The Real Scientific proof of GOD

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Sorry X I despise Bill Mahr. There has to be something up with anyone out there who act so smug and sound so sure of what he's talking about. It's ridiculous for him to be sure of what he's talking about. Don't you think this tio be true?

He's over the top lots of time, I agree with that. But he's making some very valid points in this case. Just look at all the wars we're involved in, and how often the word "god" pops up when people talk about it. On the Muslim side, you have extremists declaring Jihad on anyone non-Muslim, on the Christian side you have extremists who believe this is some foretold Armageddon or some 2nd crusades (listen to Bush's famous "god spoke to me" speech!!), and then there's the Israeli government who's also beyond reason and pretty much taking freedoms and liberties from anyone not Muslim/White/Jewish. All of it are symptoms of people being manipulated through religion...and the only way to stop it is by making people wake up and DEMAND objective evidence instead of blind faith.

reply to post by MrXYZ


I agree he makes valid points and the way he sounds ? He damn well better.

Now the Bible says that God created light. That he spoke light into existence. For me the ultimate power that could exist for any being that exists including God would be the power to just speak it and it is done. So this should be an atribute of God and the Bible just happens to say it is an atribute of God. Are you with me


You know I don't buy into organised religion don't you X ? Of course I beliecve all organised religion that gets a taxbreak by the govt that it is under is a servant to that government. That dosn't mean we dismiss God because of man. Tha'st where I come from.

reply to post by randyvs


Your post brings me to another important fact:

Whatever you read in religious scriptures (and I'm not only talking about the bible here) only proves what people back then used to BELIEVE...not necessarily reality. Think about how much religious scriptures have been completely debunked by science, how much has been proven to be wrong. That's of course not surprising given it was written by people who didn't have our current knowledge about how the world works. And even worse, a lot of religious leaders then twist stuff to "make it fit", because if they wouldn't, they'd lose followers and consequently money. Look at how many people the Catholic church tortured and killed because they presented FACTS that went against scripture. Like Galileo for example...or how long it took them to accept the theory of evolution for the sound theory it is.

Taking things literally that were written over 2000 years ago is silly, just like people 2000 years in the future shouldn't accept all our writings as fact...because if there's one thing humans are good at, it's exaggeration and lying

reply to post by MrXYZ

Taking things literally that were written over 2000 years ago is silly, just like people 2000 years in the future shouldn't accept all our writings as fact...because if there's one thing humans are good at, it's exaggeration and lying

And yet you must be content with that because you've completely written off the possibility of anything else. This is where I can't understand you. You know well the heart of man yet you seek nothing else.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Taking things literally that were written over 2000 years ago is silly, just like people 2000 years in the future shouldn't accept all our writings as fact...because if there's one thing humans are good at, it's exaggeration and lying

And yet you must be content with that because you've completely written off the possibility of anything else. This is where I can't understand you. You know well the heart of man yet you seek nothing else.

I'm not writing it off, and I've stated multiple times that I'm not claiming there's no deity or creator, but I refuse to believe in anything that doesn't have objective evidence as backup. Being a bit "Vulcan-like" by requesting objective evidence always served me well, and actually made a good amount of $$$ when the markets crashed in 2008/09

reply to post by MrXYZ


Well I was sure you were much more the hardliner than that.
I'm by no means asking you to question your methodology in reasoning either. Nor am I trying to persuade you.
I would be happy just getting to a point of mutual respect with your ass.

Well after being sent papers on something that is identical to kabbala, involves trigonometry and sacred geometry, and something tptb are very much into, the scarcity theory and the theory of all, including infinity. I put my own thinking cap on, because we're in a duality/opposition school. We have choices to see positive or negative, and infinity is one of those odd things, it really makes infinite choices, infinite energies, infinite expressions of anything. Cap it in anyway and its finite.

Starting here with this post, part 1, is the beginning of this assessment: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then using the model of infinity in our 3d brains, like the deepest thinking and the existence of all the possibilities that exist before something selects it, as in the Double Slit experiment, one can understand that there is a God, what one would call the Essence of Consciousness emanating from the whole of infinite energy, but using the same possibility model you would have every variation of this being expressed. ie. Global Consciousness, Dispersed Intelligence/Consciousness (us for example), Energy/Matter with No Consciousness, and infinite degree and varieties of all of this, including shades inbetween????

