-future) and at any location given of the time flux.
      The justification for the assertion is faith and in that environment all known physical laws break down to pure simulacra.
      Theists also just simply dismiss any historical evidence that points to the fact that the god hypothesis bears nothing new,even theists -atheists discussions! (historically there are 3,700 Gods, Goddesses, Spirits, Demons and Saints!) and I lost count of religions.All claiming to be the truth hands down.

      There are good people on both sides of this "debate" and historically so.

      Of course the issue won't be solved at the end of this the thread . What I do see is that for example Physics students every year are less dogmatic, more objective and less religious.There is tons of information (good & bad) "out there" and many, many people are liberating their minds from their cultural frame of reference of local theologies.

      Time will tell...(in this space and time ,of course)

      Thanks!
      • thumb
        Jul 27 2013: I agree Carlos.

        There is nothing compelling to indicate gods, goddesses, demons, faeries, natural spirits, santa claus etc exist independent of the constructs in our minds.

        Don't forget all the mystical and shamanistic beliefs, ancestor worship etc. It not only gods that only live in our imaginations as far as we can tell.

        Good to discuss and test ideas with people from different perspectives.
        • thumb
          Jul 28 2013: Obey,
          Agreed is good to "shake the can" and test perspectives, as long as the playing field is level, In the other hand Obey, this reminds me of Nietzsche and the "will to Power" -those who hold the power tell the others what is the "truth".

          Cheers!
  • thumb
    Jul 26 2013: A God existing outside time and space is simply an argument from ignorance .

    How could you determine it was possible?

    How could you determine it actually is correct.

    There is no reliable to know if it is possible or true.

    No good reason to believe universe creating gods exist outside time and space.

    Which I guess is your point Carlos.
    • thumb
      Jul 26 2013: Obey,
      It is a matter of misplaced consciousness, historically fueled and reinforced by indoctrination.
      I do question the process used to arrive at the conclusion on to deities that exists beyond space and time.

      Cheers!
      • thumb
        Jul 27 2013: The processes to get to any of the mutually exclusive contradictictory god or goddess beliefs is interesting.

        I agree the outside time and space aspect to some beliefs is also interesting.

        Obviously the old religious texts don't communicate about this in a meaningful way because they didn't share our modern understanding of the universe. Most didn't realise our sun is just another star, or that their were 8 planets (sory pluto you are just a TNO). No mention of other galaxies or even our galaxy because these revelations or human constructs were in a framework of bronze or iron age or medieval etc ignorance.

        My view is there is no way to confirm if a deity or billions of different deities exist beyond space and time. So it is an argument from ignorance. Theists or deists find it useful given we can't find any compelling evidence of any gods or goddesses in the universe we can test and observe.

        Its a cognitive plug only.
        • thumb
          Jul 28 2013: Obey,
          Well said,
          In a realm of "existence inaccessible to us", would we be able to deduce what occupies such a realm? Let alone a divine being-No. It gets hit by a logic asymmetry either we can lists countless impossible beings-that can't exist (non-spatial,non-temporal Omnipresent Being) or we can list beings that do exist for the realm is unknowable. 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. Theists fail to fulfill this requirement in their constructs.And i still like to look at the mental process on how anyone gets to that statement being true.

          Being deaf to History is a failure , for example Obey, if Christians were to look on how the gospels were written they would be very,very surprised.

          I encourage all of us not to accept anything and to question everything!

          Thanks Obey!
          Cheers!
  • Comment deleted

  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jul 26 2013: I agree that the feelings people have may be used to reinforce various God beliefs, and may have nothing to do with gods.
  • Comment deleted

    • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

    • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jul 26 2013: Hi Juan, I read your note.

      Its pretty well thought through.

      I suggest we know a lot about why theist or deistic thinking and beliefs and religions persist.

      I find it off that at the end of your analysis you prefer to be a theist to get that sense of connection that as you state is not proof, and not limited to supernatural belief systems.

      But I espect your right to choose.

      Hopefully your appreciation that there is no compelling proof makes it less likely harmful teachings be pushed on society under religious umbrella.

      I guess you appreciate that non theists look at the situation and seeing no compelling proof and don't try and immerse themselves in religious situations to get a feeling.

      For me the feeling became hollow once I realized it was probably just natural psychology if I tried to get it in a religious context based on what I realized was unfounded.

      Whereas the feeling in a non religious context via meditation or those lovely moments in life is pure and honest.

      If a theist concept works for you, that's fine too I guess. Once I realized my cultural religion was just like all the others, i felt dishonest until I moved away. A knowingly self created construct didn't work for me.
  • thumb
    Jul 25 2013: Friends y otros,

    Let us remember today 7-25-2013/7-25-1920 is the birthday of Rosalind Franklin,Scientist-Rosalind Elsie Franklin was a British biophysicist and X-ray crystallographer who made critical contributions to the understanding of the fine molecular structures of DNA, RNA, viruses, coal, and graphite.

    And she was from the era of male staff only in laboratories...
    Just so you know,

    Cheers!
  • thumb
    Jul 25 2013: Friends ET AL,
    Let's take a quick look at history-shall we?-. Zeus, Apollo,Ares,,Aphrodite and the other deity imported from Ancient Egypt- Serapis- worshiped in port cities, Atargatis from ancient Syria, Delos ,Dionysus... there is evidence of charms often cut in precious or semi-precious stone, (had protective power). Figurines, manufactured from bronze, lead, or terracotta, were pierced with pins or nails, and used to cast spells. Curse tablets made from marble or metal (especially lead) were used for curses. Symbols would be placed on the doors of houses to bring good luck or deter misfortune for the occupants within. Greeks also adapted Babylonian astrology( the belief that stars and planets influence a person's future)into their own complex system All faith based systems-faith is blind.

    If billions of people today believed in those deities it would be easier to convince others.

    Do religions have seasons?-there is recorded history- Or are religions just a cultural repression of our developed trait to believe in order to be associated with a particular culture, tribe or group? Heard it over and over and your parents told you it was true...they would not tell you wrong, their parents told them. No proof is needed, your surroundings are proof right?
    Zeus was real to hundreds of thousands who lived and died once upon a time.Were they wrong? And if so according to whom or what? Are we Atheists only when it comes to Zeus? Or do the same core explanations for modern deities could be used to assert Artemis?
    Formal persecution of paganism started with Constantius II,Gratian, Theodosius and others until the coronation of Anastasius, who came to the throne in 491, was forced to sign a written declaration of orthodoxy before his coronation. The reason of force not the force of reason in action. And that's how we inherited Christianity.

    ...Somethin' to think about...

    Cheers!
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Jul 25 2013: John perhaps the point is your God concept is just one of many. Its not special except for you.
      • Comment deleted

    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Jul 26 2013: N Residence,
        The historical point that I was making is: that Christianity used terror ,force & legislation to become the predominant religion as the Roman empire decayed. Incidentally the lessons learned were used later in the inquisition.And that's how we inherited Christianity.
        Millions across the globe today like millions in ancient history chose religion as an integral part of their cultural frame of reference. It is part of the cultural DNA of societies.
        Interesting to note that let's say Ancient Egyptians build majestic Pyramids, we marvel today at their achievements and think little of Osiris or RA,we dismiss them as"not true deities" from our point of view, but if you lived in Ancient Egypt and were born and raised an Egyptian (An Astronomer perhaps?) you would have faith in their deities.
        Or take the Greeks in many senses they gave us the basis for present way of life-we think of them as highly intelligent- except when it comes to their deities-they got it wrong there just like the Egyptians, or Mayans ,Aztecs, Incas,Carthagians, How is that so?
        Could we entertain the notion-crazy as it may seem- that religion is after all a cultural phenomena linked to natural selection? Or one of thousands variations of a deities is right, and if so which? Or are they all just a product of our psyche?
        I'm not seeking to convince anyone to anything, I see posts from folks that have ALL the answers (heading for a Nobel Prize for sure!) . This is TED not a religious Pulpit-that is of no interest to me-. What is important are the questions, and the process we use to answer them. To "win' or "loose" at any of these Ted forums is not what I'm after. When we wake up tomorrow JPL,CALTECH, MIT, Vatican, Southern Baptists, Mormons, Islamics will go business as usual.
        What I'm asking is to look at the scenario outside the box,objectively and see where that leads us to.

        That is all.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jul 24 2013: I'm not Sure how you get from a brain and energy and chemical reactions to some magical soul.

      What a mixed up illogical rationale.

      Aren't souls supposed to be independent of matter and energy.

      The conservation of matter and energy does not mean the mind survives death.

      Our atoms just become part of something else. Just like the atoms in our body were in plants and animals we are or the atmosphere we breathed before they were part of us.

      Go back far enough and our atoms were created in earlier generations of stars.

      Which is pretty cool. We are made of star stuff.

      When we die our body will decompose or be burnt and go back into the universe to be plant food etc.

      Most of the functionality you might label the soul is just an emergent properties of the brain as far as we can tell.

      Your creative argument has little to do with science as soon as you mix in unverifiable magic stuff.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jul 24 2013: If you can not see what is wrong with your argument, I can't help.

          Why assume if the matter or energy is conserved, it goes on in a form that maintains a mind or soul or consciousness.

          I'd be very surprised if scientist experts in these areas support your argument.

          After our brain stops working and decomposes it is not capable of consciousness as far as far as we know.

          The energy you may be talking about is associated with electrochemical reactions from matter, from the neurons, in a working physical brain, not a vac um or independent of a brain.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jul 25 2013: Your two arguments are so illogical I wasn't sure they were not just trying to stir~

          Apologies if they were serious.
      • thumb
        Jul 24 2013: Obey
        Long time no see, I hope that you are doing well.

        Cheers!
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jul 25 2013: John the poor logic and lack of scientific thinking is readily apparent. Do you really think your concepts are over my head just because I think they are poor arguments.

          I wouldn't say you are talking over my head. I can do mass and energy balances in my sleep.and I have a reasonable understanding of common fallacies.

          Rather in these cases your arguments are understood and found to be lacking. poor.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jul 25 2013: The conservation of energy does not mean it persists in a form capable of generating a consciousness after death without a functioning brain.

          I think you will find my interpretation is consistent with science.

          If you are just calling the energy associated with consciousness over a life time, persisting in other forms unrelated to sinecuousness after death then maybe calling it a soul is not useful. It is just energy.
    • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

  • thumb
    Jul 23 2013: Yes, grammatical structure would imply that love is a being. If I said God is loving, that would imply that God is a being. I am glad you pointed that out to me. I had not thought about that. But I don't know how else to convey this idea in words. I see God as a force I will do some research and get back to you. ButI am thinking to ask what form does love have? Can you hold it in you hand ?
  • thumb
    Jul 23 2013: Hi...We saw he human Jesus with our eyes. We saw the God nature of Jesus wih our hearts and minds. BTW, You and I are sons and daughters of God!!
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jul 24 2013: Aren't infinite things etc just evidence of what ever they are.

      Why assume if there are some things that are infinite then an unrelated infinite God exists?
      that is like saying men exist and God is often considered a man. So the existence of men is evidence for God. Not.

      Sorry fallacious argument.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jul 25 2013: No its just a catatorisation fallacy in this case.

          4 legged dogs are not evidence for 4 legged gods.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jul 26 2013: If something infinite exists in regards to some particular attribute it does not follow that something infinitely powerful exists.

          If something infinitely powerful exists then you have at least one thing that is infinitely powerful. Even then it does not follow that other things infinately powerful exist.

          They might, but they require evidence of themselves.
    • thumb
      Jul 24 2013: Using this poor logic 4 legged dogs are evidence for four legged unicorns or four legged gods.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jul 24 2013: If the best you can say is your argument can not be verified one way or the other, its not as very good argument.

          You can not disprove the existence of unicorns either.

          However your argument is more than that.

          It is a based on a fallacy.

          Science is based on testable hypothesises by the way. Not whatever you imagine that can not be verified one way or the other.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jul 26 2013: I agree science doesn't prove absolute terms.

          And if a better explanation is found, science updates.

          But there is a big difference between well established science based on evidence and unverifiable flights of fancy like gods and demons.
      • thumb

        E G

        • 0
        Jul 24 2013: The discossion about beliveing without proofs in God has nothing to do with what God ask from us ; God ask us to believe , but this 'to believe' is deeper than what athiests like Obey think it is ; and as I said has nothing to do with believing in Idk what without a kind of certainty --- certainty which is reached rather by an honest life than by abstract reasoning --- at this point atheists fail to understand the Bible and everything else about christian life .

        But of course , everybody thinks he understands .
        • thumb
          Jul 24 2013: EG,

          To understand what a deity asks from humanity first you must have evidence for such deity. otherwise is an exercise in futility, living a moral life is not evidence for a deity, I know many a great people, good moral persons that value reason over faith.
          And when you claim that atheists do not "understand" the Bible ( which by proxy means that you do) to which of over 40,000 interpretations or Christianities are you referring to?

          And me, I have more questions than understanding.

          Thanks
        • thumb
          Jul 26 2013: What if there are gods and goddesses that don't ask us to believe.

          Just as much good reason to believe this than in any gods linked to this or that human religion.

          By the way eg, I've been a Christian. Following the bible, praying, casting out demons, speaking in tongues, evangelising, debating. The feelings associated with this, the years spent imaging god was with me, building a god construct in my head, do not prove a real god exists outside of what we created in our minds.

          I understand christian life and their interpretation of bible, some of them anywaY.

          Many start with an assumption the bible is the word of god. No reason to assume that just like all other religious texts.

          Often the assume miracles happened as and falsely if they happened that proives the bible is true in key rrespect. Even a ressurection does not prove there is a universe creating god.

          If you think logicallly.

          Much of it co mes down to feelings, social connection and an invented relationship we with some mental construct, just like other religions.

          And the bible. The old part talks of a jealous tribal god. With angry prophets given the people keep following other gods. Then the new testament. Jesus said some things, if he said therm, in amongst the apolocyptic teachings. Most was made up on the run after he died. Whether to allow non Jews, whether they had to be circu,sized.

          If you look st Christianity and the bible the same way we look at all religions it is not much different.
  • thumb
    Jul 23 2013: A Latif
    Agreed, Is a conversation that is worth having.
    , It seems that we have a tendency to detect agents at work in the world around us, and to attribute intentions to them. In the struggle for survival that underpins natural selection, a cognitive system that is tuned to purposeful agents should be highly adaptive. It might tend mistakenly to attribute agency to logs, but it will come into its own when one of those logs turns out to be an alligator. There is a persistent beliefs about a world populated by invisible agents, both benevolent and malevolent: tree spirits, demons, leprechauns, gods, angels, ghosts and so on.

    In contrast, modern science requires us to think in unnatural ways, to put aside notions of agency and intention, as we construct explanations for the natural world.

