Creationist party over: GIGANTORAPTOR discovered

[Guest]

Yes in some Animism. However whereas the buddhist believes that the highest form of enlightenment is the Tibetan monk who doesn't even eat a thing, hurt a fly etc, Animism believes that it is we who are unenightened and nature teaches us. So if you like, the Owl IS the deity. With naturally occurring drugs; or dance designed to induce a trance like state, many Animist peoples believe that for example the Owl can take you places and show you things; and in that trance like state we enter another reality: the world of the "energy" or "spirit".

 

And when you kill an animal ....which we must of necessity...we take on their spirit and power. Sort of "you are what you eat and what you wear" Hence the wearing of a leopard headress by a shamen: stark contrast to Buddhism who believes you are at your most enlightened when you make no ripples and hurt nothing. An Animist shamen from Mongolia I once talked to called them "a waste of space .....as they chose to opt out of natural way of things that all animals follow" . Now there are several forms of buddhism; and some is more closely linked to an animist view.

 

Yes Mr M I think we are not too far away from each others positions....its why I don't think you are actually an aetheist.

 

My point about the herd/flock thing Mr M is this. Yes Dawkins explained HOW evolution occurs. Its rather like explaining how a computer programme works, then some kid coming along and saying, "yes I KNOW it works , but who and why did they make that programme ?"

So Dawkins etc do NOT disprove God or design, all they do is disprove creationism and conventional interpetations of say the Bible. Make the Bible not literal, and there isn't an issue. Its why I said that if the fundamantalists refuse to acept evolution they make their position untenable.

NOW. That is far from saying that there is some form of consciousness at work. SO, the Chaos theorist and mathematician set out to prove how such things that appear to have design, do not in fact; and are the result of random accident eventually producing pattern (order appearing naturally from chaos) Unfortunately, while this could work (because at present it can't be disproved) with theortecial models of the Universe, it didn't work on the ONE thing they chose to use the theory on. An event which occurs every second of the day somewhere in nature: immediate flock and herd dynamic synchronisation. THEY chose to say this was chaos theory at work. They were wrong. As wrong as the Creationists. And they are the only branch of science that has tried to show nature as mathematical accident.

 

Yes its a small pholophical point that seperates what we are saying Mr M.

You say that God doesn't exist until proven otherwise.

I say it appears that some "scheme" is at work THROUGH evolution, and the evidence we see tells us that. Science's attempts at saying that what appears to be a plan is random order from chaos, and that is the only explanation that has been offered; and its a bad one.

 

A programme is running; we are just a tiny new "download" in it, and somehow it has ben running on Earth for 4.5 billion years. It is highly likely that it exists elesewhere in the Universe too. Indeed, one could even say that the Universe appears to follow some kind of "design". So if we set out to DISPROVE existence of the Architect, we have to take into account that the architect may not be consciousness as we know it. Otherwise all we are doing is saying there is no man with a grey beard; and the alternative explanation offered for the apparent design is just as incredulous.

 

The Truth is that the whole Universe is apparently a colossal programme, hurtling towards its destiny . We don't know why how or where, and attempts at explaining it via Quantum physics and chaos theory are no better hokum than the guy with the white beard.

 

"In the beginning there was darkness and God said let there be light" was a way of explaining things to a simple mind. If it said there was no matter then suddenly and explosion of matter its not all that different is it? The scientists meanwhile, are able to explain that happening....but their efforts to explain WHY it happened are doomed to be naive, and in the end, irrelevant.

It reminds me of the navajo joke when they heard about the sapce programme.

"Did you hear about the astro physicist and the mathematician and the priest and the politician arguing in the desert about the nature of the universe that the space programme possibly offered solutions to? They were so intense in discussion, that they didn't see the mountain Lion that came to eat them."

And in an adaptation of that joke, the mountain lion is the military.

 

The answer probably IS 42.

 

...........................................................................................................