So, mathematically one could indeed express God, and yet all of us and yet all the infinite degrees of energy, in variety and flavors, both animate and inanimate.

These two posts for example:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Part 2

There is another model, one that does not incorporate all of this. Though some of the scarcity is true, for we are always engaged in our growth and journey through infinity, walking it one step at a time, not necessarily in a linear fashion, and with some glimpses of our global wholistic self. On higher levels, that already exist, for there is NO time and all exists infinitely at once, very much beyond our imagination, in a wonderful way, and we're surrounded by past, present and future in ways we can't imagine.

To begin with, where there is no beginning, for if there was a beginning there could be an end, the biggest question I keep asking from time to time, is WHY is anything here at all? Why infinite energies, intellects, expressions of this energy in infinite varieties, endlessly all at once? Why? Why something and not nothing?

What came to mind was the Double Slit experiment, and the electrons fired slowly through the slit one by one, that still created an interference pattern.

This implied that, all the probabilities or timeline potentials, existed all at once, but then were determined by the observer. Observer could be both consiousness or even decisions and actions to me.

If all possibilities existed then there would be something, and nothing, and both in infinite varieties of this.

But, nothing is nothing, and therefore the only expression of this would Something existing. That something could be determined intrinsically positive.

and

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Part 3

If we look at Infinity, in infinite expressions of itself, and consider the possibility of this as Consciously Aware and God, then we could also see this in terms of every possibility, infinite possibilities ranging from an Infinite Whole, being the Soul/Spirit essence of all, emanating from all, to the diversification of the Whole into all of its infinite parts as well. But there would be infinite expressions of energies that would be animate, but also infinite expressions of energies inanimate, that as we would have to consider God in the way we would consider anything existing, as Something/Nothing and Both. So all possibilities would be in existence as Global Consciousness, diversified disbursed consiousness all representing intelligences, and also that energy that would not represent intelligences or be inanimate.

So it would depend on the eye of the eye of the viewer, the Love/positivity and frequency. Like a test in this realm. So the idea of scarcity theory, and evolution taking place for the few through catacslym, for example, is just one negative polarity thought.

Again, it goes on infinitely in its infinite variety and possibilities covering everything all at once, NO Time, and its mind boggling beauty of existence. Cap it in any way, its finite. If it has a beginning it has an ending, or we never were here at all. It would have ceased long ago.

As a side note to the controllers, some of who seem to have a more negative viewpoint, this would also express all the different variations of scaricity to abundance, and inbetween. An example being, in infinity you would exist as a never ending, potentially progressing and growing wholistic whole, equal to all the infinity surrounding and in all things, equally endless in mass, though not necessarily to the whole infinity itself disbursed. Abundance. But you would also be walking through limited clips, walking that journey one step at a time, and you would never be bored. Nor would the Global Whole for all the parts are still on the journey and there is never completion.
Both abundance and scarcity would be expressed.

However, infinity in principal, the theory of everthing is Infnite Abundance. And without time, given the nature of the concept of school and seeds, or another realm seeded, as is in the scarcity model, this would not be pushed form behind ie evolution, but pulled from ahead, for a purpose, ie the purpose of the school itself. So evolution of the few through cataclysm would probably not be the model, but rather equality and unity and frequency of the whole. That would probably bring fast evolutions, passing the tests the one that God/Goodness and Family put forth.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

I agree he makes valid points and the way he sounds ? He damn well better.

Now the Bible says that God created light. That he spoke light into existence. For me the ultimate power that could exist for any being that exists including God would be the power to just speak it and it is done. So this should be an atribute of God and the Bible just happens to say it is an atribute of God. Are you with me

edit on 26-9-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

You know I don't buy into organised religion don't you X ? Of course I beliecve all organised religion that gets a taxbreak by the govt that it is under is a servant to that government. That dosn't mean we dismiss God because of man. Tha'st where I come from.

edit on 26-9-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

ok, i'm going to try to explain something here in a way that everyone can understand.......very few people in the world understand the properties and mathematics of vibrations, thus, in order to get someone to understand these qualities you have to break it down into speech that they can understand because they won't get the particulars involved....now people do understand that when they speak it makes vibrations....therefore, in order to get the point across, it's easier to refer to vibrations as a sound, a word, something speaking......a music speaker for instance is speaking to you when alternating current is applied to it's coils..........therefore when the bible refers to god speaking something into existence, it is referring to vibrations happening that caused a reaction in the substrate that it was effecting, which in this case was a watery substance........we can use analogies such as "breathing life into" something when we plug the cord into an electrical outlet.....this whole reality that we live in relies on vibration for it to even exist....hence, we can say that god "spoke" it into existence, which created a vibration, and in turn caused an effect on the waters...........



