scientist who believes in God

soulsinging

lucylespian wrote:

That's pretty interesting. Either you are a Christian who has decided to define God by your own terms, which kind of invalidates the whole idea, or you are a religion of one. Reading this board, that seems to be a pretty common theme though. A lot of people are saying that the nasty, bad history Christian "God" is not their God, their's is different.
I thought the point of religion was to band together to persecute the crap out of anyone who didn't believe the same things you did. And boy, are you so gonna be in trouble on Judgement Day !!
I am content to be totally insignificant without any gods. Looking at the Hubble photos, even stars and whole galaxies are just ephemeral grains of dust in the big picture.

that's kinda what my last point said. and im not qualified to talk about religion. religion is a social construct. different religions serve different purposes. though i still think your guess at the point of religion is way off, and id guess you're probly still in your teens or conor oberst based on your juvenile superiority complex. anyway, religion of one might be more appropriate. i dont think of it as religion at all though. to me, it is simply spirituality. the awareness and concern to my soul, that indefinable part of each one of us that makes us all different from each other.

gue_barium

soulsinging wrote:

that's kinda what my last point said. and im not qualified to talk about religion. religion is a social construct. different religions serve different purposes. though i still think your guess at the point of religion is way off, and id guess you're probly still in your teens or conor oberst based on your juvenile superiority complex. anyway, religion of one might be more appropriate. i dont think of it as religion at all though. to me, it is simply spirituality. the awareness and concern to my soul, that indefinable part of each one of us that makes us all different from each other.

...the same as each other...the same...

soulsinging

ClimberInOz wrote:

But that is a huge improvement over a creator- no matter how personalised that creator is or is not. A creator must be more complex then what is created- because the creator contains all of the information of that which is created.

So you can have some form of physical existence being the infinite norm (ie- the universe right now... before that, who knows), or you can introduce another entire concept, which is more complicated then physical existence, to try and explain that physical existence.

And if you are willing to ignore the question of where did god come from by saying he exists outside of time, why not extend that courtesy to the pre-universe state of physical existence, and thus eliminate the need for god?

After all, Einstein has shown that time is in fact a dimension of the current universe, and that time was created with the universe. So perhaps our universe is born from a timeless base. This whole idea of a universe being born from nothing is incorrect- I am unaware of any scientific explanation of the origins of the universe that proposes a free universe- or a universe being created out of nothing.

i dont think im doing a good job explaining god. im not making excuses for god that i will not extend to the universe, to me, they are essentially indistinguishable. god is simply a concept that helps me attempt to understand the unknowable, the impossibly abstract pieces of the puzzle that science itself admits it cannot understand. it is like the remainder, the loose ends. they fall under this concept and give me a sense of perspective that helps me to feel grounded when pondering the seemingly impossible odds that id be sitting here in this tiny little corner of a vast and incomprehensible universe.

and i see no reason to think that is a "huge improvement" over god (i dont really consider god The Creator). to me, it seems at best on equal footing. neither really advances any cause. they have value only in the subjective experience of the individual. some people are fine saying "we dont know, so let's talk about other things." those people make great scientists. other say "im not sure but i feel something about it" and those people tend to make great artists. we need both.

soulsinging

gue_barium wrote:

...the same as each other...the same...

what are the same?

gue_barium

soulsinging wrote:

what are the same?

You and me getting drunk on the weekend?

soulsinging

gue_barium wrote:

You and me getting drunk on the weekend?

i dont drink. and you dont have a point. i figured as much. ill let you play with yourself, sorry to have interrupted your witty banter.

gue_barium

soulsinging wrote:

i dont drink. and you dont have a point. i figured as much. ill let you play with yourself, sorry to have interrupted your witty banter.

You are guided, yet looking for answers; the beautiful waterfall has a beginning and an end, a top and a bottom, yet the organism that makes it so is not of the same?

baraka

Ahnimus wrote:

I'm a bit skeptical of this idea that a star begins with zero energy. My understanding of Big Bang is that it began as a massive cloud of hydrogen atoms.

You misunderstand. I was talking about the energy locked within its gravitational field. If you calculated it, you would find it's negative. So, it's speculated the total energy of the system may be zero.

gue_barium

baraka wrote:

You misunderstand. I was talking about the energy locked within its gravitational field. If you calculated it, you would find it's negative. So, it's speculated the total energy of the system may be zero.