 

My own personal faith is based on what I see not what I think. And I see energy in all living things and and interdependence between them. A Circle of life. So for me, that is something that science will only ever disguise, not disprove. Somehow, energy has become life and like electricity flows through us all. And when we take the life of an animal, then its energy becomes part of us or conserves our own energy. That is NOT then an article of faith: because it is true in a very real way. If the owl does not eat the mouse, it dies. The mouse gives the owl life. So for me God is that energy; since it implies a programme....hence, a programmer...even if that programmer is energy or whatever not conscious life.

So is there life after death? Yes I can prove it.

When you ar buried your body breaks down and becomes trees and grass,

and other things. Every atom that ever existed is still here in a differently arranged way. So one atom of cleopatra's eyelash could now be in your brain. And so, death IS life.

 

And I also believe that nature is telling us these secrets all the time far more effectively than science; which often shrouds them. When my horse died I was sad; he was very very old. The day after, we had a kitten; he was very very young, and full of the energy that in my old horse was failing fast. It reminded me that to be new life there must also be death.

 

Is nature conscious? I don't think that is a releavnt question. Is it God? for all intents and purposes the progarmme is what it is all about: if it makes it easier to understand by seeing a man with a beard then that does no one any harm UNLESS they say that we must ALL bow down and worship him.

Will science ever disprove that? No, because its true; from the energy of sun to feed the the plants to the herbivores to the carnivores and back to the earth via death and the rain which results in plant growth again maintaining th atmosphere in balance and back again to the sun perpetuating it all . So people make models to explain that to simple minds; because it is impossible to ever know why. Though one can see why some people in history believed the sun to be God; why primitive peoples accept nature as God.

[Guest]

primitive people..... now yer starting to touch on paganism here....

 

so here's a defintion I found a while back which for the most part I find to be sound in it's reasoning & by the looks of it, maybe will ring true with others here? It works for me!

 

Paganism is a spiritual way of life which has its roots in the ancient nature religions of the world. It is principally rooted in the old religions of Europe, though many adherents also find great worth in the indigenous beliefs of other countries. We celebrate the sanctity of Nature, recognising the Divine in all things; the vast, unknowable spirit that runs through the universe, both seen and unseen. Such belief in the sacredness of all things can be found world-wide. Pagans see this as their heritage, interpreting many of the beliefs and values of our ancestors in forms adapted to suit modern life. These interpretations may be based on folklore, myth or archaeological evidence. What is important is not necessarily the historical validity or political attainability of such visions, but the direction in which such inspirations channel human energy, human potential and human creativity.

 

Pagans honour the Divine in all its aspects, whether male or female, as parts of the sacred whole. Every man woman and child is, to a Pagan, a beautiful and unique being. The woods and open spaces of the land, home to wild animals and birds, are cherished. Paganism stresses personal spiritual experience, and Pagans often find this experience through their relationship with the natural world that they love. They seek spiritual union with Divinity by attuning with the tides of Nature and by exploring their inner selves, seeing each reflected in the other. We believe that we should meet the Divine, in whatever form we perceive it, face to face and within our own experience, rather than through an intermediary. Although some paths do have leaders and teachers, these people act as facilitators, using their own wisdom and experience to help guide those in their care towards discovering their own sense and interpretation of the Divine. Our rites help us harmonize with the natural cycles of our selves and our world, and so they are often held at the turning points of the seasons, at the phases of the Moon and Sun, and at times of transition in our lives.

 

There is a great variety of hues within the broad spectrum of Paganism. This reflects the range of our spiritual experience, for we believe that everyone is unique, and so everyone's spirituality must be equally unique. Some Pagans follow multiple Gods and Goddesses, their names familiar to all from the pages of European folklore and mythology; others focus on a single Life Force of no specific gender; yet others devote themselves to a cosmic couple - Goddess and God, or Lord and Lady. We celebrate our diversity for we believe that each person should find their spirituality according to the dictates of the quiet, inner voice of their own soul. For this reason we respect all sincere religions, and do not proselytise or seek converts. From other faiths and from society generally, we ask only tolerance.