    There’s a great story recounted about Elizabeth Anscombe saying to Wittgenstein, that she can “understand why people thought that the sun revolves around the earth.” Ludwig asks, “why?” Anscombe says, “Well, it looks that way.” Wittgenstein responds, “and how would it look if the earth revolved around the sun?” Talk abut going beyond common sense-

    Cheers!
  • thumb

    E G

    • 0
    Jul 23 2013: I heard recently that a photon can exist beyond space and time --- to prove this you need to be a genius unless you're smart enough and can't sleep . As about proving this thing in the case of God I don't know what you need.......

    If by god you understand something then it's very easy to say how can God exist beyond space and time . The explanation would be something like this : because He's God . The problem with this explantion is that it rest on an assumption ---- what you understand by God .
    • thumb
      Jul 23 2013: EG,
      A photon belongs to a class of zero-time particles called Luxons. For a system to move at the speed of light, would suggest that the spacetime triangle it is moving in (with an imaginary line representing time), would be stretched into infinity. These Luxon particles move along a null path in zero-spacetime. This means from its reference frame( if there was to be any ), it has no passing of time, or duration of space or distance. Time genuinely doesn't pass from the “perspective” of a photon.Whenever there’s a “time effect” there’s a “distance effect” as well, and in this case we find that infinite time dilation (no time for photons) goes hand in hand with infinite length contraction (there’s no distance to the destination).

      And yes, having a subjective definition of a deity based on faith falls short of the objectiveness needed to become naturalistic.

      Thanks!
      • thumb

        E G

        • 0
        Jul 23 2013: Hi Carlos :

        No offense , but I thought that naturalistic implies rather subjectiveness than objectiveness . And also , you can have an objective definition of God based on faith, faith does not imply subjectivity , in religion thought it means rather a kind of honesty . Suppose you have this definition , wouldn't then be extremly easy to answer your question ?

        I guess you didn't came up with that explantion from yourself ; so it looks like you spent a lot of time learning this things . How do you think somebody who didn't can answer your question (unless that guy is not a genius) ?
        • thumb
          Jul 23 2013: EG,
          None taken-
          Naturalistic explanations based on the scientific method are not based on subjectivity but rather its opposite.Now If there was an objective definition of a deity you would have to contend with the thousands Gods and their variations all based on subjective interpretation (IE over 40,000 forms of Christianity).
          Anyone can claim anything regarding a deity but that does not make it automatically true.

          You are correct -I don't have a subjective or objective definition of a deity or the supernatural.

          Now maybe because it cannot be answered without the aid of faith, then it becomes a purely metaphysical endeavor-yet millions of our neighbors think otherwise.

          Thanks!
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jul 25 2013: Juan,
          Language has indeed its limitations and Physicists must be more precise when talking out of labs or field.We may in be in fact victims of our own frame of reference. And to your point we must establish distinctions in language so that we could build shared meanings and move onward.
          One thing anyone should be repressed in self -expression is fear-as long as you communicate with civility and reason. "Insane theists' are actually counting on that-fear as a repression tool- It fails look at the KKK-is practically dead-. And like I said before in another post it's too late "the cat is out of the bag"

          PS I love Star Trek!

          Cheers!
        • thumb
          Jul 25 2013: Juan,
          Check out the standard model if you care more about particle Physics (a very groovy subject yeah!) Luxon Theory: http://www.tardyon.de/
          Standard model:http://www.benbest.com/science/standard.html

          Enjoy!
  • thumb
    Jul 22 2013: One last comment................What is truth ? My truth is what my reason says is rational, workable satisfactory.Everyone should have their own truth in order to be an authentic person. In my youth, I accepted what I was told was the truth. I have questioned myself and I cannot believe what I was told to believe. I believe in love and if that was the concensus and rightly understood concept We could get along better. I am not saying that anyone else's truth is wrong. I live by what appears reasonable to me. And I am way out of depth in this conversation. I am no scientist although I do have a rudimentary knowledge of the sciences. What a wonderful read this thread was. Thank you Carlos
    • thumb
      Jul 23 2013: Truth must be absolute. An example of this would be if I were to believe the "truth" that you are a male. Is that true to me, maybe, but is it the actual truth proven through science?
    • thumb
      Jul 23 2013: Helen,
      Your positive energy is always refreshing Helen, Thank you.

      Cheers!
      • thumb
        Jul 23 2013: Hi Carlos...I just might mention that I used to be an orthodox CATHOLIC. but I just could not justify all the dogma and doctrine. I believe as does Hans Kung that the pope is not infallible. I try to imitate Jesus way in my life (don't always make it) so I call myself a progressive Catholic. BTW years ago II had an inte nse desire to join the society you mentioned and I was told by a couple of priests this was not a good thing.
  • thumb
    Jul 22 2013: @ Justin....I think that the story of Adam and Eve is a reference to the time when humans became self-aware.
    They then no longer operated on instinct. They realized their relationships were governed by choices.
    • thumb
      Jul 23 2013: But the story of Adam and Eve is not a metaphor statement or non-literal. It is a true story that happened and the start of human existence. It's the reason you and I are even alive.
      • thumb
        Jul 23 2013: Justin,
        You claim that the Garden of Eden Story is true beyond any reasonable doubt, and if I could be so bold to assume that you believe that is so because it is stated in the Bible, and you believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of the only and true God as predicated by the Catholic Church?

        Thank you
        • thumb
          Jul 23 2013: I do not claim hold to any denomination but if you're asking what I am closely related to it's not the Catholic Church but Reformed Baptist. And I don't believe the story because it is from the bible and the bible is true, which all of that is, I believe it because there is no better story to believe in. What other story is there, that morals and good and evil just evolved into existence? Something does not evolve from nothing because in nothing, only nothing can exist and nothing can come from it.
      • thumb
        Jul 23 2013: Justin,
        I have many good southern baptists friends here in TN. Now you say- not that the story came from the Bible- bu to you is the best story there is -all literally true to the letter- does that include the serpent that talked to Eve?
        Also what do you mean by "nothing"?

        Thanks!
        • thumb
          Jul 23 2013: I'm not really understanding what you're saying? Because the story of the serpent that talked to Eve is involved in the same story because after the serpent talked to Eve about eating the fruit of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, she tempted Adam with it. So, I'm not really sure what your question is per se? And where I said "not that the story came from the bible" that does not mean I think that that's not the best reason, because it is, I'm just saying there are other reasons to it besides that one.
        • thumb
          Jul 23 2013: And my actual quote was this:

          "And I don't believe the story because it is from the bible and the bible is true, which all of that is, I believe it because there is no better story to believe in."

          That changes the meaning of the "quote" you just made of me. Don't misquote me like that please.
      • thumb
        Jul 23 2013: Justin,
        I apologized to you if I misquoted you, help me understand-Do you literally believe the story of creation as read in the book of Genesis? I hope that I did a better job at communicating the question.

        Thanks!
        • thumb
          Jul 23 2013: Yes I do believe the story of creation in the book of Genesis. And it's alright, it just changes the meaning of what I was saying by the way you quoted me. Lol
      • thumb
        Jul 23 2013: Justin,
        Well -Thank you,
        And by which method of understanding did you arrived to the conclusion that the story of creation as told in Genesis is true?

        Be well,
        • thumb
          Jul 23 2013: Through study of the bible, prophesy of what was to come that is made, and by the fact that the whole bible ties itself together. Everything in scripture is backed up by another verse, which is backed up by another, and another.

          Quick Fun Fact:

          - Did you know that there is more proof for the events in the bible then there is that Julius Caesar was a real person and all of his events were true?
      • thumb
        Jul 23 2013: Justin,
        Help me to understand you- I don't want to misquote you- To my question"by which method of understanding did you arrived to the conclusion that the story of creation as told in Genesis is true?"your answer is "by the study of the Bible..." " by the fact that the Bible ties itself together" " Everything in scripture is backed up by another verse, which is backed up by another, and another. "
        So I gather, that you are saying to me that Genesis account of creation is true because when you study the Bible (regarding Genesis creation account) the Bible backs itself up, and thus you ascertain the Genesis account as undeniably truth.So the Bible is used as evidence for the Bible.
        Did I understand you correctly? if not please correct me.

        Thanks for your patience.
        • thumb
          Jul 23 2013: Yes that is true. Because, sadly, I have not studied outside of the Bible for the proof of Adam and Eve. Because of simply being 18 years old and having a job and school, I don't have the time to research like I would like. Maybe you should talk to someone else about that. I'm not ashamed to admit when I don't know something. Lol
      • thumb
        Jul 23 2013: Justin,
        Understood & well said!

        Thanks
      • thumb
        Jul 23 2013: Justin,
        I apologized to you if I misquoted you, help me understand-Do you literally believe the story of creation as read in the book of Genesis? I hope that I did a better job at communicating the question.

        Thanks!
  • thumb
    Jul 22 2013: @ John.............We will never be able to hold God in our hands.
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Jul 22 2013: Dear John....I believe that we can attain a state of communion with God like Jesus did. So far I don't know of anyone who has. "I am the light, the truth and the Way"
        Only ONE knows the truth, the rest of us live by faith.
        • thumb
          Jul 23 2013: We cannot attain a state of communion with God like Jesus did because Jesus is the Son of God, apart of the trinity. He is a perfect and holy being and we are not. Since are not like Jesus we could never attain a "state of communion" like Jesus did, because Jesus was not in communion with God, He was and is God.
  • thumb
    Jul 22 2013: @ Justin....Love is a verb. I am using it in that sense.
    • thumb
      Jul 23 2013: "God is love." The word "love" in that sentence that you stated earlier is not a verb but a description of what and who God is and yet again a description of a being.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jul 23 2013: Juan,
      The dynamics of the question looses its coherence when theist claim that science is another "religion" that science is faith based at its core, this if mainstream religion can make faith based assertions then they are no different from science.
      Atheists counter--> Science is based in natural explanations to the world around us, using the scientific method, and excluding the supernatural.
      Morality although shared by both parties IMO doesn't have a bonding quality in this flux.
      Still is a conversation worth having-with civility,and respect-.

      Cheers!
      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jul 24 2013: Juan,
          Sorry I've been very busy
          OK what we've got? That nagging proof -evidence, cannot proof anything etc.
          Here is how I ( and a few others see it)-
          Let us uses some examples of absolutely proven science:
          1. There is no reason to doubt the laws of physics governing acceleration and
          momentum. These laws are the basis for a large number of industrial operations,
          transportation and numerous other activities.
          2. Constituents of an atom include protons, neutrons (except for 1H) and electrons.
          Nuclear power, nuclear medicine and numerous other industries are based on this proven structure.
          3. There is no question that moon rotates around the earth and earth around the sun.
          4. The elemental composition of a large number of chemical compounds is known
          and is the basis for the chemical, pharmaceutical, and numerous other industries.
          5. The gross anatomy of humans is well-established and beyond dispute. Normal
          humans have two hands, two feet, two eyes, two ears, and one nose. They also
          have brains, lungs, kidneys, livers, and stomachs.
          6. Under standard conditions water freezes at 0 oC and evaporates at 100 oC
          7. Human genetic material is composed of DNA which includes two complementary
          strands and undergoes transcription and translation.
          8. The reaction of silver nitrate and sodium chloride at sufficient concentrations
          produces a precipitate consisting of silver chloride.
          9. Whereas certain diseases are caused by viruses, some others are caused by
          bacteria.
          10. The human papillomavirus is what gives people warts, and it is unique to humans.
          11.Causes of osteoarthritis include age, injury, obesity, and genetics.
          12. You are not born with all of the brain cells you will ever have. There is ample evidence that the brain continues to produce new cells in at least a few brain regions well into adulthood, through a process called neurogenesis.
          13. Global Climate Change.
          And I'm sure that our friends can come up with others,

          more to follow...
        • thumb
          Jul 24 2013: Juan,
          That is the way DARPA the FDA & EPA think about Science,whether they are building 3D structures with DNA "bricks" or storing information in photons(crystal memory).
          My team is based on the concept of Best Available Science (BAS) and Metrics for Evaluation of Scientific Claims (MESC) . You must have an Open Mind to accept new ideas and carefully evaluating them. And to make sure that the principle of being open minded does not get abused you apply skepticism requiring that those who make a scientific claim are obligated to provide sufficient evidence supporting their claim. And the claim must be reproducible (using universal scientific principles) by anyone with the equipment , skills for confirmation.
          Now, Proven Science-Scientific laws and their applications like the "bending moment" in Engineering.
          Evolving Science hmm what about Genomic Medicine? or Tornado prediction?
          Hyphotesized Science Multiverses
          Borderline Science: Nano Science
          Fallacious Information:Junk Science

          Now that said I know that Science is heuristic and that is OK.

          We have a joke at work-here are the 3 blind men standing next to an elephant and describing what they are touching. They experience the elephant based on what their intellects are prepared to experience, no matter how brilliant they are.We are making progress and we are breaking through, but we have no idea just how primitive we remain.
          I know Physics has limits .
          The progress we make depends upon the questions we ask, and the questions that we ask are limited by our language, our ability to conceptualize, and perhaps by other things that we cannot even fathom.
          And that said it is a well known scientific proven fact that the Speed of light c=2.99792458·108 m/s in this universe.

          Thanks!
    • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

  • Comment deleted

    • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jul 22 2013: Juan,
      Indeed we may have a pre-disposition to believe in a deity and I'm inclined to believe the hypothesis that indoctrination plays a supporting part.
      Tribal religious beliefs also were the bonding agent for hunter-gatherers societies. Shared religious beliefs helped our ancestors form tightly knit groups that co-operated in hunting, foraging and childcare, enabling them to out-compete others,or so the theory goes.

      However, none of this necessarily means that the gods we "believe" in do exist.None of this says anything about the existence or otherwise of gods-whether or not a belief is true is independent of why people believe it-.

      Thanks Juan!
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jul 23 2013: Juan,
          True story-I was raised Catholic-educated by Jesuit priests-Even became part of the Opus Dei-. Then came in Physics, and the Gods started to fall off the altar where they once stood.


          Cheers!
  • thumb
    Jul 21 2013: Can I butt in? I happen to be a panenthiest. God has no form, does not have attributes, can't be described.
    God is the ground of being. God is not a being. God is existence. God does not exist. God does not love. God is love. We, humans can incarnate God but cannot become God. Socrates once said and I quote "The only thing I know is that I do not know". I consider that wisdom. (:>)
    • thumb
      Jul 21 2013: What would you say in response to Genesis 1:27? If we are "created in His image" then obviously there must be some sort of form that he has. The bible even refers to the "attributes of God." Although I believe that God cannot FULLY be described (because a finite human cannot fully describe an infinite being) but there are obvious descriptions of God such as faithful, loving, sovereign, wrathful, all-powerful, etc. Therefore we would have to believe that though God, I do not believe, does not have a physical form, because God is perfect and a human body cannot be fully perfect, he has signs that prove that He is more than a "ground of being" but is a being just like all the other forms of the trinity, Son and Holy Spirit.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jul 22 2013: I have never seen energy but I have seen its effects.
        • thumb
          Jul 22 2013: John,

          I'm trying to understand what you're saying because I think I'm confused. Are you saying that God is made up of molecules? Because, if so, wouldn't that be form? I'mnot saying that God has some sort of body, which I probably wasn't very clear about. What I was meaning is that He has attributes, which would make, not a physical form, but a form in and of itself and therefore with Him having attributes, you would be describing Him. Because, the Bible refers to God's attributes in many different books written by many different people.
      • thumb
        Jul 22 2013: I think we are created in Its image refers to consciousness.