"locked".

Now there's an Adam waiting to bust loose.

baraka

gue_barium wrote:

i'm with ya on the big bang. didn't happen. at least not as "origin".

I think a lot of people have the wrong notion of the Big Bang, as there is no physical/cosmological claim that the Big Bang theory induces that the universe began at the Big Bang.

The Big Bang theory is most simply stated a theory that claims how the universe overall evolves from a denser, hotter and smaller (scale factor) state to one which is cooler, less dense and bigger, and the same theory from which we can conclude that such was the case (general relativity) at the same time disallows us to speak of a 'begin' since that very theory is known to collapse at that point.

The superstring theory predicts that our universe started out as a ten-dimensional universe, which was unstable and collapsed violently down to four dimensions & this event, in turn, created the original big bang.

Inflation is already part of the understanding of why and how the Big Bang takes place, and has made testable predictions which match observations.

baraka

gue_barium wrote:

"locked".

Now there's an Adam waiting to bust loose.

punny, gue

gue_barium

baraka wrote:

I think a lot of people have the wrong notion of the Big Bang, as there is no physical/cosmological claim that the Big Bang theory induces that the universe began at the Big Bang.

The Big Bang theory is most simply stated a theory that claims how the universe overall evolves from a denser, hotter and smaller (scale factor) state to one which is cooler, less dense and bigger, and the same theory from which we can conclude that such was the case (general relativity) at the same time disallows us to speak of a 'begin' since that very theory is known to collapse at that point.

The superstring theory predicts that our universe started out as a ten-dimensional universe, which was unstable and collapsed violently down to four dimensions & this event, in turn, created the original big bang.

Inflation is already part of the understanding of why and how the Big Bang takes place, and has made testable predictions which match observations.

You and that damn "superstring" of which I know nothing about.

As fascinating as this all may be, isn't it a little odd that in our 3-dimensional existence that we can even be talking about 10 (or any other number of) dimensions?

Good info there on the big bang, thanks, i didn't know that.

Ahnimus

gue_barium wrote:

You and that damn "superstring" of which I know nothing about.

As fascinating as this all may be, isn't it a little odd that in our 3-dimensional existence that we can even be talking about 10 (or any other number of) dimensions?

Good info there on the big bang, thanks, i didn't know that.

Briane Greene's "The Elegant Universe" on video.google explains string theory.

lucylespian

soulsinging wrote:

that's kinda what my last point said. and im not qualified to talk about religion. religion is a social construct. different religions serve different purposes. though i still think your guess at the point of religion is way off, and id guess you're probly still in your teens or conor oberst based on your juvenile superiority complex. anyway, religion of one might be more appropriate. i dont think of it as religion at all though. to me, it is simply spirituality. the awareness and concern to my soul, that indefinable part of each one of us that makes us all different from each other.

Just shows how misleading forums are.

Actually, I'm 43 with a pretty solid professional education, as well as a thrashing from the School of Hard Knocks. I know enough to know I don't know much at all, but if you don't like my opinions or feel that you need to put me down for having some, maybe that says more about you than about me.
I don't have a juvenile superiority complex. I'm not sure if it was in that edited quote or another where I said, "I'm not interested in being wrong or right, just throwing ideas around".
I do like being flippant though, and I can't always be bothered to long story stuff.
I don't think that my take on religion is too far off at all, though having said that, I am not necessarily accusing you of belonging to one.
Individual spiritualism is much more respectable to me than organised religion, and I may even possess it, though I don't really reflect on it much.

Ahnimus

lucylespian wrote:

Just shows how misleading forums are.

Actually, I'm 43 with a pretty solid professional education, as well as a thrashing from the School of Hard Knocks. I know enough to know I don't know much at all, but if you don't like my opinions or feel that you need to put me down for having some, maybe that says more about you than about me.
I don't have a juvenile superiority complex. I'm not sure if it was in that edited quote or another where I said, "I'm not interested in being wrong or right, just throwing ideas around".
I do like being flippant though, and I can't always be bothered to long story stuff.
I don't think that my take on religion is too far off at all, though having said that, I am not necessarily accusing you of belonging to one.
Individual spiritualism is much more respectable to me than organised religion, and I may even possess it, though I don't really reflect on it much.