 

In these days of eco-awareness, Pagans are often at the forefront of environmentalism. Pagans of all paths respect the rights of every living soul, whether human, animal, plant or rock. We are ever mindful of the action of cause and effect, whether by thought or deed, upon the creatures of the Earth. Each of us accepts responsibility for ourselves, both spiritually and in the things we do. We encourage free thought, creative imagination and practical human resourcefulness, believing these to be fundamental to our spending our lives in harmony with the rhythms of the natural world. We rejoice that some of our long-held personal beliefs should now be shared by so many other people. These beliefs are the heritage of all people from our distant and common ancestors - they are equally the concern of all our descendants.

[LordTheNightKnight]

Paganism is actually the old Roman religion before Christianity took over.

[Guest]

Actually Paganism is a broad term for many religions pre christian ; Lord is correct.

 

Druids were classified as pagan for example; though I would argue that they were not Animist, but rather invaders using a belief system for their own ends.

 

Paganism as such being used to classify other primitive beliefs is not really useful; but yes it is sometimes used to describe SOME animism.

 

I am Animist, most aboriginal peoples are Animist...but not Pagan; since Pagan is a word trapped in time.

[Guest]

Paganism is actually the old Roman religion before Christianity took over.

 

Absolute Nonsense! Maybe yer should research Celtic, Norse, Egyptian, Greek... amongst others... mythology & believe systems before making such outlandish statements.........

 

That aside if yer actually took the time to read & understand the definition I provided maybe you'd be able to comprehend & relate paganism to modern times & it's strong links to environmentalism & living in harmony with the land & nature, which I have to say Tos is summit that indeginous peoples have understood & followed through their history... again if you read & understand the defintion I provided you'll see the link rather than jus brand PAGAN a word trapped in time........

[MrMockle]

ToS,

 

To keep to the point of the discussion (evolution versus creationism), I'd agree that evolution by natural selection is the strongest, and to most people's eyes, winning, argument against creationism. I'd also largely agree that evolutionists (including Darwin and Dawkins) did not disprove God although I'll need to go back over my statements to see if I did say so. But they do give us the best and most reasoned alternative to creationism and the concept of an intelligent designer and I am more included to believe the evolutionary standpoint than the creationist one.

 

I'm still not with you on the chaos theory point - perhaps a matter for another topic as this one might be drawing to a close and I was about to bring up Fractals and probability again. Just because science has failed to find an answer to the relatively niche problem of flock/herd behaviour, it doesn't mean that it never will - just that current hypotheses and theories are not correct and now doubt biologists are currently doing research on this field. Mind you, you still haven't stated where you got this notion about the use of Chaos theory to model that behaviour - any further pointers for us all to study?

 

Perhaps the "scheme" you mention is the self preservation of certain genes and species through gradual evolution and goal seeking behaviour - which again is not random. I'd also disagree that quantum mechanics is "hokum" and that knowing about the origin of the big bang and if even remotely possible, the state before that, is irrelevant nor is it "doomed to be naive". A recent Horizon programme reported from the research currently underway across the world on this subject, culminating (if all goes to plan) with an experiment in Switzerland later this year (I forget the organization - is it CERN?) to try and replicate the moments just after the Big Bang. Given the complexity of such an experiment, it may of course reveal nothing - or even fail to work completely; and for all you doom-mongers, it might even create an unstable black hole here on our little planet.

 

Interesting too that you refer to Douglas Adams, a good friend of Richard Dawkins - who dedicated "The God Delusion" to him and quotes from him within it - and lately a radical atheist. The dedication to the book, presumably a quotation from Adams himself, reads:

 

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

 

Regards,

Mr Mockle

[Guest]

When you KNOW there are faeries there and science is telling you there are not, that is the problem.

 

Metaphorical ones, of course

 

The flock dynamics thing was chosen by Chaos theory scientists to model thir theories on.