        God is one and we are not one. God does not have to make choices and we do
        We can be loving and in that way be LIKE God.
        • thumb
          Jul 22 2013: But in that statement of "We can be loving and in that way be LIKE God," aren't you describing God?
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jul 22 2013: Ok thank you I was just confused with what you were saying but now I get it! Hahahaha
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Jul 22 2013: I cannot be a pantheist because I cannot understand It so how can I put limits on It.
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Jul 22 2013: Why do you say that God is composed of atoms ?
    • thumb
      Jul 22 2013: Here is a commentary written for Genesis 1:27 which gives us all more a perspective on what the Bible means by "being made in His image." This comes from the notes in The ESV Study Bible.

      There has been debate about the expression image of God. Many scholars point out the idea, commonly used in the ancient Near East, of the king who was the visible representative of the deity; thus the king ruled on behalf of the god. Since v. 26 links the image of God with the exercise of dominion over all the other creatures of the seas, heavens, and earth, one can see that humanity is endowed here with authority to rule the earth as God’s representatives or vice-regents (see note on v. 28). Other scholars, seeing the pattern of male and female, have concluded that humanity expresses God’s image in relationship, particularly in well-functioning human community, both in marriage and in wider society. Traditionally, the image has been seen as the capacities that set man apart from the other animals—ways in which humans resemble God, such as in the characteristics of reason, morality, language, a capacity for relationships governed by love and commitment, and creativity in all forms of art. All these insights can be put together by observing that the resemblances (man is like God in a series of ways) allow mankind to represent God in ruling, and to establish worthy relationships with God, with one another, and with the rest of the creation. This “image” and this dignity apply to both “male and female” human beings. (This view is unique in the context of the ancient Near East. In Mesopotamia, e.g., the gods created humans merely to carry out work for them.) The Hebrew term ’adam, translated as man, is often a generic term that denotes both male and female, while sometimes it refers to man in distinction from woman (2:22, 23, 25; 3:8, 9, 12, 20): it becomes the proper name “Adam” (2:20; 3:17, 21; 4:1; 5:1). At this stage, humanity as a species is set apart from all other creatures and
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jul 22 2013: I'm simply not trying to prove a religion either. I'm just proving that the God of the Bible has attributes and if there are attributes then that means we can describe Him which was one of the main points that were being discussed. But I understand what you're saying. To prove a god based off of attributes is not a very good argument at all because all of the gods have attributes. What I'm trying to say is that if there are attributes, and you believe these attributes, then you're describing whatever god you're talking, proving that he/she has some sort of form.
    • thumb
      Jul 22 2013: crowned with glory and honor as ruler of the earth (cf. Ps. 8:5–8). The events recorded in Genesis 3, however, will have an important bearing on the creation status of humanity.
      • thumb
        Jul 22 2013: Dear Justin...There is wisdom in Genesis but I do not take the story literally. This is what the people of that time considered a definition of sovereignty and this is how they expressed it. I think.
        • thumb
          Jul 22 2013: Then you do not believe in Adam and Eve and the fall of man as a real thing (which they walked and talked with God), or Abraham, or the flood and Noah? These are not just metaphorical statements to make you think these are real events that happened.
    • thumb
      Jul 22 2013: Helen,
      Glad to hear from you again!

      Cheers!
      • thumb
        Jul 22 2013: Thanks, Carlos. Just could not resist poking my nose in (:>)
        • thumb
          Jul 23 2013: Helen,
          By all means do comment away!, you are welcome!

          Cheers!
  • thumb
    Jul 20 2013: You are some person dear Carlos!
    There is only one missing point in your views, and forgive me for saying such.
    It is you fail to see how both ways of thinking contribute to see the World and Life in a more satisfying sense.
    I can perfectly see and understand both worlds. I think you are VERY capable to do so.
    I can assure you opening your Heart to spirituality will not in any manner diminish your ability to understand the material world.
    But I KNOW you are Spirit too. And you will do even better by understanding your spirit as well.
    Once you make the question: "Are we inside of some sort of Matrix?" you are opening the door to your spiritual quest.
    I know the Matrix is a very nice Cosmic Model and many cultures, specially the Native american ones, including the Mexican Aztec and the Mayas found natural ways of opening a window into the Matrix control room.

    Sometimes I think TV is also a Cosmic Model. The actors play so faithful. They react with anger, love and hatred. They perform the most incredible stunts. They live and die. But one thing they don't do: The never realize their world is actually on a bi dimensional space. Neither they faintly guess they have no body or physics, as they are only made of a raster, integrated by ever changing color pixels, and the sound of their world, shotguns, laughter, music, etc. are coming out of a pair of paper cones, driven by fluctuating magnetic fields.
    The TV, the power supply, transistors, electron beams, LED components, coils and other things are the "invisible world" for them, and if confronted they would say we are quite fanatic believers in spooky things!
    Finally: To see "beyond this world" you don't need a Huble gadget, what you need is to look inside of you, deeply, and asking yourself to remove the curtain. Then you will see the "transistors and circuitry" making it all look so real and acceptable.
    • thumb
      Jul 21 2013: Mike, you are alright in my book!
      Wow! Man can you paint a picture! Or can you paint a picture?. I want to enter the invisible world you speak of a la natural- Is that a fault in my part ?-possibly- Is it too much Physics all day long?- hmm could be- I don't claim to have all the answers (there's a lot of "I don't knows"), Neither does Science(you know- proven,evolving & borderline).
      In all honesty I can't see what you see. How deep the proverbial rabbit hole goes?-I don't know-. But I'm certain of the rabbits and the rabbit holes.

      I hope you're having a great weekend! -I am-
  • thumb
    Jul 20 2013: Carlos: Is it you have a waving personality?
    I never expected you resorting to parables to tell me "You are just a kid and so..... naive"
    Your inclusion of the unfortunate Disneyland coordinates says very little.
    It might be you have been so absorbed reading "papers" and visiting science journals ya had no time to open some old or fresh books on philosophical subjects.
    Can you think in terms of absolutes?
    Try to understand the meaning of Omnipresent, Omniscient, which are some of the theological attributes of the Supreme Deity, or drop a little reading into Teilhard de Chardin when he defines the Absolute as the Totum.
    Let's call it the "All". What does it suppose to mean, Carlos?
    All, in a Universal sense means EVERYTHING, so there could be nothing out of it, including your famous and invisible time and your famous and immeasurable space.
    The idea behind the theological concept, when speaking of "God's imagination" is basically the notion of the whole Universe of universes being a dream in the Divine Mind.
    We are also part of the dream. Carlos Marquez and Mike Aparicio are just facets of the dream.
    Take one of your own dreams, for example:
    Is it the places where your dreams take place do look real, within the dream? All the characters appearing in the dream seem so real, so self sufficient, even contradictory and antagonistic... Where is that "all"? In your dreams. In Carlos Marquez dreaming imagination.
    I know you will be tempted to respond: "You cannot prove that! It is just a kid's story!"
    Take the Higgins Boson: IF someone says: That is pure fantasy, worthless and annoyingly crude, then several governments get and put a gigantic amount of Euros to build the largest electrical contraption in world history, finally showing a photo plate with some silly lines and dots! "Bingo! You see? The bosons are real!" The bosons are real! And all the scientific fans go in pleytesia believing it with total respect!
    This is a world of dreamers in a dream.
    • thumb
      Jul 20 2013: Mike,
      You are right about being busy- You reminded me of Calderon de la Barca "La Vida es Sueño". I must be honest with you I cannot follow you to a "being" that's omnipresent,omniscient and all he other attributes of a Deity. For the first thing that pops into my head is the let's say the 40,000 versions of the "Christianities" worldwide -and counting-.
      Our senses like Unamuno used to say are organs for simplification-that is, they allow us to snatch out of reality what we need to survive-the rest is left to reason-.So is life a Dream? Are we inside some sort of Matrix?-I don't know-for sure,What I like about Physics is that is all about this universe the here and the now.
      Can I see beyond this world we all live in?-No- (unless I use the Hubble telescope)
      I’m here, I’m alive. I've got to play the game according to what I can see.

      Thanks for Teilhard de Chardin I'll have Le Phénomène Humain ordered to add to my reading stack.

      Thanks Miguel!!
      • thumb
        Jul 22 2013: Chardin is good reading but certainly not for shallow minds. It is so profound. BTW...I see everyone talking about being made in the image of God..Humans have returned the favor and made God in their own iimage and therein lies a problem..Stay happy.
        • thumb
          Jul 23 2013: Helen,
          Chardin was a Jesuit-I had my share of them- is on my list.
          Why would a deity-any deity- needed a mouth, a hand, eyes? those are developed mechanisms created by natural selection in order for a species to adapt & survive? it may be a bounce of the Anthropic principle, for after all in mainstream religious views, the universe is created for us.

          Thanks Helen,and likewise!
  • Comment deleted

    • Comment deleted

  • Jul 20 2013: I recently watched a video discussion between Biologist Richard Dawkins and Theoretical Physicist Lawrence Kraus called "Something from Nothing". When the topic of science and religion came up they referenced a quote by another Theoretical Physicist and Nobel laureate, Steven Weinberg who said, "science doesn't make it impossible to believe in God, it just makes it possible to not believe in God". Neither Dawkins or Kraus really liked this statement and agreed that Christopher Hitchens said it better. Hitchens said, "I am an anti-theist, I can't prove there is no God I just wouldn't want to live in a universe with one". There lies the crux of the matter. All of us choose the stories we want to believe and then look for supporting evidence. The choices we make are not all reason and not all faith. From what I understand Darwin believed that his theory of evolution would either be proven or dis-proven as more of the fossil record was discovered. When the fossil record showed no transitional forms was the theory abandoned? NO, they came up with a theory called punctuated equilibrium and cladogenesis which explains why the evidence doesn't support the theory. These are nothing more than faith based stories posing as reason and science. I am not saying they don't use reason to come up with the idea but that their reason is colored by their presuppositions.
    There is a good documentary called, " Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" Starring Ben Stein, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, et al. (2008) that reveals what happens to those in the world of science who don't support the party line of Darwinian evolution. I highly recommend it to all who are interested in this discussion.
    • thumb
      Jul 20 2013: Shawn,
      There is the "God" that eludes scrutiny by reason-like trying to get a hold of the theory of forms of Plato-, unreachable via the scientific method, then there is the "God" available to mankind via faith-the one mankind worships and prays to.
      And the key to me (subtracting all those distinguished Scientists and Speakers) is that when faith is on the table all sorts of statements are made- without evidence-.And because faith they are all true-to all religions- Religion is infallible (to its own accord).

      Like Feynman said ""If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part." because as our technology improves theories get revised-and corrected or rejected as needed in light of new evidence-. And this is good for All scientific theories.

      And even if Darwinian Evolution by Natural Selection were to go belly up tomorrow morning (Many an atheist scientist gets up every morning with just that thought in mind!) -Would that by default means that a supernatural explanation is the de-facto answer? No, Scientists all over the world will try all over again-the race is on-.
      The bias that Ben Stein claims vs ID,YEC & Creationists in general in the scientific community is that they want to claim supernatural intervention,plus they make outlandish claims( age of earth, literal Bible etc)-without evidence and without evidence gets rejected. Just like in the Dover trial is a way to introduce religion (see wedge strategy Disc Inst),
      The Scientific community is (I admit) very stubborn & conservative and creationists shouldn't feel victimized they are like that to everyone! Think of the Michelson-Morley experiment-No ether!! -Impossible- the scientific community fought tooth & nail to hold onto the notion of Luminiferous aether, then the Lorentz equations and the knockout by Special Theory of Relativity by Prof. Einstein.

      Is a battle-Yes- Creationist Scientists like the rest need to keep working at the Lab.

      Thanks!
  • Comment deleted

    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Jul 20 2013: John,

        Your test is of no interest for is not scientific.
        Hypotheses that don't pass mustard get re-written or discarded-like natural selection, so do speak.

        Be Well!
      • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Jul 20 2013: John,
        Yes!! you got it science is fallible-yes- and religion is not, and that's why it cannot be part of the scientific process.
        Fear?!?!,- Nah let me check- Nah
        Once again- If a hypothesis turn south in the lab is either re-written or re-calculated (back to the drawing board) or goes into the trash-period.

        Thanks!
  • thumb
    Jul 19 2013: I agree with you dear Clarlos!
    La relación humana es lo más importante!
    It is good and refreshing to see we could carry the conversation so smoothly and interesting!!

    Any time you create another thread do not forget to invite me! I'll do the same!

    Take care. Cuídate mucho!
  • thumb
    Jul 19 2013: Well, imagination is outside space and time. God can exist there.
    • thumb
      Jul 20 2013: Pabitra,
      Imagination occurs in my brain, or anyone's (space) & at longitude 0 degrees 0 minutes - East or west of the prime meridian- Zulu- (Time).

      Cheers!
      • thumb
        Jul 20 2013: Yes... And the Universe goes in God's Imagination
        And Space and time are part of the illusion.
        Come on Carlos! How could you debate that?!
        • thumb
          Jul 20 2013: Mike!
          Good thing that you are back!
          IMO- It is a loaded statement "the Universe goes in God's Imagination" because we have no evidence of it, but I know beyond any reasonable doubt that: 33.8090° N, 117.9200° W are the exact coordinates to Disneyland.

          Keep me Honest Mike!!
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jul 18 2013: Deepak,

      Likewise Deepak, I like the fact that you want to continue the conversation .. I wish to state that it is imperative for mankind to be able to question our beliefs objectively, In today's world -more so than ever- we need to seek peace trough reason. And happiness while we are at it !!!

      Thanks Deepak!
    • thumb
      Jul 20 2013: Oh Deepak!

      Deity is ONLY one and gods are many!

      I wonder where did you get such confusion?

      In Theology Deity is: The nature or character of God
  • thumb
    Jul 17 2013: George,
    I've tried to be as clear as I could have and as succinct, but I'm not that witty. But I like your contribution to this discussion, I think that you are right: God & Science do not mix. And you are right -there is no way to validate scientifically theological axioms. And you are right-yet again- The postulate "god exists beyond space and time" (I think is meant spacetime?) is a leap of faith.
    Science thus far is (I Think) the best way to understand reality, (Is faith a better way?), I mean we have to believe in things for good reasons(more likely true...) This are fundamental facts about existence, what steps do we take to figure out fact from fiction? Faith is no path to truth because an individual basis for his faith are totally different from another, Faith is gullibility, when there is no better reason-->plug in faith.Appeals to faith are the equivalent to an "I give up" . An oddly enough you see that outside religious claims people don't use faith to find the truth.
    Suppositions are not explanations, I'm not lost I know what I want, I want people to question articles of faith in an objective manner, How can anyone arrive to that conclusion: "God exists beyond space & time" while "knowing that they are going to shut down reason to accept that statement as true.
    This is very close to Miguel de Cervantes Don Quixote they were never any Giants just windmills, But all the same Don Quixote charged on.
    I hope that I communicated more clearly..