the most amazing proof that we have is the fact that everything in this reality has to have instructions on how to react to something else....air molecules have to have instructions on how to be air....leaves have instructions on how to come into existence as a leaf......all of the atoms that make up our reality have protons, electrons, neutrons and so forth, these instructions tell each one of them how to connect to the others in such a way as to become a tree, a blade of grass, a table, a rock, a nail, etc........we know that there is a perceivable difference between the surface of a table and the air that is surrounding it....where is the end of the table and the beginning of the air? the molecules that make up the table have to have instructions on when to not be air and vice versa for the air molecules to know when not to be the table........the very outer molecules of the table have to know that one side of them is air molecules and the other side of them are table molecules and they have to know where they stop and where they begin........just sayin.....

So the Bible says that God created light. That he spoke light into existence. For me the ultimate power that could exist for any being that exists, including God, would be the power to just speak it and it is done. So this should be an atribute of God and the Bible just happens to say it is an atribute of God. Assuming you agree so far, what do we see most when we look into the cosmos ? What is mostly seen ? The nothing that is the darkness of space. If there were no light what we would have left is nothing. The total blackness of space.
That total blackness it is easy to see is what once was until the addition of light. Is it not completely possible
for all the lights of the universe to go out ? The tatal blackness of space is the norm and it is nothing therefore it does not exist. Light does exist, it can be broken down and it's speed can be measured. Where did light come from if it wasn't created ? It exists for one purpose. To divide the day from the night.

Patternfinder

I agree vibration is the key to the universe.

Originally posted by sirnex
I don't get it. Where is the proof that the universe is all knowing given that to know something the universe must be a living intelligent entity with the capacity to experience and reflect upon those experience in which to gain knowledge of all things.

Looks more like wordplay than proof.

edit on 7-4-2011 by sirnex because: (no reason given)

How do you know the universe isn't "a living intelligent entity with the capacity to experience and reflect upon those experience in which to gain knowledge of all things"?

There's lots to still be learned, and much of it is far beyond our comprehension skills...

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by randyvs

 

If there's proof that someth...............

You do not have the intelligence to comprehend nor will you ever and THAT is something you will have to accept as fact. You assume you know the answers but that just shows that your vanity and pride are making you look like a fool.
Stupid humans.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by randyvs

 

If there's proof that someth...............

You do not have the intelligence to comprehend nor will you ever and THAT is something you will have to accept as fact. You assume you know the answers but that just shows that your vanity and pride are making you look like a fool.
Stupid humans.

edit on 26-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

ha ha, way to fight pride with pride!!!!

Originally posted by patternfinder

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by randyvs

 

If there's proof that someth...............

You do not have the intelligence to comprehend nor will you ever and THAT is something you will have to accept as fact. You assume you know the answers but that just shows that your vanity and pride are making you look like a fool.
Stupid humans.

edit on 26-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

ha ha, way to fight pride with pride!!!!

What I said is my mantra to self. I know I will not know. I can think about it but that is just as useful as an ant on the floor by your feet thinking it knows who you are and how to build the computer on your desk.

reply to post by randyvs

Salutations Sirnex. Looking at the above, it seems odd to see the answer before the question. Well anyway, what would it mean to you if light could be shown to be a creation ?

It would mean nothing to me. Suppose some intelligent force had indeed created the entire universe and all objects within it, including life. There is no reason to assume the universe was created with humans in mind just because a bunch of primitive peoples from the past said so. There is no evidence that the universe is suited to our existence either. We can't exist on any other planet but our own. Even the habitable planets we are just now discovering have gravitational fields that are too strong for us to be comfortable on for long periods.

Chances are, there is no creator, that physics and chemistry dictates how thing's work, or whether life can evolve and how it evolves on the planet it evolved upon. We see our planet as perfect for our existence due to having evolved under the conditions of this planet. Venus, albeit similar in size and gravity and within the habitable zone of our star, is not suitable for humans to live on. We could terraform both venus and mars to make them suitable in the future though.