The problem is anyone who say works with horses knew from the word go that the apparently spontaneous movment of animals all in the same direction is by communication (since not all can see the danger stimulus at the same time). If someone shouts "quick fire" it takes humans a massive amount of time to respond. Horses and birds move in unison; fish too of course. Try googling "fish school chaos theory" and you may find it. It was not a question of pattern emerging from random chaos. It may NOT be telepathy BUT it is certainly from communication and immediate response.

 

Science tests a hypothesis without looking at the other evidence. This contiinually leads us to believe in misinformation. It operates like the blind men and the elephant, and causes us problems of faith, until sensible scientists dares question it. And those individuals are treated as heretics.

BUT eventually they rae proved right and whole scientific theories can be proven to be utter rubbish. Take phrenology for example. I am not slagging ALL science, just trying to show its limitations in operating as a "faith".

 

Take for example the smoking thing.

Nearly everyone "believes" that smoking causes cancer.

Science has spectacularly failed to prove that. No animal in the lab has ever succesfully been given cancer from the smoking stimulus may be urban myth BUT has some truth to it. So what happens? Science cheats.

 

Here is the truth. Smoking does NOT cause cancer.....not in isolation anyway. Now everyone screams heretic. See? It operates like religion.

 

IF smoking caused cancer it would cause cancer in repeatable experiment and it does NOT. And in the meantime, the real causes of cancer go untreated, until someone so convinced by their observations has to take drastic measures. The Australian scientist infected himself with helicobacter pylori and it produced a stomach ulcer (ulceration has a cause relationship with stomach cancer). Then finally it was realised that

cervical cancer, despite the incidence of smoking being very high in sufferrs, has NO relationship with the cause: the cause is human papilloma.

And so to lung cancer. Some have dared to be looking elsewhere for the culprit and are coming up with some very interesting results re adeno viruses.

 

Now yes you may say, science eventually proves itself wrong and comes up with new "truth". BUT not until colossal mistakes have been made, like phrenology justifying racial superiority in Nazi germany, millions of people dying unecesarily from cervical and stomach and goodness knows what other cancers.

 

Often it is the simple stable lad standing holding a horse as a scientist and a philosopher argue about how many teeth that a horse has, that comes up with the Truth.

 

 

So back to herd/flock dynamics. It isn't random maths at work and order from chaos. That doesn't disprove the whole thing, BUT it does discredit scientific analysis of some situations since it does not take into account

other information, but blindly tests it theory.

 

So back to your garden. There are things happening in the garden that science does not take into account, that other people notice. It may not be the fearies that build very strange nests and do weird things to leaves....but neither is it children. It is wrens. It is not children or faeries that move little caches of shiny stuff to nests but magpies. So I am saying that science needs to observe more other factors that may be operating before they say for sure and lead us to another form of faith which ignores reality. Espcially when that reality is likely to be far more complex that science can estimate. How many more quadruped iguanadons is science going to come up with? How many primitive civilsations get the blame for mass extictions before they look at other factors?

At least most religion says, "this is how it happened" with its tongue frimly in its cheek saying "metaphorically".

Science claims reason as its high priest and cries heresy at anyone who questions it.

 

Quantum physics is hokum as it is easy to show the cat is in the box when you aren't looking at it. It may have some truth, but in its models and resulting philosophy it is doomed to be as groundless....and absurd...as some religions.

 

Evolution is a tool...indeed, a function... of nature not an ally of science in its power struggle over religion. Indeed, one day, it may be the saviour of religion since it suggests a programme impling a programmer.

[Guest]

So, in summary, what I am saying is this.

I am NOT slating all science.

 

I am slating it where :

1. It ignores evidence...sometimes obvious...and other variables in its discipline sometimes.

2. When people place so much faith in it in offering explanations of the world that even its own prove later to be incorrect: this is like following a priest or shamen....except now we can choose to ignore them.

3. Science is a whore. It will work for whoever pays for it and will tell them it loves them.

 

So back to Creationism v Evolution. Evolution exists....science has discovered a fraction of how so. But that doesn't call into question the notion of who created IT. It certainly knocks down the Creationists while they refute it. BUT science has not come up with an explanation of why it works. They can splice genes for example much as a mechanic messes about with a car. Understanding how it works however is not enough, and he who drives a car built from three vehicles welded together by the mechanic better watch out.