    Cheers
    • Jul 18 2013: See my reply to Georges post below, which I addressed to both George and yourself.
      • thumb
        Jul 18 2013: Steve,
        See post bellow for both you and George
        Thanks!
      • thumb
        Jul 18 2013: Steve,
        I am not an expert on religious matters, far from it but I was part of the Opus Dei (Cath)once. If I recall correctly Dogma are a set of compulsory beliefs for a particular religion. And it takes faith to act upon dogmas (which must be believed without evidence). Dogma-The Trinity- based not in evidence but in faith-, Transubstantiation-Dogma-based on faith not evidence. Operationally speaking they are intertwined (IMO)
        Now I'm not looking to launch ad hominem attacks at religious folks. It has been my experience that when questioned theists (not all -my Best Friend Father Daniel-local priest!) regarding their beliefs feel personally attacked, Absurd! I do say that the mechanics of faith do places God in a "safe Heaven" out of reach for questioning- as it were-.
        Do I think theists are delusional because of their belief without evidence-yes-, Is it not a reality that groups use religion to have even children blow themselves up? -yes- Did Scientists created the Atom Bomb?-yes .
        I do not gain anything by attacking you personally -is not my style- Do I ask uncomfortable questions? -yes,And also I do start from the premise that everyone here is a good person, and a truth seeker. I apologize if I gave you a wrong impression. Like I told Mike it may be uncomfortable but your input is appreciated, it keeps me honest. I do not have any answers but lots of questions.
        To me the dumber question is the one no-one ask- for fear of ridicule, or worse. I don't think we should shut down but rather build a shared meaning, distinctions if you will, to have a more powerful meaningful dialogue.

        Sapere Aude!
    • Jul 18 2013: I have very clear the difference between the physical world and the spiritual world, so it is quite simple, if you want to understand the physical world then your tool must be science, if you want to dare into the spiritual world then your weapon of choice should be faith. Use one or the other depending on the field you are moving, there is no puzzle at all, there is no need to waste time trying to see faith in an objective way, just apply it when needed and discard it when not.
      • thumb
        Jul 18 2013: George/Steve,
        Why do I think is important that we question statements like "God exists beyond space and time?" We must learn to question everything , fearlessly and relentlessly.,how can religion get a pass? Is it a cultural taboo? Is is too ingrained culturally? With a plethora of religious options worldwide are they all correct? Do we question our inherited beliefs? Should believers test their own faith from the perspective of an outsider, at the level of skepticism they use to evaluate other faiths? O there is a double standard, and if so why? I think that intuitively theists know faith will not pass the test, hiding behind faith tacitly concedes the argument for once faith is introduced into the mix the questioning stops. If faith would pass the test theists will embrace it, instead they buck against it .That alone speaks volumes.
        I think that not questioning faith breeds a culture of ignorance rather than a culture of discovery, Not questioning faith is Dogma and stops the conversation, these beliefs are off the table-no revision to new evidence & new arguments. Not only at the individual level but also at the level of nations.This is not "US" v "Them" no, for in order to have mutual collaboration-open ended-there's got to be a willingness to have our world views subjected to questioning. Or should I just give up and say that even thou we have a rational component to us, we rather live with an irrational worldview?. Or that in order to be happy you have to be delusional?!
        Religious views affects millions of people around the world and you want to cow me into not question it? I mean we all can laugh at Zeus,but we cannot laugh at a belief in Allah, or the Biblical God (even in TED) It's enigmatic, people are willing to blow themselves up and kill others for religious beliefs. So indeed we need to have the conversation and the questioning, evasiveness reeks dishonesty, Hiding in the faith "safe zone" is just irresponsible.

        Dare to Question!!!
        • Jul 18 2013: What you don't seem to realize is that this is a problem of context. Faith is by definition the blind belief on a dogma, therefore, if you take this in a social or whatever practical context, questioning a dogma is a waste of time. You just don't go trough life happily questioning dogmas while throwing away roses and singing lauds, no sir!. You question ideas in order to discover if they are dogmas or not, but once you know and understand something is a dogma you stop questioning and instead look for ways to avoid falling in that trap, when you find a dogma you discard it, get rid of it whatever the cost, throw it away like garbage, kill it without mercy, no further questions!!!. So in any physical, practical context discarding faith is the only responsible thing to do, not questioning it, because that is almost as irresponsible as blind belief.

          In conclusion: In purely practical context, dogmas are like garbage, if you hesitate to discard them they will cause you problems more sooner than later, so don't question faith, discard it. However if you take the same issue to a spiritual or theological context, questioning is in fact the most offensive and disrespectful act you can do, so don't question faith, accept it. The only safe place for this kind of arguments is in a pure philosophical context, so go ahead and question what ever you want.

          Hope now it is clear that context is everything.
      • thumb
        Jul 18 2013: George,
        Is not only context is also content-. Think if you will of the numerous questions that once had a religious answer(Geocentric theory) - and now the authority of religion has been battered and nullified by science-do you think that was an accident? I'm not looking for "safety" I think you should question the ideas that support faith and the mental state -gullibility- And use reason and understanding o lead a wholesome life.

        "Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions." -- Frater Ravus
        • Jul 18 2013: George/Carlos,
          Faith and dogma are two entirely different things. Since you are so fond of definitions I pulled up Websters if you don't mind. The first two definitions for faith are ; 1.) allegiance to duty or to a person. 2.) fidelity to ones promises; sincerity of intention. There are too many definitions to list them all here, but I can assure you none of them make use of the word "dogma" or "blind belief".
          Here I set out to have an open and honest conversation with you both and in response you employ use of a straw man/fallacy by extension (I.e. religious folks don't question their beliefs, "hide" behind their beliefs, are delusional, or blow themselves up and kill others). Couldn't the same be said for some within the non-religious community? I believe it was science that created the atom bomb.
          Throughout all of my posts below, I've attemted to engage in open and honest discussion, to which you I am met with evasive or intellectually dishonest responses. I grow weary of the tactics and I really had hoped for better. You've shown your true colors.

          "When you think you've got all the answers, it's time to ask better questions."
    • thumb
      Jul 20 2013: I just got to this post!
      I have to answer: Of COURSE there is a better way to understand Reality!
      Reality is the Here and Now. The rest is memories or speculations.
      So to really understand Reality you must first STOP your intellectual roaming around. Then try to center yourself into Here-Now. Do you see it? Do you feel it? Do you hear it?
      Yes! That is the ONLY REALITY!!!!!
      • thumb
        Jul 20 2013: Mike,
        I like the phrase" The rest is memories or speculations."
        And time that continuous parameter- Interestingly - a 'reverse' phenomenon also exists - the brain reaches back in time to reconstruct in real time (for the brain's owner's perception) a past it was not aware of- it is what happens, for instance, when you look at your (analog) watch and you see the seconds hand staying still for more than a second, leading you to actually think that your watch has stopped.
        You are right we are stuck in the now! We can plot past events along a time axis, like we can record music on a vinyl surface channel but the NOW is never recorded. We can move in space but not in time.

        Cheers!
  • Jul 17 2013: With all due respect, it seems to me like you are trying to mix water and oil. God and science belong to two different realms that shouldn't be mixed. You can ask theological or even philosophical questions about God, but in the moment you assume a scientific point of view your question becomes invalid, just in the same way a scientific question becomes invalid the very second you make God part of the equation. So if you want to make sense out this conversation you must first realize that what is theologically relevant is scientifically irrelevant. Theological truths may never be translated into scientific truths, therefore if you use the word "evidence" is a scientific sense then you are completely lost and confused. God is a matter of faith not evidence, which means regarding God you can ask for logical coherence but never for evidence.

    The answer to your question is quite simple: God is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. The only possible way for that definition to be true, is for God to exist both inside and outside space and time, because space and time are constraints God is not subject to, otherwise it wouldn't be neither omnipotent nor omnipresent and the whole definition would collapse. I don't know if this implies that God has to simultaneously exist and not, however I know that if it is a requirement to satisfy the definition then it must be undoubtedly true. Again, this is a matter of faith exclusively, if you believe or not it's ok in both cases, as long as you don't try to assume a scientific perspective.
    • thumb
      Jul 17 2013: George: I agree with you fundamentally. The only discrepancy is with the notion "this is a matter of faith exclusively". I don't think so.
      There are quite many very good scientists, specially in Quantum Physics and Mechanics which expose fabulous reasoning and solid explanations of the immanent presence of GOD, in every material process!
      And the most important element of God certainty is not to believe but to KNOW Deity.
      Once you know something you don't really need to believe. Do not forget God CAN reveal Himself (or Herself to avoid gender allegations) to anyone.
      Believing is good. Knowing is better!
      Readers, please do not ask for "evidence"! If you want to know ask deeply in your heart up to total exhaustion There are no books, priests, philosophers, lecturers or forums which can get you the knowledge. It is something you have to acquire yourselves!
      • Jul 18 2013: I would very carefully examine the context on which those statements are made. I refuse to take very seriously any remark made by scientist regarding God, just as I will quickly discard any scientific reference made by a preacher. If I want to explore the natural world I stick with science, knowledge rules and beliefs have no place to be, but if I want to explore the spiritual world then science becomes drag, since there is nothing to measure, count or sample.
    • Jul 18 2013: George/Carlos,
      Why do you assert that science and religion "should not be mixed"? They are simply two ways to look at the same reality. Wouldn't the mixture result in a more complete or well-rounded view of reality? Why would asking a philosophical or theologically based question be made invalid based solely on viewing it from a scientific point of view? Or vice versa, a scientific question from a philosophical/theological point of view? I think Einstein, Augustine, Plato and many others did just the thing.
      I think all that is required for the two views to congeal is first an open and honest acknowledgement by all that we all have some sort of belief system (we all take some things by faith). Second an open and honest willingness to examine our own belief systems and the things we take by faith. And thirdly, an open and honest willingness to understand, perhaps even learn from the other viewpoint.

      I think the idea of transcendence (i.e. existing both within and outside) is one that applies to both science and religion. At one point humans believed that earth was flat and was the center of he universe, until we transcended that understanding to realize that the earth is not. It does not mean that earth ceased to be round (elliptical) when humans still thought it flat, it was our own understanding which transcended. In that sense the round (elliptical) earth always existed both within and outside our own conception of the world. So what changed? It was our understanding, our ability to see something larger than what was our current worldview, an ability to see something that existed both inside and outside our current world view. In this very same way some claim God both exists in the known world and outside it. Dare i say both inside and outside of time and space. How is this an unscientific idea?
      • Jul 18 2013: When we allow ourselves to mix science and religion we cross a very dangerous line, we enter in a field in which people wrongly think they can scientifically validate their faith, and to do so they create all sorts of absurd cults (they are neither science nor religion), like creationism, intelligent design, and others that have rooted deeply into society threatening real science education, and which will be very hard to eradicate. So that's the main reason I oppose to mix science with religion.

        You are right Einstein, Augustine, Plato and many others did it, but they knew the boundaries and if they dared to express such remarks it was in a philosophical context only, fully aware (at least the contemporary ones) their words had no scientific validity. Perhaps they forgot to say: "this trick was done by a professional, don't try this at home kids".

        If you ask a theological question hoping for a scientific answer, then what ever answer you get will be anything but scientific, that's why it becomes invalid, it might have a whole lot of philosophical relevance and importance, but it will be worthless scientifically speaking. Because of that the argument: "God is both inside and outside space and time" is philosophically relevant and important, but its scientific weight is zero, unless you have the means to design an experiment to test it, but such a thing is just impossible, because if God is omnipresent then it cannot be separated form the rest of the universe, therefore you cannot sample, count or measure God's substance, making you unable to design any kind of scientific experiment. Consider also the fact that in the moment God's substance can be sampled, measured or counted, it will be proven that God is not omnipresent which will also prove God doesn't exist.
        • Jul 18 2013: George,
          Again you are employing a straw man. Mixing science and religion does not necessarily result in "absurd cults"' and certainly does not necessarily result in any threat to "real science education". Given your dichotomy that you've outlined above, would you say, does the work of Plato answer purely scientific or philosophical/theological questions? Does Einsteins theory of relativity answer purely scientific or philosophical/theological ones? Does the work of Augustine have anything to say to the "ethics" of science?
      • thumb
        Jul 18 2013: Steve,
        In science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality.Einstein did not believe in a personal God.

        See my post to Ted Friend for Faith , Scientific Theory, Scientific proof.

        Thanks !
        • Jul 18 2013: I'm not sure how your response relates to my original message, but Plato and Aristotle were Greek. The Greek word for knowledge is Gnosis. Are you suggesting that the mathematical/scientific knowledge (Gnosis) conveyed to us by Plato and Aristotle has no modern meaning/equivalence?
          Einstein did not believe in a personal god, but the pantheistic god described by Spinoza. Again, what's your point?
      • thumb
        Jul 20 2013: Steve,
        No Steve, Plato's Theory of Forms is what is not akin to the scientific method, for you can examine the computer in front of you but the"perfect ideal computer" will always be hidden from your ability to measure it or test it. That is the point, and -yes- Einstein views on God were influenced by Spinoza. Now from your back to your first paragraph I do not think that any of these men mixed theology with their views (-example in Einstein field equations or extrapolations there is no Theological ground that was intrinsic part of any formulation) IMO
        There's he point.
  • thumb
    Jul 17 2013: Mike,
    The peer review process while not perfect is pretty darn good! I mean Mike do you know how many Atheists and faith based scientist get their pubs rejected? -plenty- I would not call it an argument from authority-but rather a tool- that would allow me (an anybody) to repeat whatever experiment performed and to have the conclusions critiqued by expert peers in the field-nothing wrong with that. Reviews on Space time? go to Google Scholar and type:spacetime and you will see and if you wish read plenty about the subject.
    Natural selection my appear at prima fascia as magical but I assure you Mike is all natural ingredients.
    Randomness as a selector -Yes a meteor impacts earth thus changing the weather- and sends Natural selection to work in overtime. It's not that things want to get more complex, but rather that something that is more complex in just the right way in just the right environment will do better than something that is simpler and therefore more of the complex organisms will reproduce than the simpler.

    But this only happens when the more complex is BETTER than the simpler.

    PS I just Selected some Chris Botti tracks! great grooves!

    Back to work- running late!