Aww Lucy, are you being accused of condescension and a superiority complex now? Welcome to the club.

soulsinging

lucylespian wrote:

Just shows how misleading forums are.

Actually, I'm 43 with a pretty solid professional education, as well as a thrashing from the School of Hard Knocks. I know enough to know I don't know much at all, but if you don't like my opinions or feel that you need to put me down for having some, maybe that says more about you than about me.
I don't have a juvenile superiority complex. I'm not sure if it was in that edited quote or another where I said, "I'm not interested in being wrong or right, just throwing ideas around".
I do like being flippant though, and I can't always be bothered to long story stuff.
I don't think that my take on religion is too far off at all, though having said that, I am not necessarily accusing you of belonging to one.
Individual spiritualism is much more respectable to me than organised religion, and I may even possess it, though I don't really reflect on it much.

well i do happen to reflect on it, though i dont see why one would suddenly be more respectable than another. i just watched jesus camp the other day, and while it was one of the scariest fucking movies i've ever seen, i certainly did not think it represents all religions. im quite sorry you've had some hard knocks, im a graduate of that school myself, but i still think your sweeping generalization that religions are all evil and their defining trait is to band together to persecute others is absolutely ridiculous. the vast majority of religious people couldn't really be bothered to persecute anyone. the few who do just happen to be a hell of a lot louder about it.

Ahnimus

soulsinging wrote:

well i do happen to reflect on it, though i dont see why one would suddenly be more respectable than another. i just watched jesus camp the other day, and while it was one of the scariest fucking movies i've ever seen, i certainly did not think it represents all religions. im quite sorry you've had some hard knocks, im a graduate of that school myself, but i still think your sweeping generalization that religions are all evil and their defining trait is to band together to persecute others is absolutely ridiculous. the vast majority of religious people couldn't really be bothered to persecute anyone. the few who do just happen to be a hell of a lot louder about it.

Should I point out the potential to interpet this as condescending? Or are you ready to accept that not all things are as they seem. Firstly I don't remember seeing Lucy say what you claim Lucy said, much like you put words in my mouth. You've referred to her ideas as "absolutely ridiculous" which is pretty much what you've said I do as condescending.

soulsinging

Ahnimus wrote:

Should I point out the potential to interpet this as condescending? Or are you ready to accept that not all things are as they seem. Firstly I don't remember seeing Lucy say what you claim Lucy said, much like you put words in my mouth. You've referred to her ideas as "absolutely ridiculous" which is pretty much what you've said I do as condescending.

lucy used those exact words in post #80. care to revise those statements?

Ahnimus

soulsinging wrote:

lucy used those exact words in post #80. care to revise those statements?

lucylespain wrote:

I thought the point of religion was to band together to persecute the crap out of anyone who didn't believe the same things you did. And boy, are you so gonna be in trouble on Judgement Day !!

soulsinging wrote:

but i still think your sweeping generalization that religions are all evil and their defining trait is to band together to persecute others is absolutely ridiculous

I don't see the use of the word "evil" in Lucy's post. I actually interpreted Lucy's statement as jest, but I guess you get what you expect when your reading text. No tone to hone, to get to the bone of the meaning, not which you apply as your own. Relax, sit back, and suck a tic-tac while you cut people slack and interpret with the bennefit of doubt before talking crap.

catefrances

lucylespian wrote:

That's pretty interesting. Either you are a Christian who has decided to define God by your own terms, which kind of invalidates the whole idea, or you are a religion of one. Reading this board, that seems to be a pretty common theme though. A lot of people are saying that the nasty, bad history Christian "God" is not their God, their's is different.
I thought the point of religion was to band together to persecute the crap out of anyone who didn't believe the same things you did. And boy, are you so gonna be in trouble on Judgement Day !!
I am content to be totally insignificant without any gods. Looking at the Hubble photos, even stars and whole galaxies are just ephemeral grains of dust in the big picture.

should not God be able to be defined in an individual's terms? is not the relationship between Man and God a personal one of introspection, revelation and redemption?
as for me, for want of a better word, i am my own God. but then again i am not a christian.