 

Mary Shelley's warning is as strong now as it ever was. Science has disproved the old concept of God. But one thing is for sure: The Scientist is NOT God; nor even a missionary for Nature....which as much as scientists try to explain it is likey to be as incorrect as the philosophers who wrote the bible in explaining creation. Except the philosophers were very clever.....they wrote it in a way in which if one sees it as metaphor etc it is difficult to prove wrong. Science is often wrong.

 

Gives a whole new meaning to Adam's rib

[Guest]

As for the Pagan thing furelli, I actually misread Lord's statement. I thought he said it ws the religion before the Romans took over. Indeed, Christains talked of very non christian religion as pagan....even roman. It is that reason why the word Pagan to describe one set of beliefs is a mistake: it is better trapped in time.

 

Modern Pagans have many beliefs that are completely at odds with some native peoples. Within the Animist spectrum, modern paganism is like the Jehovas Witnesses in Christianity. It takes bits of old religions...something from the Celts, something from the Druids etc, and comes up with its own intrpretation.

 

For example. The Celts and Druids were at times at war with one another

due to massive spiritual differences....usually over horses. Yet they were both Pagan.

 

And SOME Pagans still have mighty big issues with horses. I tolerate them as long as they steer clear of our woods, as they make a F***** mess and bugger about with all sorts of weird stuff more in line with Satanism than Animism; and more in line on the other extreme with animal rights than Animism. So there are a whole load of little cults going around some slaughtering goats and others killing horses and yet others being at "One" with the woods yet due to stupidity doing things like destroying rare plants and flowers for their "recipes" .

 

That isn't to say that there are not those who practice what they believe benignly; but there are an awful lot of perversions of it about.

 

I showed your definition to a shamen friend and asked him what he felt about it and could he identify with it.

 

"This is what your people belive is going back to the old ways? No wonder Christianity came. What we do is more like a science based on observation of nature".

 

I then had to quickly distance myself from that lol

[MrMockle]

ToS,

 

Again you raise some more points on which we agree and then some points which seem to stretch which seem an absurd leap of your reasoning.

 

I've not got the time to go through the chaos theory links on flock/herd behaviour this week but hope to do so at the weekend. And smoking has been discussed often in other topics here and on this I think you know my views: I don't smoke but Ms Mockle does and I have no problem with people who do - however it's not something I have tried or wish to try personally.

 

Then you throw in lines like "science cheats", "lead(s) us to another form of faith that ignores reality", "quantum physics is hokum", "science is a whore" and start mentioning "colossial mistakes" as if such examples are the norm and not the extreme cases. And then we have:

At least most religion says, "this is how it happened" with its tongue frimly in its cheek saying "metaphorically".

Only that's the point with creationism - and fundamentalism - in that those who speak it don't do so with their tounge in their cheeks, have no evidence but their "faith" (often flying in the face of a vast amount of available evidence) to base their arguments on and, dangerously, have an ever increasing voice in society today and looking to restrict the education of future generations. If you (or Mary Shelley) say "science has disproved the old concept of God" (although I thought we'd earlier agreed that it hadn't - yet), it is that old concept that Creationists are looking to revive.

 

And of course by mentioning "who" you still assume that something/someone created "it" (I presume you mean "evolution") whereas I presume that no such intelligent designer did. Quite what the trigger was science is trying to look for an answer, unsatsfied at the answer religion has offered.

 

Regards,

Mr Mockle

[LordTheNightKnight]

Paganism is actually the old Roman religion before Christianity took over.

 

Absolute Nonsense! Maybe yer should research Celtic, Norse, Egyptian, Greek... amongst others... mythology & believe systems before making such outlandish statements.........