    Cheers!
    • thumb
      Jul 17 2013: Oh Carlos:
      It might not be evident to you but you are taking theories as truths.
      You are very brave assuring me that the magical idea of Natural Selection is of any weight. To me such posture is an act of the most pure faith. I don't think even Darwin was so convinced!
      What makes an interesting part of your answer is when you say "do you know how many Atheists and faith based scientists get their pubs rejected?"
      What a clear acceptance of bias! I know TED has a tendency to reject metaphysics in general, but the worst is without doubt, JREF!
      I could answer: Carlos; do you know how many scientific articles and papers trying to destroy the concepts of Deity get their pubs rejected? (Of course in non pragmatic or strictly materialistic forums).
      The fact is: Theists like me (I will NOT cite to avoid those annoying claims of authority), understand perfectly the postulates in science as I work among many and I do professional work in some areas. On the other hand pragmatic, skeptic scientist minds are unwilling to penetrate the deeper meanings in metaphysical thinking.
      Is it fear? Is it an attitude of protection to keep their supposed reputation of absolute faith to "evidence and proof"?
      Let me tell you Carlos which is the most unwanted to see argument from the scientific process of mind: It seems to be a rejection to understand LIFE as the right means to comprehend Divinity.
      Scientists want to see OTHERS evidence as result of OTHERS experimentation, but, when confronted to the notion of becoming an observer of their own life, to observe IN themselves, listening to inner voices, unrelated to intellectual activity, a great reluctance to do such EXPERIMENT is almost invariable.
      Put in simple words: To understand, comprehend and know God you need to do an experiment which takes practically ALL your life.
      Some people prefer to "believe" but do not act accordingly. Believers in their pure form are holding for ever the possibility of actually KNOWING God.
      • thumb
        Jul 18 2013: Mike,
        The scientific process is rigorous with many filters and it is the best tool known to man to ascertain truth, or as close as you can get. Just simply postulating something does not make it "truth". experimentation is needed as it has been the case since legacy theories.Science is naturalistic and will reject supernatural explanations all day long. Now if there are any Scientific Theists , they should be working relentlessly to produce the work that is necessary (most atheists scientists work hard, I vouch for that!) and for all to see and review.

        Cheers!
        • thumb
          Jul 18 2013: Oh Carlos!
          I know all that!
          You are missing my point totally.
          There is no point in finding "evidence" of Deity postulates because it is a PERSONAL matter. It is not knowledge which is transmittable. Of course it requires work. Sometimes it takes ALL life time to find answers.
          It is impossible for you to "review" my inner experiences!
          Is that really so hard to understand?
          Lets get establishing some parallels:

          I am sure someone loves you. What kind of research, papers, clinical trials or mathematics do you need or can use to PROVE that love?
          Could you dig with instruments into the lover's mind and heart to see the "nature" of love, its intensity, its reach, then create some Work Sheets showing the values?
          Could you establish scientifically a comparison between the love of your sweetheart with your mother's?
          I think that is what GeorgeCQ is trying to tell you.
          It seems the major failure by pure scientific minds is to understand ALL spiritual knowledege and understanding is absolutely personal and not transferable.
          Also it seems we are getting to a dead end when you "explain" to me the "The scientific process is rigorous with many filters and it is the best tool known to man to ascertain truth".
          Such statement is absolutely true pertaining research in the physical realm but absolutely FALSE in relation to spiritual knowledge, which starts from understanding our inner self up to Deity!
          I have enjoyed this conversation but I don't see how we can go any farther if it is difficult for the proponent to understand a diametrical point of view regarding this matters.

          Best for you in your scientific research. I hope you will eventually start your own personal metaphysical research as well!
      • thumb
        Jul 18 2013: Mike,
        Man what a dichotomy ! It is rational to value love, is cool to recognize that is a cherished experience-it leads you to live in a wholesome way.Understanding love at the level of the brain (neurons , neurotransmitters endocrine system etc) does not take away its importance. If you understand chocolate at a molecular level will not make you stop eating it-these are different scales of interaction with the world-. It's not about being a cold calculating person in our approach to life -but claims to invisible beings , beings beyond space time should be questioned- because these view animate millions of our neighbors, and Mike think of it this way, You are a theist that holds a view that another theist will consider false.Imagine if because of faith the "other" theist will stop conversing with you, now scale that up to nations. So we must question and keep the conversation alive.

        I'd enjoy your vivid contributions I do hope that you opt to stick around and keep me-and everyone else- honest-.

        Gracias Don Miguel !!
        • thumb
          Jul 18 2013: Carlos! You are so stimulating I cannot just leave!

          "You say: Imagine if because of faith the "other" theist will stop conversing with you"
          Reminds me of Albert Einstein when confronted with quantum Mechanics he said: "I don't believe in spooky things"!
          Before you told me something about Dr. Lanza and it seems you would dismiss instantly Hoyle's arguments.
          Hummmm!
          I really don't believe you would attach neuronal activity monitors and practice blood tests in search for hormonal levels to strongly believe in your sweetheart's devoted Love!
          And do a monthly test to scientifically confirm the love is getting stronger and not weaker!

          Probably Heisenberg is weird by claiming the existence of invisible Quarks, not to forget the late Bosoms which need the Guatemalan National budget for 50 years to confirm their reality by means of a monstrous machine to do some scratches on a plate, which only the physicists think they prove something.
          Now... I don't realize which are the "invisible beings, beyond space-time" you talk about.
          If it is about Divinity then again you got the "radish by the leaves".
          Divinity is NOT a being in any sense. Time and space as everything else is within Divinity. De Chardin called it the Totum.
          Cannot be inside of something as everything is inside "it".
          Cannot be time or space as time and space are contained within "it"
          You are just looking at "it" right now, when you read this.
          And if you look inside of you, you are also seeing "it".

          NOTE: To readers: I am using "it" to avoid gender conflicts.
    • thumb
      Jul 17 2013: Oh Carlos!
      Randomness as a selector! Wow! Then I can fulfill my wish of constructing the very best and fast computer of all. I just need 100 train loads of computer parts, a nice solitary island with a beautiful beach all around. I will then pour the parts on the beach, making a 5 meter tall pile of parts, shaped as a doughnut all around the island.
      Wait for a zillion storms shaking the parts all over until finally, after producing some unwanted cellular phones, stereos and naive things like that (totally underdeveloped), a magnificent super computer will be there, waiting for the sons of the sons of the sons of the sons of my sons to pick it up!
      The marvel of Evolution and Natural selection!
      How come I never thought of that before?
      • thumb
        Jul 18 2013: Mike,
        You are using Hoyle's argument That has been proven as a fallacy (junkyard tornado, infinite monkey theorem etc.) There are mechanisms at play that are available to living organisms , but not to inanimate objects like randomly placed electronic parts. That expectation is not logical, nor is how evolution by natural selection works .

        Cheers!
        • thumb
          Jul 18 2013: Carlos:
          I haven't seen your response on the "Hoyle's fallacy"!
          I find subtle fallacious support in your response. "There are mechanisms at play that are available to living organisms , but not to inanimate objects"...
          Living organisms? Since when? According to theories sustained by evolutionists, in a remote beginning everything was of an inanimate nature! Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, whatever the stuff!
          Or am I mistaken and the "theory" supports the existence of "living" organisms from start?
          If that is not the case, then at a certain point, the junkyard tornado of pure inorganic substances got "miraculously" mingled to give origin to an animate entity.
          Or is it only upon convenience? Random play won't work for an electronics junkyard but it will work for inorganic substances (same as electronics) but with the added UNKNOWN ingredient which validates the poor Hoyle's theory?
          I think I have a name for the MIRACULOUS extra substance and I guess you also guess which is it!
          Where is the mistake here dear Carlos?
          Or everything started as inorganic or not... If the answer is yes then the Hoyles argument is not fallacious.
          I've noticed you do like numbers as I do! Then: 1 year can be counted with 31,536 000 seconds. then 1000 years are 31,536,000,000 seconds. Hence 1 billion years are 31,536,000,000,000 seconds and 4000 billion years are: 126,144,000,000,000,000 seconds.
          Now we get a super computer to do random alphabetic selections as fast as 1,000,000,000
          per second. (not a big deal) resulting in 126,144,000 seconds or the equivalent of 3 years.

          Do you think during that period we can get the supercomputer to spit something like: "Charles and Mike are good friends" ???

          I am not asking for Hamlet, but just a simple amoeba! A few atoms of Carbon, Oxygen, a little iron... Just a little phrase!

          Now the condition: The computer programmer MUST NOT introduce an external force or bias, with the tendency to identify words or do syntax.
          God would do that trick!
      • thumb
        Jul 19 2013: Mike,
        Woa! well I'm not about to engage you in an open discussion on Hoyle or Borel's law of probability ( If so TED would have to pay us), But that said I will state this: that even thou not all the pieces of the puzzle are there for abiogenesis & the probability of life emerging from from non-organic matter, is a work in progress not ready for the divine just yet- What early protein form could promote biological activity? I mean investigating the unknown is what science is all about- is abiogenesis a speculation?-yes and it will remain scientific at long as it can be tested (we need a bio-chemist in the house!)

        But Mike what is a Miracle a testable Miracle,(that's right I said it!) Is that Mike Aparicio and Carlos Marquez can have a dialogue , a friendly dialogue-even if we don't agree in world views!!!. This is exactly what communities and nations need to do! You want to talk about Magic-Shazam!-
        This is about keeping the conversation alive and reaching shared meanings, distinctions to develop a common language. And to recognize one another as human beings first.

        Beyond science or faith there is humanity flesh & bone-carne y hueso- facing the enigma of reality.

        PS I took a blood sample of my wife to check hormonal levels and will also perform an MRI while flashing pictures of me to get a baseline database (You made my day with that comment!!)

        Thanks Again!!
  • thumb
    Jul 17 2013: Mike,
    Well Metaphysics can build all the parables as they may, that is OK within the Democratic spirit of Academical pursuits, while we in Physics make new discoveries and advance the frontiers of testable knowledge. It takes technology to build let's say the Mars Rover or a cell phone (Did I mention I am a Materialist?). Ok try this thought experiment: On a busy intersection a man oh his mid 50's weighing approximately 80kg has a direct collision with a Mack truck (hmm let's say 9090 kg truck + empty trailer 5454 kg =14544), OK minus the 80kg at impact and momentum transfer hmm 14464kg -advantage to the Mack truck. The Objective reality is crudely obvious, there is not created reality or parable that will save our unlucky pedestrian. Reality still objective

    thanks for sharing Mike!
    • thumb
      Jul 17 2013: Carlos: You forget the man with intuition will look at the truck and step aside!
      There you have an unlucky truck!

      Ha,ha,ha,ha..........................................................................................................
      • thumb
        Jul 18 2013: Mike,
        LOL, Good, but if he did not....maybe he was texting- dangerous to do at intersections- (not recommended), then the math applies , but hold on, IF he avoided the Mack Truck so as to miss it completely then objective reality still applies he escapes the predicament .

        Cheers!
  • thumb
    Jul 17 2013: Hi Collen! Please read my response to Linda regarding the phrase I wrote, you both are using as a boomerang to snatch me in the gut! lol! Links are just an argument of authority. You want to enforce someone views as if they were yours. That is fine with the democratic spirit of the TED community but not with a pure philosophical discussion. Materialists, with a sense of "all mighty science" invariably resort to someone's words, papers, books or experiments, forgetting such arguments are invalid in pure philosophy. You ask me why it is necessary to employ parabolic structures to express abstractions? The answer is. "Because the intellect and it's byproduct, language, are insufficient to communicate such, without the intuition and willingness of the audience". You actually did it when you say: "in most of us, anyway". You are using a parable to say "others are incapable of seeing the marvelous statements contained in the links. Poor folks!" Wow!
    • thumb
      Jul 17 2013: Hi again Mike!
      There is no intent on my part to snatch you in the gut with a boomerang. Looks like you did that to yourself! You made a statement, I responded to that statement.

      I provided the links to show you it is generally accepted that there is a connection between the brain, ideas and creativity. I do NOT want to "enforce" views, I am "reinforcing" views with the links and agreement with Linda.

      I do not agree with you that someone's words, books or experiments are "invalid in pure philosophy"

      "Philosophy: "pursuit of wisdom; search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means;..."

      Philosophy is defined as a pursuit.....a speculative search for understanding. It makes sense to me to use all available information in a discussion.

      People who want to "win" an argument and feel "right" often say that another person's perceptions, and the ideas that person presents are invalid!

      Again Mike, I DID NOT, in any way, shape or form, say ""others are incapable of seeing the marvelous statements contained in the links. Poor folks!"

      I ask you again to NOT give me credit for things I DID NOT write!
      • thumb
        Jul 17 2013: Collen:
        Yep! I launched the boomerang against me. I agree! You just blew the wind to make it come back right on track! lol!
        Interestingly I agree with most of your last post, specially when you say "chiefly speculative rather than observational means" !
        I don't want to "win" an argument. But I am sure you can read zillions of comments everywhere bluntly saying "Theists are totally wrong and their words invalid as a lead coin! "
        I am surely not "giving you credit for the things you DID NOT write" I am crediting you for an elegant way of highlighting my unwillingness to accept ANY kind of papers as proof of something!

        Finally, Philosophy as you say is a pursuit of wisdom and the validity of using all available information for it. Why then spiritual experiences, non evolutionary thinking (or Creationism as it is called) is put aside immediately as a way to contribute to the pursue of Wisdom?

        Is Wisdom plain intellectual saturation or does it include the ability to consider insight, intuition, and the fallible nature of pragmatic scientific thought, constantly replaced by new and contradictory convictions?

        Is Wisdom to accept scientific beliefs and speculations as the absolute and only way to understand the Universe?
        • thumb
          Jul 17 2013: Mike,
          You stated:

          "Mike Aparicio
          Jul 6 2013:
          P.S. The only "things" existing in brains are: Nerves, neural cells, blood vessels and cartilages. Ideas are ALWAYS out of the brain."

          I offered some links to show you that it is an accepted idea that there is a connection between the brain, ideas and creativity.

          One hour ago, Mike, you wrote AGAIN...
          " You are using a parable to say "others are incapable of seeing the marvelous statements contained in the links. Poor folks!" Wow! "

          I DID NOT use any parable to express ANYTHING like that, I DID NOT say that in any way, shape or form, and I DO NOT APPRECIATE you saying that I did! What part of that do you not understand?
      • thumb
        Jul 17 2013: Colleen!

        Please don't get mad at me!. I already admitted it was me who launched the boomerang.
        I did NOT repeat what I said before.
        What happened is when you advised me of having TWO identities in TED one of them was removed and the moderator asked me to copy and re-post the removed comments.
        I am not in conflict with you at all.
        Please accept my apologies if you feel attacked or offended as t was never my intention. Maybe just a little extreme sense of humor.
        OK?
        • thumb
          Jul 17 2013: Mike,
          I am not mad at you, and I see no point in spending my energy in that way. I am clarifying, to you again, that I DO NOT appreciate you misquoting me, and/or interpreting my statements in a way that I clearly did not say. OK?
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jul 17 2013: Deepak,
      You realize "I can talk to God" is a loaded statement. So that I understand you correctly; you claim that for the last 9 years you have a technique (that requires belief &understanding from the user) that allows you to have a "silent" conversation with a Deity.
      I'm supposing that this is a subjective experience as well. I know that some politicians here in the US have claimed to have heard the voice of God in order to run an election campaign(Pat Robertson, Bachmann at.al).