Right, point being, there most likely is no creator of the universe at all. Certainly no creator of all existence either, and we can even look towards every religious doctrine for evidence of that. Existence itself is the only eternal everlasting quality we simple humans know of. In every religious text I've come across, every deity existed within some other realm prior to the creation of this universe we exist within. There are no myths nor legends, no religious doctrines that describe any entity that existed before existence itself or could exist outside of all existence.

If you're God existed in some other realm before creating this universe, it only serves to show/prove that your God was no true God at all. We don't understand the properties of his realm, the physics, the energies, etc. It's more probable that this type of creator imagined by man centuries upon centuries ago was capable of creating universes at a whim through natural means as dictated by the physics of his realm.

Knowing that this creator existed within another realm and was not the actual creator of all of existence begs one to wonder about the actual status of this entity and whether we should truly worship it as a true god capable of bringing existence itself into creation! If this entity lived within another realm and there is no mention of this entity creating all of existence, then would this entity be able to survive if it's plane of existence never existed?

reply to post by Unity_99

Then using the model of infinity in our 3d brains, like the deepest thinking and the existence of all the possibilities that exist before something selects it, as in the Double Slit experiment, one can understand that there is a God, what one would call the Essence of Consciousness emanating from the whole of infinite energy, but using the same possibility model you would have every variation of this being expressed. ie. Global Consciousness, Dispersed Intelligence/Consciousness (us for example), Energy/Matter with No Consciousness, and infinite degree and varieties of all of this, including shades inbetween????

So, mathematically one could indeed express God, and yet all of us and yet all the infinite degrees of energy, in variety and flavors, both animate and inanimate.

First of all, the Double slit experiment has nothing to do with the human mind. I'm not sure if that's what you're trying to imply, but it needs to be said regardless before someone comes in misunderstanding the actual science, what it says and what its implications are. That said.... moving on...

The issue with attempting to prove god with maths and infinities is that we can use those same tools to disprove God. We can even use those very same tools to prove that we don't even exist at all. With infinite possibilities, it's possible we are a mere dream for a tiny little slug. An infinite existence in age does not necessarily imply an infinite amount of possibilities either. Suppose our universe has always existed for an infinite period of time in it's current condition. If we take two rocks and smash them together for infinity, they will never turn into an entire solar system with a habitable planet filled with uneducated arrogant narcissists. Physics simply doesn't allow for it, regardless of how long you smash those rocks together. When dealing with infinity, you also have to attempt to utilize common sense.

Continued next on post

Continued from previous post:

Perhaps existence existed for infinity. Besides knowing that existence exists, we also know things change within existence. It could be possible that existence itself is also capable of mutating and changing. Perhaps other possibilities are carried out within these various stages of change. Who knows what will happen a trillion years from now once all matter decays and all energy has come to a standstill. Perhaps at such cold and low temperatures a new form of physics will pop up forcing a new change to occur and a new birth to some other form of existence we can't comprehend.

reply to post by sirnex


So, by it being a form of existence we can't comprehend, I assume you are saying you would reject it outright then ?

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by sirnex

 

So, by it being a form of existence we can't comprehend, I assume you are saying you would reject it outright then ?

edit on 26-9-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

By what being a form of existence? Light? God? Something else?

We know for a fact that light is an aspect of this universe alone, both by scientific and religious means. The creation of this universe coincides with the creation of light, hence light can not be existence itself.

We know for a fact that ever imagined deity worshiped by man existed prior to this universe in their own separate plane of existences prior to the creation of this universe. That being the case, these deities are not the creators of all of existence itself as they previously existed within some form of existence with no mention period of creating existence itself or living outside of it, including the ones they exist within.

If you're hinting that the creator is existence itself, there is no logical requirement to assume existence created our universe for our species to live within to only physically exist upon one tiny speck of a vast cosmos that even our best technologies can't even perceive yet.

If you have further to add, or any evidences/proofs, I will be more than happy to discuss them with you.

reply to post by sirnex


My bad Sirnex I wasn't suggesting that existence created anything. I was refering to this the last line of your
previous post.

change to occur and a new birth to some other form of existence we can't comprehend.

This is what I meant by " you would reject it outright then" ? As in the same premise you reject God for being that which we can't comprehend.

I apologise.

reply to post by randyvs


If you yourself can not comprehend god, how do you know that he exists? If you can not explain something, does it not make more sense to be humble and say, "I don't know" rather than making assumptions?