 

That aside if yer actually took the time to read & understand the definition I provided maybe you'd be able to comprehend & relate paganism to modern times & it's strong links to environmentalism & living in harmony with the land & nature, which I have to say Tos is summit that indeginous peoples have understood & followed through their history... again if you read & understand the defintion I provided you'll see the link rather than jus brand PAGAN a word trapped in time........

 

Let me correct that. It was originally the term for people in the Roman empire not wanting to convert to Christianity. The term meant a farmer, I think, or some term that meant they were backwards.

 

It was only later that the term became a blanket word for other religions.

 

And most modern definitions are actually neo-paganism.

[Guest]

Yes Lord that is what I thought you meant first of all; thanks for clarifying.

 

Mr M I am using examples on flock behaviour and cancer where science has DELIBERATLY ignored evidence put in front of it....that is why I have used them; not to go off at a deliberate tangent.

 

And what I am saying is if science sees something it cannot explain, it tries to explain it by methods already in its belief system. Hence to any normal person who observes birds daily, or anyone who has helicobacter in the family, they KNOW science is wrong, yet it becomes heresy to say so....that is all I am saying using those two examples. I could have used a hundred other examples....phrenology being the most otrageous example of hokum.

 

So rather than looking at something and saying "impossible ...it must be this"; it uses its faith to defend itself.

 

You and I are looking at nature and what I see cannot be explained by science ...yet. There is certainly no man with a white beard behind it. But to say that there is no consciousness (though as I say it may not be how we think of consciousness) behind it and explain it with mathematical models that falsify examples in nature discredit it.

 

Yes, cell mutiplication and crystalisation patterns can be explained mathematically and physically, and that tells us how. It dosn't tell us why. So when they come along and say its just random maths it is laughable I am afraid.

All it can do is explain the mechanics not the design.....and half the time then it is wrong because it doesn't look at other evidence. Science....know thy limits!

 

See if they are that badly wrong on the cause effect interpretation of the realtionship between smoking and cervical cancer (all it showed is smokers were more likely to have more sexual partners therefore higher likelihood of contracting helicobacter) how wrong could it be about the Universe? I said for years...how come smoking nuns don't get cervical cancer...ever?

Now for four years I have been saying that biologists are going to be the death of cheetahs because they do not understand what they do sexually because they don't bother LOOKING. A female cheetah needs several males; she is a slut. Only NOW are they starting to accept that too.

 

So when I see that every organic life form appearing to be in an interdependant relationship in order to achieve a balance between atmospheric gasses I would say that SOMETHING is doing it. Nature itself through whatever mechanics we understand through science yes; but as yet Science is not trying to work out WHY. Does that make Nature a deity? I don't know. I know it is doing it though.

[Guest]

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-measurement/

 

Oh dear; to think they teach this cobblers in educational establishments.

 

And the Swiss experiment? Forget the myth. Its been done before though.

USS Eldridge ring a bell?

 

Just don't be on a ship anywhre near Switzerland

 

Okay I had better be serious for a moment. Quantum physics is an interesting intellectual model for explaining many things. However, when it is APPLIED to certain things it is questionable in its abilities. It requires NO proof by its very nature, and that is what makes it laughable to me; as laughable as any man with a grey beard.

 

"Ah no no no TOS you are just saying that because you do not understand

it. To think outside the box you first understand what is in it" .

 

And what do I say to that?

 

LET THE F****** CAT OUT OF THE BOX YOU ARE SUFFOCATING IT YOU DIM WITS !

 

Here is a typical example of the problems in applying quantum theory: some of the responses are very humorous: in this case, to smell:

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/11/1952201

 

See the problem is that it can't be disproved; much like God.

 

So we have come to a physics that has come up with a "faery world" that is accepted as a theoretical way to explain things? There are eleven theoretical dimensions we know to exist its just impossible for us to comprehend. RUBBISH. The Twilight Zone has been telling us that for years.

What is important is NOT physical matter but energy operating at sub atomic level. Right. I think you will find that's what aboriginal shamen have been saying makes things tick for thousands of years.