      Listen Deepak I respect you as a fellow human being in search of meaning and truth. And before you explain this technique in this site(TED), that claims that a Deity can be contacted, I would first like to see independent studies on the matter, and of course peer reviewed papers on established for example:

      American Behavioral Scientist
      American Educational Research Journal
      American Journal of Education
      Biological Psychology

      If there was a technique that would allow you to talk to a Deity(a milestone breakthrough in many, many respects and scientific disciplines) that would undergo the scrutiny and evaluation of the above mentioned Journals, I would be more than eager to read all about it.

      Thanks for Sharing Deepak, Cheers!
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jul 17 2013: Your Question " If i see Golden serpents talking to me while i consider that real? "

      What do you believe god saw. In one statement you are trying to see what god saw and the other time you are afraid what you may find there, knowing that Feynman felt something eternal THERE. And why i am even trying to convince you about the "Hallucination" ! that is the second stage . At the first stage i gave you a glimpse of -- "beyond space and time". Now your argument with int itself proves that you believe that "It is possible " and hence your analytic mind all of a sudden popped a question " What you may find there?"

      Come on MAN, You are you asking about this traveling "beyond space and time". And what matters the most for you in this travel
      The experience Or The result ?
      Stop worrying about the result and enjoy traveling because the .05 % of your doubt and cognitive effort to be skeptical about the result is like "Playing a game and being always worried for the score"

      And you know when you are playing the Game for the Experience of the game and not for more points, sometimes you are even shocked by looking at the results.

      So who knows How deep you may Go :)
    • thumb
      Jul 17 2013: To brother Carlos,

      And Secondly This sensory deprivation chamber makes you lose the track of time.. as you might be aware of that feeling of time for us is also relative, we wont age if calendar will not move forward and if our bodies stay fit( we cant age in our minds, if we don't want to). So even the experience of time moving is relative and in this chamber one loses the track of time as he can not take the information from out side and after some time loses the track of counting of heart beats. So it takes you beyond Time and your "beyond space and time" is achieved.

      Shishir
  • thumb
    Jul 17 2013: Mike,
    So let me see if I understand you, since English- after all- is also my second language, you state that the Cosmological Principle that tells us that t the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic on large scales is just a belief-creencia-, Mike I would love to read the peer review articles on that ( I could not find any-but maybe I miss something) please Mike point me to a source thanks.
    "Attacked" for my beliefs? Nah! all of us here are Gentlemen and Ladies, well behaved, witty, and well educated.

    Yes! "Where is the proof" that of the "infinite things" that tells us about the "proximity" of the Divine? I would love to see the one in favor Of the Divinity.
    The evolution of the universe has been characterized by an on-going transformation from a simple, restricted, highly condensed, homogeneous state to an increasingly complex, widely dispersed, dynamic, multipotent, granular diversity. In other words, the universe is not winding down, like a giant soulless machine slowly running out of steam. On the contrary, she is just waking up.Entropy, like pressure and temperature is an independent thermodynamic property of the system that does not depend on our observation.
    Which are the strongest believers?- I don't' know- but I dare say that the Theists have more money.

    Cheers!
    • thumb
      Jul 17 2013: Hey Carlos:
      I suppose you already know I do not like to use "claims of authority" by citing things like "peer review articles on that" !
      You just have to read again my post. Are not pure speculations all those statements about the "shape" and "size" of the universe? If someone has written papers or "reviews" on that.. Well... There you are, pointing to a strong believer"!!!!
      About the "proximity of the Divine": If you can't see it, you just cannot. but I am going to try to explain it somehow. I strongly think what skeptics call "Evolution" and "Nature" are the obvious process of Creation and just pure Name Playing!
      When people speak in those terms are just simply referring to the "tools" used by Divinity to create. Scientists cannot escape from it. Usually you will read things like: "In order to catch flies, Nature "decided" to make the flower look so tempting and attractive"...
      Take a moment to do some brain chewing to mimisis or mimicry for instance. We all know many creatures are capable of closely imitating the background where they are posed, some with absolutely incredible accuracy. How can this be, Carlos? Is the creature so wise he understands the trick of disguise and is capable not only to capture the texture to mimic but also to control his glands and whatever else is needed to imitate the texture? Are you ready to accept the naive proposition of this happening by "trial-and-error"? How many millions of species have disappeared before they surprisingly, by mere chance, "became endowed" with the ability to imitate the background?
      Thinking like that is STRONG belief, dear Carlos!
      Divinity is so close in almost everything but scientist minds take the simple route of belief by substituting the real cause by a process of "selection and survival". Who is the "selector"?
      You love Jazz? Me too! I am actually an experimental music improviser doing what my friends call the craziest jazz of all! (Thanks TED for the word limit)
  • thumb
    Jul 17 2013: Don Miguel,
    I think that Dr. R Lanza is influenced by Kant in his Biocentrism. My position is that time-space continuum have an existence independent from the observer. Now color is an experiential truth-outside objective reality-but the properties of light responsible for that sensory experience are objectively true. The mind does not create the natural phenomenon itself; it creates a subjective experience or a representation of the phenomenon. The same is true for temperature perception -is subjective- but the property of matter that causes this subjective experience is objectively real; temperature is determined by the average kinetic energy of the molecules of matter, and there is nothing subjective about that.Dr. Lanza states that time does not exists outside the observer.To Dr. Lanza time is the"summation of frames occurring inside the mind"(Biocentrism is true for time)-in his model time is not real, no matter the facts, thus unfalsifiable and therefore cannot be a part of science. Space-time has an uncertainty in quantum mechanics, but it is not nonexistent. The idea of time as a series of sequential events that we perceive and put together in our heads is an experiential version of time. This is the way we have evolved to perceive time. This experiential version of time seems absolute, because we evolved to perceive it that way. However, in reality time is relative. This is a fundamental fact of modern physics. Time does exist outside of the observer, but allows us only a narrow perception of its true nature. Now Space- Our sense experience reality but they do not create it-as in space. This difference is similar to how color is different from photon frequency. The former is subjective while the latter is objective. How can Dr. Lanza deny all the fossil evidence for how biological and other forms of complexity have been evolving? How can humans arrogate to themselves the power to create objective reality?

    Gracias!
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Jul 17 2013: Don Miguel,

        I agree, .. there is plenty of ideas out there. and many brush us, others touches us , at various degrees of intensity.

        Es asi.
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Jul 17 2013: OK,
        The tools we use to measure are just that tools that aid in our search to understand our Universe. I know that time is relative , just look at the GPS satellites at an altitude of 20,000 km from the ground, and has an orbital speed of about 14,000 km/hour-these satellites make use of relativity to keep time with nanosecond precision, I can wrap my head around that concept but I'm sorry to say that "God is relative" as an objective reality that exists both within and without.. I might be a little bit dense.. but hey I love jazz!(has to count for something!). Help me with the "Real Deity" concept that you introduce please.
        I love your description of the movie " The Unknown Planet" it was vivid!
        I agree is a matter of choice! But if is all the same to you I'll keep the Science & Math & some Philosophy (remember Influences?) and still experimenting and asking questions, Mike thanks for your positive Energy!

        Cheers!
    • thumb
      Jul 17 2013: Me again! You said: " How can humans arrogate to themselves the power to create objective reality? " Is it not what all those speculations on Universe "size" and time "length" are exactly that? If, like you say, "Time is relative" the existence of God is the same. If we don't want to see it we won't! Actually, if your construction of God does not exist, which is very probable, it does not mean at all the Real Deity does not. We are touching the magic element of this conversation. Have you seen an old movie, "The unknown Planet"? In a few words it is about a planet with a lost highly advanced civilization who built a machine capable of fulfilling all citizens wishes and needs. The machine was capable of doing everything, including disappear them all. If you would think of you being totally fulfilled, in absolute abundance and happiness you would get it! If you would feel miserable and poor you would get exactly that. Hate took over and mutually they used their incredible machine to eliminate each other!! By extension: (Me and parables again!) With Deity, if you think there is no God, then... There is not! You will be left alone in the middle of a world of accident and chance. If you feel and think there is an Absolute Power, invisible but manifested, you will live in a world of "rivers of milk". Just like we are endowed with the power of destroying our magical wand by disqualifying it! The fabulous thing is it does not matter how many atheists exist. It actually does not affect those who first "believed" but then found... Of course the only "proof" of this can be given to you by you! But do not forget: The Supreme is the Power behind. If you don't want to "believe" you are entitled too. It actually is a pure matter of choice. It is what is called "free will" No Math., no science, no philosophy, no reasoning on this. There is only one possibility: To experiment, and that is precisely the purpose of life. We are free to waste it!
  • thumb
    Jul 17 2013: Steve,
    If I read you correctly (I do hope & correct me if I'm wrong) I think that you are confusing the "measurement" of time with the reality of it. Time exists, just like distance does... it doesn't matter if you use yards,feet, meters or centimeters, the objective reality of distance remains the same.... this is also true for time... it doesn't matter what calendar you use(Mayan, Aztec, Gregorian...) or how you slice it up... time passes. It is real and exists in the same way that gravity, magnetism and the bonding force of molecules exists... we know it exists because we can observe and measure its effects and we can manipulate and change it. It obviously isn't physical, it has no substance, but that does not make it any less real than gravity. The objective concept of time is that it is the "4th dimension" of the "space-time continuum", the universe we live in. A meter is now the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458th of a second and since the universe is the same in all locations (Homogeneous) & the same in all directions (Isotropic), it will be the same anywhere. I believe that this Universe is real alright (call me a materialist what can I say?)
    The God Issue: What you write reminds me the days of I. Kant- that the word "God" a mental "construct "of some-kind. Now the word "God" is a noun that raises special problems in meaning, because as defined (by many a religion) refers to a reality transcendent of and thus not locatable within experience. That said the reality of God is never accessible to us- or in any way open to our observation or experience, it remains an unknown X , a limiting idea with no content- So, for All practical purposes what IS Available is an Imaginative Construct, that bears on the Theist life & thought. It is that "available God" that Theist have in mind when they worship & pray, Thus in that sense "God" is for all practical purposes an imaginary construct. And Steve, that is what I believe...

    Cheers!
    • Jul 17 2013: Carlos,
      There is no confusion on my part between measurement and reality. You have misinterpreted. We are talking of three specific concepts (time, space, and God), and yet you have still have not given a single unified standard to which I can apply to qualify all three terms.
      I've asserted that time and space are arbitrary and relative constructs. To which your direct reply was that "time exists"...which i might point out from my own perspective was not in question. But none-the-less, your supporting evidence was that "time exists...because we can observe and measure its effects and we can manipulate and change it.". This does not address my concerns with regards to the arbitrary and relative nature mentioned earlier, and I might disagree with respect to our ability to manipulate and change time proper, but none-the-less this is your evidence. You then went on to say that time "obviously isnt physical, it has no substance, but that does not make it any less real..." But then later you assert that God is an "imaginary construct"? Using your same logic could we not also say that God exists because we can observe and measure the effects of God, and that God may not be physical, or have substance but that does not make God any less real? Please clarify.
      • thumb
        Jul 17 2013: Steve,
        Scratch all I said,-Tabula Rasa- You are talking about the concept of God ( let us set aside , if we may time and space for now) Please tell me what you mean by God, and please tell me how you can measure the effects of God in a way that any can reproduce.
        Now I'm assuming that you are not claiming these things but rather that you have available empirical knowledge regarding your statements. I think that we must clear these hurdles so that we have shared meaning then we can engage the concept of space time. Thanks!
        • Jul 17 2013: Carlos,
          It appears you've added a new evidentiary requirement for the proof of existence which you failed to mention or elude to previously. How does one "reproduce" effects? Can you reproduce the effects of time and space? If not, do they then not exist? When you speak of the requirement to "reproduce effects"' i believe you confuse the term "effect" with the term "result". I would assert that one could observe and/or measure the perceived effect, but never precisely "reproduce" an effect. The perceived reproduction of effect can only be approximated and/or assumed based on perceived results.
          That aside, you asked how one could measure the effects of God. I would propose you do it exactly the same way you claim to measure the effects of time and space. First you establish a general or loosely defined theory about reality (call it God, time, space or whatever you like). Next establish an arbitrary and relative unit of measure. Then observe the perceived change/impact on your perceived reality and record the variation in terms using the arbitrary and relative units of measure. If others submit themselves to the initial terms terms of your experiment, attempt the same experiment and achieve similar results, you assume you share the same perceived reality and then create a monoploy of the experience and call it empirical fact.
          Please understand that during the course of our various conversations, with regards to God, I have made no claims or statements. I have simply suggested that you apply the same logic (burden of proof) that you have identified/employed with regards to your own beliefs about space and time and apply them also to the concept of God. Make no mistake about it, you have a belief system which in many ways is very similar to those held by the religious. You simply place your faith or belief in different things. It is still faith or belief all the same.
          Regards,
      • thumb
        Jul 18 2013: Steve,
        There is no experiment ever devised by anyone dead or presently alive to determine the effects of God in this Universe, (I'd stick to "effects" if is the same to you) If I'm wrong please provide me a link and I will eagerly make time to study it. Make this my claim.
        Science is not faith based, space -time is objectively real and if there was evidence to the contrary-it will be worth a Nobel prize .

        Be well !!
    • thumb
      Jul 17 2013: Nice wording Carlos but nothing more than wording! When you say :"since the universe is the same in all locations (Homogeneous) & the same in all directions (Isotropic)"... Is it not that just a belief? Have you been everywhere in the Universe? Who has been there? Fortunately you say "I believe that this Universe is real alright (call me a materialist what can I say?)" It is good to see you are not worried for being attacked for your beliefs" And ALL those "scientific" beliefs are endorsed by lots of folks, who are true believers! The missing point is Deity is obvious for a clear, unattached mind but not so the actual "size" of the universe or the "reality" of time. We have infinite things which "tell" us the proximity of the Divine. Being everywhere, just as "space" and "time", could it be those abstractions are just facets of Divinity? Where is the proof it is one one way or the other? If entropy tells us everything progresses into a larger chaotic state, why then we, humans, perceive an incredible order and complexity, constantly growing and expanding? The philosophical question then is: Who are the strongest believers?
  • thumb
    Jul 16 2013: Dear Carlos -
    You are asking a question which has been answered ages ago.
    No imagination, a simple fact, a realization, The i have experienced, A truth which could be only felt and could not be accepted based on only earthly logic.

    It was an Experience and it has to be felt, I will tell you the Procedure -
    It was the experience of Sensory Depreciation Chamber In India. The effect is amplified by the facilitator who facilitates the process with you. Sensory depreciation Chamber was designed by John C. Lilly ( i recommend reading more about him)

    It disconnects all your senses including the gravitational drag and your motor movements to react. no responsibilities to even pick up your body from the bed.

