Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Its been suggested that the growing stream of knowledge is heading more towards a non-mechanical reality, in which, as astronomer Sir James Dean put it, ''the universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.''
Or to quote Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner, ''It is not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.'' Which seems kinda hard to do without inevitably bringing up the ''G'' word (aka, Spirit, the Divine, Cosmic Consciousness, the Creator, or what Einstein called The Old One).
BTW, this is not intended to be an atheist vs agnostic vs ''true believer'' debate, but more as an inquiry into how reasonably rational and empirical folks incorporate science and knowledge into their spiritual and world views.
Its been suggested that the growing stream of knowledge is heading more towards a non-mechanical reality, in which, as astronomer Sir James Dean put it, ''the universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.''
Or to quote Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner, ''It is not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.'' Which seems kinda hard to do without inevitably bringing up the ''G'' word (aka, Spirit, the Divine, Cosmic Consciousness, the Creator, or what Einstein called The Old One).
BTW, this is not intended to be an atheist vs agnostic vs ''true believer'' debate, but more as an inquiry into how reasonably rational and empirical folks incorporate science and knowledge into their spiritual and world views.
I am excited about the new shift science is taking...finally realizing that "thoughts" are energy and affect the universe. I've always believed in a Universal Consciousness of which we are ALL a part of and make up...which is why most religions have the thread of Onement running through them...we are ALL ONE.
Scientists found that on 9/11 when the world was focused collectively on that tragedy that there were huge spikes in the magnetic fields of the earth...it's very interesting.
Its been suggested that the growing stream of knowledge is heading more towards a non-mechanical reality, in which, as astronomer Sir James Dean put it, ''the universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.''
Or to quote Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner, ''It is not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.'' Which seems kinda hard to do without inevitably bringing up the ''G'' word (aka, Spirit, the Divine, Cosmic Consciousness, the Creator, or what Einstein called The Old One).
BTW, this is not intended to be an atheist vs agnostic vs ''true believer'' debate, but more as an inquiry into how reasonably rational and empirical folks incorporate science and knowledge into their spiritual and world views.
so the transcendental argument for the existence of God seems to make sense?
Scientists found that on 9/11 when the world was focused collectively on that tragedy that there were huge spikes in the magnetic fields of the earth...it's very interesting.
Actually I believe it went further than that. Random number generators failed to produce random numbers on the occasion of 9/11, and that also happened on the occasion of Diana's death. So it appears that collectively we can create some strange effects.
I personally am pleased with all this stuff. No conflicts really. Most of all some scientists are beginning to entertain the multiple dimensions/realities that I believe exist, and would explain why we can't see "dead" folks, nor where they live. Because its right here. Divided by time for sure, but there is probably more to it.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,450,688 times
Reputation: 6670
Dunno that I care so much for the ''multiverse'' theory myself, as it seems like a bit of an intellectual cop-out (aka, ''instead of trying to explain this universe, let's create a theory that can't ever be proved, saying anything's possible and that this is simply one of an infinite number of possibilities'')!
Although it is fascinating to consider the ''accidents'' of extraordinary ''fine-tuning'' and incredibly minute values necessary to sustain life and even the creation of the universe! What is the “fine-tuning” of the universe, and how does it serve as a “pointer to God”?
Consider the expansion rate of the Big Bang. If it was greater, so the early universe expanded faster, the matter in the universe would have become so diffuse that gravity could never have gathered it into stars and galaxies. If it was less, so the early universe expanded more slowly, gravity could have overwhelmed the expansion and pulled all the matter back into a black hole. The expansion rate was just right, so that the universe could have stars in it.
Another interesting example of a finely-tuned initial condition is the critical density of the universe. In order to evolve in a life-sustaining manner, the universe must have maintained an extremely precise overall density. The precision of density must have been so great that a change of one part in 1015 (i.e. 0.0000000000001%) would have resulted in a collapse, or big crunch, occurring far too early for life to have developed, or there would have been an expansion so rapid that no stars, galaxies or life could have formed.
This degree of precision would be like a blindfolded man choosing a single lucky penny, in a pile large enough to pay off the United States’ national debt.
Dunno that I care so much for the ''multiverse'' theory myself, as it seems like a bit of an intellectual cop-out (aka, ''instead of trying to explain this universe, let's create a theory that can't ever be proved, saying anything's possible and that this is simply one of an infinite number of possibilities'')!
Although it is fascinating to consider the ''accidents'' of extraordinary ''fine-tuning'' and incredibly minute values necessary to sustain life and even the creation of the universe! What is the “fine-tuning” of the universe, and how does it serve as a “pointer to God”?
Consider the expansion rate of the Big Bang. If it was greater, so the early universe expanded faster, the matter in the universe would have become so diffuse that gravity could never have gathered it into stars and galaxies. If it was less, so the early universe expanded more slowly, gravity could have overwhelmed the expansion and pulled all the matter back into a black hole. The expansion rate was just right, so that the universe could have stars in it.
Another interesting example of a finely-tuned initial condition is the critical density of the universe. In order to evolve in a life-sustaining manner, the universe must have maintained an extremely precise overall density. The precision of density must have been so great that a change of one part in 1015 (i.e. 0.0000000000001%) would have resulted in a collapse, or big crunch, occurring far too early for life to have developed, or there would have been an expansion so rapid that no stars, galaxies or life could have formed.
This degree of precision would be like a blindfolded man choosing a single lucky penny, in a pile large enough to pay off the United States’ national debt.
If I understand the basics of the science in blue-d portion of the above post - and I may well not - it sounds like a possible clue towards the existence of a Creator of some sort.
Part of what convinces me there is indeed a Creator is the symmetry, the order, the precision, the artistry of life. It just seems unnatural to consider that it manifested itself out of chaos by luck and by golly.
If I understand the basics of the science in blue-d portion of the above post - and I may well not - it sounds like a possible clue towards the existence of a Creator of some sort.
Part of what convinces me there is indeed a Creator is the symmetry, the order, the precision, the artistry of life. It just seems unnatural to consider that it manifested itself out of chaos by luck and by golly.
Oh really? The atheists are not going to like the fact that the "Bronze age goat hearders" had it right. Psalm 19 begins: The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork.
Paul said in Romans 1: For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead
And John gets a bit esoteric when he wrote in John 1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. (the greek word for "Word" is logos). The root word for the English word Logic.
BTW, this is not intended to be an atheist vs agnostic vs ''true believer'' debate, but more as an inquiry into how reasonably rational and empirical folks incorporate science and knowledge into their spiritual and world views.
I have no problem using science to explore and explain the physical world.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