 

 

Yes it has practical applications. Any particle science costs millions and employs a lot of scientists. And it may actually produce something useful one day like make the battleship actually invisible instead of buggering its atoms about so much it shifts into another dimension.

 

BUT when science says its not the invisibility that is important its the fact that we may be able to develop warp drive or something, they may get some more money chucked at them anyway.

 

And all that is fine and hunky dory, but what is ironic is that when the faeries visit from the alternative universe they shout "impossible!"

 

We are treading on very thin ice IF quantum physics has any validity, that is for sure.

Edited June 18, 2007 by Guest

[MrMockle]

ToS,

 

Oh dear indeed! To think taxpayers money has been wasted teaching philosophy in universities! Think of all the extra funding that science has missed out on - or languages, or history, or politics .....

 

Regards,

Mr Mockle

[Guest]

Why would you accept a make believe science and dispute a make believe God though?

 

In the beginning there was darkness and God said let there be light isn't all that different to what physics is saying anyway.

 

Explaining it with metaphor ...if you accept that is what it is...seems to me to be at least as reasonable as explaining it with sometimes almost laughable physics theory. Maybe it wouldn't have been so bad if they hadn't used a Cat in a box metaphor eh?

 

Anyway, here are some of the problems with unified Field Theory. And the irony is, that IF they one day prove it, they may actually also prove the existence of what motivates nature: ie, a God.

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

 

Is that important? I don't know...I think Tower of Babel is a good metaphor.

What is important is this: Unified field theory established or no, there IS almost certainly "a unified theory of everything" operating in practice. Some people have called this God.

Energy cannot be destroyed; only changed into other energy. If something unifies all this energy in one field, is that not the Creator?

 

God works in mysterious ways but probably not as mysterious as quantum physics

[Ravens8]

LET THE F****** CAT OUT OF THE BOX YOU ARE SUFFOCATING IT YOU DIM WITS !

 

Thats the point ToS. Until you let the cat out you cant KNOW whether you've suffocated it or not.

 

Its all very simple. Theres no mystery to any of it. Because the universe is as we know it today , there can be no other way for ot to be, In the future it will be different. But only because of where it came from ie the point of time today, (and infinite number of other "todays").

 

Everything in creation , including us, makes up the huge multidimensional INTERDEPENDENT web that is creation itself. The web IS. if it were any different it wouldnt be the web. It creates itself. It can only be what it is, because it is.

 

I dont have a problem with that concept. What I do have a problem with, is trying to undertand why people believe there has to be a creator of any sort, and as for God! If he did ever exist he would just have been another temporary flash in the web in the ever changing maelstrom that gives us our reality. Probably happened a long time before we arrived, and is now long gone

[Guest]

You are misunderstanding my point. I am saying that God , if such a thing exists, is energy, and particles exist only to allow flow of its energy.

I don't dispute unified field theory, just mathematical models to try to explain it which when challenged move the goalposts.

If there is a God, it IS energy. ALL energy. Is it conscious? Who knows.....but if it is all unified, then that suggests; if I may dare, that it is. Is it therfore the creator? Yes.

And the cat is full of energy and to say it dosn't exist if you are not looking at it is nonsense. You don't have to look at the cat to know its there since for example it generates heat. Yes in alternate universes the matter may be arranged differently but the energy will be the same.

 

See quantum physics is not an end in itself; its only purpose is intellectual conceit OR to try to prove UFT . As the former it certainly has some use for thinkers; as the latter it is a virtual irrelevance .

 

If light and gravity and heat and electro magnetism and electro chemical reaction etc etc etc are ALL part of the same thing, we have to accept that

IT is creating.....maybe morphing all manner of infinite possibilities but IT is constant. Even black holes do not destroy energy like light...it is just converted into something else isn't it?