    It silents the brain but keeps the mind running. Now for the very first time you meet your PURE MIND, in which not even a single neuron is dedicated to any of the deliberate process. your 100% neurons are present. you are cut off from the physical world. You are the part of the Universe but you are still not the part of this physical earth. you meet yourself, that is the pure consciousness !

    Carlos, Your question - Answered !
    • thumb
      Jul 17 2013: Estimated Shisshir,
      I am aware that Dr. R Feynman was invited by John C Lilly to the Isolation Tank. Also that Lilly introduced Dr. Feynman to a Medical Doctor that gave him an anesthetic , Ketamine,- like 1/10 of a normal dose-, then Dr Feynman hallucinated in various ways. That said if I have a hallucination where I see Golden serpents talking to me while I consider that real? let alone a repetitive experience of meaningful content?
      I hear that Tiger Woods spends time inside the chamber visualizing the perfect golf swing.-hopefully the chamber will keep him out of trouble this time around.

      Thanks Shisshir!
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jul 17 2013: Deepak,
      In the next sentence I also said that some statements need "filtering" A Deity existing beyond space and time is IMO one of them.
      Who is the "we" in your second sentence? And what religion in particular is the "Almighty" reference to? Christian?(over 40,000 versions and counting) or other Faith based worldwide religions? I would love to see a reason Deepak.
      And you claim that you have talked to God- that is fascinating_
      I know of a Gallup poll reported that 23% of all Americans had heard a voice or seen a vision in response to prayer. During the Bus Boycott of 1956 Dr. King terrified by the fear of what might happen to him and his family said that he heard the voice of Jesus promising, “I will be with you.” He went forward.
      II'm not sure what the TED platform is beyond the conversations and the talks but I'm touched, sure I welcome a discussion on this subject Thanks Deepak!

      Cheers!
  • Comment deleted

  • Jul 16 2013: Carlos,
    Your initial line of questioning seems suspect (i.e "how can God exist beyond time and space"), but i will give you the benefit of the doubt. "Time" and "space" are relative and arbitrary constructs, Equally ambiguous is the term "God". You have indicated in your posts that you don't believe in God (or at least your own construct of the term "God"). So what are you hoping to achieve with your line of questioning? Are you looking to prove or disprove the existence of God through use of relative and arbitrary constructs, or are looking to critique the belief systems of others? Please clarify.

    I eagerly await your response.
    • thumb
      Jul 16 2013: Steve,
      Thanks and Welcome!, now let's suppose a runner dashes a 100 meter run in 13 seconds (better than the average American), If space and time are "arbitrary" how do we know that a 100 meters of that race were actually 100 meters? or that it took the person 13 sec. to run the distance? I think that because for all practical applications, these units of measure are going to be correct. When an announcer says that the runners are going to run 100 meters, he means 100 meters from his frame of reference, which is your frame and mine. To an observer traveling at near-light speed, the distance would be shorter, but observers traveling at near-light speed are not from this planet and probably don't get ESPN, so he isn't talking to them, or any entity outside space-time.
      I do not have my "own" construct of the term God- Now as of yesterday there are 40,000 different Christian denominations. ( I'm not even tracking other Worldwide Religions) -As far as "constructs" there are some to choose from in those "Christianities".
      What I'm hoping to achieve with my question? "To stir it up" -For all of us must question our beliefs or lack of them, and intrigues me how can a person arrives to the answer:God exists beyond space and time and is unquestionably true regardless of facts and reason.- Read my other posts for more on the subject-.
      You could perhaps say that I'm critiquing other people's beliefs- but not the people themselves-merely to use reason as the underpinning of our convictions-and you bet that I will(indeed I have) learned a thing or two along this posts. It's a Bona Fide intent for dialogue.

      " A wise man can learn more from a foolish question,
      that a fool can learn from a wise answer"
      - Bruce Lee

      Cheers!
      • Jul 16 2013: Carlos,
        You are begging the question. To repeat again, time and space are arbitrary and relative constructs. In your example the term "meter" and "second" are arbitrary units of measure. They are constructs or conventions. They convey no absolute or inherent meaning, other than a comparative and "relative"" one (I.e. the only way to deduce any meaning from the terms is to compare it relative to something else). So what then is the universal standard to which we should compare? Doesnt your example in some way answer your question (I.e how can god exist outside time and space)? Perhaps as you put it so tritely, god "travels at near-light speed", or doesn't "get ESPN". In your scenario doesn't this god exist outside outside of space and time, and as you put it "the announcer isn't talking to" god?
        Secondly, I would suggest again that you do have your own construct of the term "god". How can you assert that God does not exist without having a construct (i.e personal interpretation/understanding) for the concept to which you refute?
        Would you admit that you have a belief system?
  • thumb
    Jul 15 2013: If I have the facts correct, the idea that god (lowercase as this is referring to any god) exists beyond space and time was first introduced, when science became more advanced, and we begun to realise all the "limitations" nature forces on us. However, this poses a paradox, because anything existing outside space and time would not be able to interact with our universe, and still be outside spacetime. Why is this? Well to interact with our universe you would have to essentially enter our universe, and at this point it would be impossible to leave it because you would be confined to the 4 laws of nature: General Relativity, Electrodynamics, the Weak Nuclear Force, and the Strong Nuclear Force, none of which allow existence outside time. The only other option would be that this god exists in a part of spacetime where the entropy is the same at all places, and as such the concept of time is invalid, yet in this scenario god is still within space. Also the proposal that god created the universe such that it would develop into what we see today is impossible, as it relies on the newtonian perception of the universe, where everything can be predicted. Quantum Theory, however, destroys this perception, as everything relies on a probability, and quantum fluctuations destroy the notion determinism. Therefore the idea that god can exist outside spacetime is impossible, and since the miracles feats preformed by different gods are impossible with respect to the laws of nature, it only falls to reason that any god cannot exist.
    I hope this makes sense.
    • thumb
      Jul 16 2013: Brage,
      Eloquently put. Thus the only "place" a deity may exist, is in the realm of Faith. Fideism: faith alone is sufficient, and must not be subjected to rational evaluation.“I believe and that settles it forever.” Like Kierkegard “If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe.” So if faith is a leap how does one know which faith to leap for? Why not Jim Jones' Peoples Temple or the Branch Davidians???
      And- we reach the classic impasse- of Faith and Reason the essence of the question at hand.There is no reconciliation or common ground. Faith is belief without, or in spite of, reason. The concept of faith itself carries a ‘built in’ depreciation of reason; and without this anti-reason element, the concept of faith is rendered meaningless.Faith as an alleged method of acquiring knowledge, is totally invalid—and as a consequence, all propositions of faith, because they lack rational demonstration, must conflict with reason. Insofar as faith is possible, it is irrational; insofar as faith is rational, it is impossible.
      So a person arrives at God lives outside space and time by faith( leap beyond reason, But Why?!?!)
      Some(hometown) Theists claim that my position on the matter is to simplistic- naiveté - yet these same Theists reject the faiths of other religions precisely because they are faith-based. They just do not understand that their own religion or sect within it shares that same foundation.
      Thus Theists must do some serious introspection instead of the usual obfuscatory fair. Another way to look at this issue is that religion has his own rules and "logic". It can only be understood in its own terms and any outside attempt to "dissect it" will be a barbaric intrusion Religion has its own separate distinctions in language. So when there is no shared meaning -there is no communication.

      Cheers!
  • thumb
    Jul 15 2013: Peter,
    Like you I was raised a Catholic in the Hispanic tradition, I even joined(and abandoned) the Opus Dei. The positive aspects of religion, honesty, respect for the law, forgiveness and charity, love, among many other virtues are fine. What is not fine is for church-going groups to encroach in the civil liberties of everyone based on religious grounds. I dissent with that view and will stand against it. The only vaccine for ignorance is knowledge but you can take a horse to the river but you cannot make him drink, no matter how thirsty it may be.

    "What we call evil, it seems to me, is simply ignorance bumping its head in the dark."-H Ford
  • Comment deleted

    • Jul 9 2013: Carlos
      I wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph. I am new to TED and I am so excited to find a place where I can hear people express thoughts and ideas that are so foreign to me. I find Tify's remarks to be such an insult and a downer. I guess we should all go to our own corners and think our own thoughts because dialogue is hopeless? I say no way! I've been sitting in the corner for the past 20 years. I need some air. I need some stimulation. I need to be challenged. I only wish I could dialogue with you on your level. I have only had a cursory exposure to the things you discuss and I don't have the math and science background to even understand the nuances of your question. It seems the more I learn the more aware I am of my ignorance.

      Cheers
      • thumb
        Jul 9 2013: Shawn,
        I appreciate your kind comments, and I celebrate your decision to express yourself without boundaries in all terrains. It's liberating indeed. Let me recommend for you Miguel de Unamuno a Spanish Philosopher and eccentric character search for " The Tragic Sense of Life" and "Niebla" (mist) I do hope that you will find Unamuno engaging, and also try L Krauss Universe from Nothing, (You Tube) or paperback if you prefer. You had a 20 year break now come and join the joust.

        "Per ardua ad astra" -RAF

        "Pull your rights from wrong" -Bob Marley

        I'll have a pint to your liberation Shawn ! - Carlos

        Cheers!
        • Jul 9 2013: Thanks for the recommendations, I will look into them. My problem is I have a stack of books on both sides of my chair and the Internet in my lap. Many things interest me and I often lack focus, but carry on I will. :-)
      • thumb
        Jul 14 2013: Ignorance is a relative term my friend. Compared to some, I feel like a flat worm, pretty dumb. The frightening challenges of climate change, shrinking resources, death, starvation, war and the fundamentalist, criminal lunacy of the US congress, is more than I can bare sometimes. I was a "terrible" student early in life, unable to keep up. Now with free online resources like (Kahn Academy) (MIT open courseware), (Berkley free video lecture series)(Annenberg CPB project) with programs like (the mechanical universe) HIGHLY RECOMMENDED, I can watch serious academic lectures over and over, and over until it sinks into my (tiny little pea sized brain). The philosophy of (Kahn Academy) is founded on that premise. Students of many backgrounds require constant repetition, and positive reinforcement. Our education system has been ravaged by fast food philosophy. Even in the 1960s wen I started school we were living with the tired worn out legacy of the industrial age education diploma mill. The just get by syndrome. Being an intellectual has nothing to do with academic accolades, rather it is about innovative thought ,and openness to new progressive ideas. Somewhere out there, in the mind of one of us second stringers may be an idea that saves the world. So stick around. Let's kick some intellectual posterior. 40 years of experience in the military, agriculture, aircraft, communications and manufacturing counts for a lot in my world. There's plenty of people I have known with advanced prestigious degrees who couldn't find their arss in a windstorm with both hands. So press on expand your knowledge, and share your ideas without fear. To remain silent is to slip beneath the waves. Let us throw you a life preserver.
        • Jul 19 2013: Thank you for your encouraging words.
          "To remain silent is to slip beneath the waves". That really speaks to me, I will not forget it.
          You are kind.
  • Jul 8 2013: Carlos, I'm sorry to tell you the question is irrelevant, if you're goal was to wind up believers in god, they'll say that things like this dont matter, or that you cant understand it, or jump on the insult train.

    If you Carlos, imply that no god exists, then your a heretic, and there are still plenty that want to burn those people. (even if it's metaphorical)

    If you Carlos, are genuinely looking for an answer, well I'm sorry to say but no-one, and I mean no-one, can give you that.

    So whatever way you look at it you're fucked in getting an answer to this question.
    • thumb
      Jul 9 2013: Tify,
      Rather than irrelevant is at the core of many worldwide religions and is a basic axiom to millions. Wind up believers?, I knew it is within the scope of the question to ruffle some feathers and as I said before we should question everything-even our core beliefs- mine included.

      A heretic? I guess that I'm in good company. The purpose is not to play a "gotcha" game , rather to expose that tragic sense of life, that wound that bleeds- reason and faith. "Burning" me will be useless "the cat" is out of the bag. However they are welcome to try(metaphorically or otherwise).
      I refuse to believe that a problem, any problem is beyond mankind capacity to grasp it, given enough time and methodology to wrap our collective heads around it . To me is intellectually lazy just to say "God did it". If that was the case let's quit algebra- is to hard .

      I understand that most likely we will not find an answer to this and other questions here today, but we should be able to talk about it, without fear, and engaging every single drop of brain power available. For if we don't we're really fucked Tify.

      Be well!
      • Jul 9 2013: Your last paragraph was rather nice, and one with a sensible rationale.

        Yet inherently, the question will never be answered. As for me, a Heretic? Nope, I'm in neither camp, I'm like an umpire in Wimbledon, who just watches the ball go back and forth, and who has no particular interest in who ever wins a point. There are about 4 of us globally, who get this and string theory, which you'll see will come in handy later.

        Wind up? Agitate, annoy, irritate. From their side of the court, a question like this, inevitably will lead to 'man can never understand', 'you'll get it when your dead', 'you have to have faith', and the perennial 'I'll pray for you'. So given their perspective, and absolute blind faith, you never going to get an answer that will make any sense, or rather one that significantly addresses the question, because faith inherently wont let it.

        Then on the other hand there maybe people that pose questions like this to purposefully agitate the blind faith'ers, which I hope you realize is a pointless exercise, as again no solution will ever be forthcoming.

        Lastly, there maybe people that would like an answer to the question, but have not realized that due to the nature of the question and people fervent beliefs one way or another about god, you'll never get it.

        So in summary from the 'believers' you'll never get an answer, and the non-believers there is no need to answer.

        As for the four of us that get string theory, quantum mechanics, astrophysics, the subtleties of general relativity, and neither believe or don't believe, you could say we're living beyond time and space in this game, thing is, we ain't coming back, there's no point.

        Good luck Carlos :)
  • thumb
    Jul 8 2013: So far...
    Correct me if wrong.. some of you are saying that:Faith is the key to understand the answer to my question, One has to perform a willed act of faith that cannot be mediated by proofs or reason. A person must make a qualitative change from non-belief to belief and be able to believe in something without evidence, Is that it?
  • thumb
    Jul 8 2013: Friends,
    Still a lack of empirical meaning to:"outside of space and time". -It's like a 3 legged unicorn- So how can anyone arrive to:"God exists outside of space and time."? In fact, deconstructed in this way, this translates to, "God does not exist."
    So far the best answer is : Faith, that "Leap of faith" like Kierkegaard.

    Cheers!
  • thumb
    Jul 8 2013: Time...
    time is a local concept, and you are always at rest in relation to it( let's suppose you have an atomic clock) - your relationship with time never changes due to any motion you make. Your Proper time clock never changes speed(1 second per second)( and you will always measure a caesium 133 atom to change hyper fine levels at the same rate). Locally, light always travels ~300,000 km/s faster than you - because time never changes for you - time always moves inexorably on at a rate of 1 second per second. Your atomic clock that you carry with you always measures the correct time for you, whatever you do.
    If your relationship with time never changes, whatever motions you make, then how can time be caused by motion in any way?
    It doesn't matter how your time corresponds to anyone else's time. That makes no difference to how fast your beard grows, or how fast the caesium atoms "vibrate" in your clock.You can always move through space, but you cannot move through time, whether we are at rest or not has no bearing on our relationship with time. We are always at rest in relation to time.

    "Time is what we read off of clocks and distance is what we read off of measuring rods."
    Einstein
  • thumb
    Jul 8 2013: Friends,

    Now- Time:Our Universe is just not a collection of just places but of events.Time is indispensable in the universe. Every event in the universe needs exactly four coordinates, three of space and one of time. Time is a local measurement, there is no absolute time which is valid everywhere in the universe, but everywhere in the universe there is time. Mathematically, the proper time between two events (1) and (2) depends on the geometry of space-time between those events, and isn't absolute. Now we cannot deny that physical processes have a distinct duration like caesium 133 atoms always change between hyper fine levels of the ground state at the same rate, (We use that rate as the S.I. definition of a second),photons always take the same number of changes between the hyper fine levels of the ground state of a caesium 133 atom, to travel a given distance-that is what time means- and it has nothing to do with feelings, or us making sense of our local area. Caesium 133 atoms will always transition between hyper fine levels of the ground state at the same rate, regardless of whether there are humans around to measure it, or not,Time exists as a dimension in exactly the same way as the 3 dimensions of space exist. Some of you think of time as an "idea"-OK , let's take for example atmospheric muons. Those particles originate from the interaction between cosmic radiation and the earth's atmosphere. They are very massive, so they should decay long before they reach the earth's surface. Yet we detect them down here - why ? Because proper time is different for the muon than it is for the observer here on earth, leading to a prolonged life span of the particle. If you plug numbers into the integral you get just that result - that the muons reaches us.Do you'all think us detecting atmospheric muons here at the surface is just an idea, or is it empirical fact ?Time, in all its manifestations, is very real.
    running out of space..(TED Space that is).and time ...
  • thumb
    Jul 6 2013: As there are plenty to choose from, which God do you mean?
    • Jul 7 2013: For myself, in this discussion, I speak of a god who is separate and distinct from the natural world. A god who is personal as opposed to an impersonal force or pantheistic view of god.
      • thumb
        Jul 8 2013: This sort of god can exist anywhere 'you' put him/her/it outside the space time continuum, yet don't be surprised, that those 'places' are beyond 'your' imagination, as 'you', me' and all of us 'mortals' are not capable to picture those. We already struggle to imagine a 4 dimensional space + time as its 5th, so there is not much of a point to 'imagine' any further ...
        • Jul 9 2013: You are so right. Sadly my lack of imagination is eclipsed by my lack of scientific and mathematical ability. :-)
          I have found it useful though to go the other way when thinking about hyper dimensions. Instead of trying to imagine 10 dimensions, consider a 2 dimensional world, and the difficulties those living in it would have understanding our 3 dimensions.
      • thumb
        Jul 9 2013: The novella 'Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions' by Edwin Abbott Abbott uses this 'trick' of reduction in dimensions as well which you describe:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland

        Yet even though it is a lot of fun do do this thought experiment, it sort of gets you stuck in the other direction, as we are only able to assume our-selfs in a 2D world to imagine a 3D one, but this without having an 'evolutionary true' 2D mindset.

        2D worlds with their landscapes and people do hop out of our imagination the very moment you try to picture them without any 'thickness' whatsoever. They would look nice from top view and a wide range of viewing angles but disappear completely from their side...

        So to imagine our-selfs as 'Bob the 2D square' who gets visited by his friend 'Pete the 3D sphere' is hopelessly flawed, as we would not be able to sense Pete as a growing and shrinking line as he passes through our 2D world plane, by the simple fact, that, without any thickness, there is nothing to 'see' in flatland for any flatlander at all ...

        The question remains if a flawed thought experiment downward the 'dimension ladder' would be of any use to make us understand dimensions 'upward' ours. I have my doubts on this, but never the less it is a lot of fun to think about it ...
  • thumb
    Jul 5 2013: What I see is: Most comments, visions of God and all ideas on the subject reflect an anthropomorphic view of Deity!
    Time is just an illusion created by matter and motion. If there would be no motion there would be no time.
    Motion brings the idea of "space" There "must" be space for something to move in....

    We, humans, conceive "space" and "time" as gigantic, infinite.....
    But this is only a naive impression enslaved to our minimal dimensions.... If any....
    Think of the universe as a spot in the center of the center of the center of the center of a an infinitely small point in the middle of the Nothingness!
    Now imagine: How long would it take to traverse this center of centers from one side to the other? How far we would have to move?

    Deity is "timeless" because THERE IS NO TIME!
    The only REAL time is PRESENT!
    If someone wants to find Deity he must watch the Present. The present is Eternity. It never started; it goes nowhere, it is always HERE.... Feel it!

    If you want to try a different exercise then: Think of Time, Space and Matter-Motion within Deity.
    Think of Deity as Absolute. Including ALL....

    An analogy:

    About oneself; Where in the body are we? Aren't we ALL of it? Visible and invisible; tangible and intangible.
    Can anybody see our thoughts? Our dreams? Our feelings?
    We are IN ourselves, but at the same "time", our self is in US!

    Actually, Deity is so obvious we cannot see "it" because we look outside and try to find separation and complexity in everything.
  • thumb
    Jul 5 2013: The Quantum Field does explain some of it but even then it is not capable of going all the way.
    This is where religion/spirituality comes in.
    And I am not talking about dogma.
    People will do well to read "the dark night of the soul" or "the cloud of unknowing" to get a taste of it.
    Though cannot penetrate in the Ultimate, only Undifferentiated Consciousness can.
    Mind/thought creates the space/time continuum.
    Everything is created by the Observer.
  • thumb
    Jul 5 2013: Has mankind used science to chased God out of the sky, then to the ends of the universe and now outside the universe, has science chased God out of space and time? Will science chase God outside of outside? or was God hiding in mankind's imagination all along?

    Do tell...

    Cheers!
    • Jul 6 2013: I think many believe science has that ability but I'm not sure it is really within the realm of science to ever answer the God question. It seems that many believe that if science can discover and describe a process, or a force in nature, it has therefore comprehended it and ruled out the notion of God having anything to do with it.
      Peter Law used the example of his fish tank. Imagine the theories of their world his fish could have. A naturalistic explanation might theorize that fish food spontaneously generates at the upper reaches of our environment. Then go to great lengths describing how it absorbs water and falls through the atmosphere, measuring the speed of descent and documenting its eventual decay at the bottom of the tank. They may be proud and even arrogant as they mock previous generations of their fellow fish particularly the bottom dwellers who believed fish food sprung up from the gravel by the power of some unknown god. Their insistence on a naturalistic explanation as they continue to explore their environment blinds them to the evidences of Peter’s existence.
      The theistic fish may view the the appearance of food at the upper reaches as a gift from the hand of a god. They not only view science as a tool to better understand their environment, but as a means to better understand this being they believe exists (god or in this case Peter).
      Both groups approach their science with certain presuppositions. We all have to work from the presuppositions we choose and they will influence our course. True science can remain neutral on the God question. People like Richard Dawkins who insist on a naturalistic interpretation of the evidence studied by science, are nothing more than religious fundamentalists, the very people they admit they hate. If we don’t see things their way, then we are stupid (infidels who lack faith in their interpretations) and should be silenced.
  • thumb
    Jul 5 2013: Good question
    Actually God is omnipotent and omniscient. Quran says that Allah or God is able to do anything. Humans beings can not think beyond what our creator has given us, I mean knowledge. Animals have limits when it comes to thinking, so they have limited knowledge or capacity. We can not understand everything in life.
  • Jul 5 2013: How can we talk casually of some concepts of God? Einstein, Marcus aurelius, Gandhi, or Franklin didn't have simple concepts.
    • thumb
      Jul 5 2013: George,
      Indeed we can talk-casually- like at the kitchen table,or the local Pub, it's OK.
      "Nature is pleased with simplicity.And Nature is no dummy"-Newton , Some could point out that by quoting Sir Isaac Newton, I'm making an argument from authority, How fallacious can that be?
      "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication"-Da Vinci,- I agree
      Or like J Maeda says let's subtract the obvious and add the meaningful ,- and leave elegance to the tailor.
      Or, Tolstoy "There is no greatness where there is not simplicity, goodness and truth" and
      "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself" - Einstein

      Ultimately it boils down to each individual, each one us flesh & bones that have to contend with "God concepts" such as his existence beyond time and space, what say you George? is that type of existence a special pleading?
      The way I see it is like being at your local Pub and we all share ideas about life's big questions... in a friendly, relaxed atmosphere. (I actually do, with a local priest, and good folks of different backgrounds).
      I bet that B. Franklin would have sat down to share a pint over the question at hand, and tea for Mr. Gandhi.

      Cheers!
      • Jul 6 2013: Exactly There can be no faith without faith. It's an individual thing.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jul 5 2013: Deepak,

      "it is all a matter of believing" - or (I dare say) faith.

      I can't see your goodness but as a function of me experiencing you- that is you as I experience you; we can see other people"s behavior, but not their experience.

      So God"existence" is beyond our understanding? So any argument presented on the subject is now moot, because there can exist a contradicting truth to the argument that you or I can't understand.If logic is irreconcilable with parts of Theism we have no logical way to deduce which aspects of theism are within the realms of our intellect, and which are not. We have no way of recognizing the former from the latter; therefore everything asserted within theism cannot be logically justified.

      Or is just an easy way out?

      "The best way out is always through"
      Frost
  • thumb
    Jul 5 2013: Either God does exist, or God does not exist. If, by the word "god" you mean whatever you have constructed in your imagination, then that god is limited only by your imagination. For such a god to exist beyond space and time is a simple matter of you imagining it to be so. If god is not a human construct, but is the creator and sustainer of the Universe then there is no logical justification for you to impose any limitations on such a god. If God does not exist then the question is moot. The only way we can know anything about the real, non-imaginary God is to have information communicated from God to us. So, either "A" God exists, or "B" god does not exist other than as an imagined human construct. If "B", who cares, to question is meaningless. If "A". then the sensible thing to do is seek to have the available information communicated to you,so you can know God, and enjoy God.
    • thumb
      Jul 5 2013: Edward,
      I agree God's existence is a binary question,
      I like the use of the "If----> then statement " as in: P---> Q, If P then Q. The part after "If" is called a hypotheses and the part after "Then" is called a conclusion. And since anyone making a claim which they consider rational and which they expect others to accept must provide some support, then "God exists " as a hypotheses or proposition requires rational, logical support . The methodology of skepticism, critical thinking, and logical arguments is what allows us to separate sense from nonsense. I think that the default position should be "God does not exists" and the opposite would require empirical evidence and logical underpinning.

      "The grand aim of all science is to cover the greatest numbers of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms" - Einstein
      • thumb
        Jul 5 2013: Having a default position based upon the non-existence of something is categorically unscientific since a negative cannot be proven. Einstein also said this about the God you assume does not exist: QUOTE "God is clever, but not dishonest." If you accept the non-existence of God as a fact then what is your purpose for posting the question? Are you an evangelizing Atheist trying to proselytize here on TED Conversations? Thank you Carlos!
        • thumb
          Jul 8 2013: Edward,
          OK allow me to be more precise with my default position regarding God.The default answer to whether any god exists is "Probably not, unless you've got some evidence for him." If you have some evidence, I'd be entirely willing to reconsider my opinions. But unless you do, we're back to the default answer.
          That's why, in a court of law, in formal debates, and in physical science, the burden of proof is always on those who assert that anything (including God) actually does exist. Thus, it is always illogical to conclude an unsubstantiated assertion is true. In other words, assertions without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
          Now we don't notify the Armed Forces that because we don't' have conclusive evidence that Godzilla doesn't exist, we should start with contingency plans and training in the event of a Godzilla attack on the U.S.? or Rodan or King Kong?( it's just a joke, but with meaning) otherwise you need to DISPROVE a whole lot of things I'm going to claim are real- like Spiderman, Superman, Harry Potter, Minotaurs, Pegasus, Unicorns, Zeus, the Loch Ness monster and the city of Atlantis.
          Also remember that negative truth is a logical fallacy(X is true because there is no proof that X is false.) thus we can prove anything regarding how absurd.
          And also I'm not proselytizing, but I want for all of us to question our core beliefs-from time to time- make all of us think,- and for me to learn - a thing or two- . And by the way Edward you should have read all the times I've been preached to (here in TED) by many a Christian group- It's OK-they mean well- even when they believe that I'm spiritually challenged or incorrect.

          I apologize for the delay, It's been busy lately.

          Cheers!
      • thumb
        Jul 8 2013: Your demand for physical evidence as a prerequisite for accepting information about God as Truth qualifies you as a Materialist. You do not militantly deny the possibility that God exists, but you demand that God must communicate material proof, evidence, which will make your disbelief illogical, then you agree to believe. One problem with your position is justifying your demand for evidence from God who, in order to be truly God, must be Spirt, sovereign, almighty, infinite, eternal and unchangeable. If God is the Potter then you are the clay. What demands can clay make of the potter? The issue here is Faith, Carlos. Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the EVIDENCE of things not seen. You are not "spiritually challenged", as you say, you are spiritually dead. You need to come to life spiritually, to be born. . . again. God exists in Space and Time and beyond Space and Time. He is Omniscient and Omnipresent. He is Spirit. Thank you Carlos. Let's agree to keep searching for Truth.
        • thumb
          Jul 8 2013: Edward,
          "Divine Hidenness" should not be an attribute of God- "to be God". We all reject religious beliefs (those other pesky religions that are not our own!) and we do it with confidence-That is the easy part- The hard part after the rejection is to affirm an answer to the question of Existence. That is when a person must argue that he or she has the correct one. And given the proliferation of religious viewpoints separated by geographical location along with the lack of compelling evidence.. well lets say that there is a line of disagreement clearly marked. The religious view is ambiguous.
          One cannot say something like "God exists outside of time and space" and have it carry any real meaning, because there is simply no frame of reference for that in our universe!
          We might try to imagine what it would be like, but at that point it lies strictly in the realm of the imagination. Just because we can imagine something does not mean that it has any basis in fact or reality. I can imagine purple flying elephants, but that doesn't mean they exist.
          Thanks Edward

          “The right to search for the truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be the truth.” -Einstein

          Cheers!
        • Jul 8 2013: You seem to really want to insult the chap.

          Calling him "You are not "spiritually challenged", as you say, you are spiritually dead."and at the same time stating that, "He is Omniscient and Omnipresent. He is Spirit." Which is not only sexist but for which you clearly have no proof, is not only rude it's clearly utterly arrogant.

          If there is a god, I hope the bastard has better manners.
        • thumb
          Jul 8 2013: Edward,
          Just because someone does not agree with you does not mean s/he is "spiritually dead", and it seems arrogant for you to even think that!