 

My grandmother; a Christian , used to say that the Bible was just a way of explaining it easily...it wasn't ever meant to be taken literally. She used to say God is in all things and everywhere. Aboriginal Animists say the same thing. Science is a bit late on the block with this one; and will do nothing to disprove God if God is energy. Hell just think of how many religions talk of the Spirit and the Great Spirit and the Holy Spirit. Isn't that what they mean? Energy? And bodies...matter...are just receptors for this? Yes we may say that the rest of religion is just a metaphor, but as science strives to prove UFT then that is essentially what they are trying to prove: a unified force of creation.

 

Was Jesus the "son" of God , was Mohammed the "prophet" of God? Who knows. All I see is that some people are endowed with more energy than others; does that make them divine? I don't know but it makes my horse pretty damn divine....everyone who sees him says he has an aura. Makes fur pretty divine too; especially if it had good diet and life and was proud . And so is easy to see why aboriginals see fur as having a spiritual (energy) residual field. So you know that gorgeous girl you saw in the fox fur? She almost had a halo? Well maybe she did.

Science would be better off looking at what makes the cat tick to find the key to the universe; and his role in redistributing energy within the "programme". Rather than suggesting he may not be there if he isn't being observed.

 

To bring it back to the initial thing...Gigantoraptor. The energy within that creature still flows through his descendants flying around. All his matter has changed...even his bones turned to stone. Everything organic is reused. As he ate he defecated. Plants grew, and our ancestors ate the plants, or ate the herbivore which fed on the plants. Not only are birds descended form this creature directly, but his very being contributed in some way to ours . Maybe there is an atom of gigantoraptors eyeball in yours. In every way, energy and redistribution of energy through genes, through interdependance of animals and plants, through the sun burning, through gravity....is creation. If the Creationists deny this they are weakening what could be the great strength of a God concept.

 

Is it an accidental web growing in infinite possibilities? If it is...then UFT does not necessarily exist since different energies operate independantly of one another. There is no Great Spirit. It is what I mean by saying that Science could prove what it denies exists in its attempts to seek an alternative explanation.

 

 

 

Cool avatar btw Ravens. Goats are cool.

[Guest]

Now we've done it Mr M and Ravens its thundering and lightening really bad...we have upset the Gods!!!!!

[MrMockle]

ToS,

 

Nonsense - it's just energy being redistributed!

 

Enjoy the storms - it's not far from here as I type.

 

Mr Mockle

[ReFur]

I hope you don't follw USA politics, but if you do, the former NYC mayor is is running for President as a Republican. He is Catholic.

 

There was a debate recently and he was asked about his position as a Catholic being pro-choice. As he was speaking a storm cause the electrical system to create static. Everyone got a good laugh.

 

Linda

[Guest]

storms by-passed us, we don't mess with Thor!

[Guest]

Its Ravens fault!

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

 

His chariot is pulled by goats and therefore Ravens new avatar has upset him!

[Guest]

 

defo Ravens fault, White smiling Goats was bad enough then he adds UK The Sunny South on his avatar...... the boys jus takin the pish!

[LordTheNightKnight]

Well by accident or design, humans still became a lot dumber than we like to admit.

[Guest]

I agree, Zeus must be pulling his hair out.

 

Still,

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/greeks/jason_01.shtml

 

at least we are a bit closer to knowing what the golden fleece was all about.

 

 

yes this IS the religion for me!!!!

 

And he shall visit the fields1 which drink in summer and the stream of Asbystes2 and the couch on the ground where he shall sleep among evil-smelling beasts.3 And all shall he endure for the sake of the Aegyan bitch,4 her of three husbands,5 who bare only female children.6 And he shall come as a wanderer to the folk of the Iapyges7 and offer gifts to the Maiden of the Spoils,8 even the mixing-bowl from Tamassus9 and the shield of oxhide and fur-lined shoes of his wife. And he shall come to Siris10 and the recesses of Lacinium,11 wherein a heifer12 shall fashion an orchard for the goddess Hopolosmia,13 furnished with trees. And it shall be for all time an ordinance for the women of the land to mourn14 the nine-cubit hero,15 third in descent from Aeacus and Doris, the hurricane of battle strife, and not to deck their radiant limbs with gold, nor array them in fine-spun robes stained with purple