I am dubious at the prospects that anyone who thinks Quantum Mechanics has "philosophical issues" could be enlightend by a mere book...
However, you might try "Physics-The Elegant Universe".

Arcamedees, you seem to be bent on creating an adversarial relationship where none needs to exist.

You say:



You’re jumping to some pretty far-fetched and unwarranted conclusions here. You have no idea whatsoever whether any of my beliefs are “fallacious” or not.

I’ve already told you that science does not conflict with any of my beliefs. If such a conflict existed I would be quite interested in that particular scientific discovery. Currently no such scientific discovery exists.

So your attempt to “pit” science against my “beliefs” is utterly absurd and totally ignorant.



So your idea of the scientific method is to just jump to unwarranted conclusions about what other people might believe?

I don’t see where you have a clue about science or how to properly use it. On the contrary if you’re attempting to use is as a battering ram to support an atheistic view of life then you are indeed abusing it in an extremely ignorant way.

Personally, I believe it takes more faith to believe that there is no God, than to believe that there is.

Actually, I can prove that God exists in about 30 seconds, without referring to the Bible or faith.

True

Anyone who thinks that Quantum Mechanics doesn't present us with extremely interesting and challenging "Philosophical Issues" has got to be a pretty insensitive and mindless individual. Albert Einstein and Neils Borh debated the meaning of complentarity for years, and it became one of the most popular debates in all of science. Still unresolved to this very day.

I read "The Elegant Universe" years ago, even before the documentary came out. I own the documentary and I've watched that more times that I've kept track of. In fact, if you want to see some "Philosophical Scientists" try watching the video documentary. Just about every physicist on there has a philosophical opinion about the science of physics.

Have you read "The Trouble with Physics", by Lee Smolin? He raises many of the same issues that I raise. And he was an active String Theorist for many years.

I do too. But that doesn't send me running off to worship Zeus.

In fact, as far as I'm concenred Eastern Mysticism is the best spiritual "theory" we have.

The idea of an egotistical judgemental Godhead who created us to become his eternal pets is a bit absurd for my taste.



That would be an interesting "proof" to hear. I might be inclinded to potentially give it some support. Or, I might see a gapping flaw in it, in which case I wouldn't hesitate to point it out.

If you and I can agree on something, I think that would be irrefutable evidence that God indeed exists. LOL

Well, it seems that we already do agree on something. We both agree that it takes more faith to believe that there is no God than to believe that there is.

Now it may seem to you like proof of God that I would agree with you.

However, I'm afraid that from my point of view I don't see why it should be proof of God that you would agree with me. It's been my life's experience that lots of people agree with, so having people agree with me is nothing out of the ordinary for me.

You'll need to come up with a more convincing 'proof' than that.

I sure do disagree with the statement that more faith is required to be atheist.

Letting go of man made religions freed my mind and soul.

Illogical drives me crazy.

And then one has to believe in superiority, hypocrisy and prejudice to be a part of the Christian based religions.

Believing that man is some kind of out of control creature that needs a god to control him and punish him when he is bad is too immature of a belief for me. I have outgrown the need for a parent figure to bail me out, reassure me, spank me, etc....

Proof that God exists 101:

Have you ever seen a building? If so, how do you know there was a builder? The building is absolute proof that the builder exists.

I was recently in Myrtle Beach at an art gallery, looking at various paintings. If you were looking at the paintings, how would you know that there was a painter? The painting is absolute proof that the painter exists.

Imagine walking out into a field of apple trees, witnessing hundreds of apples laying randomly on the ground. Now imagine that you walk into the same field one week later, but instead of the apples being strewn randomly on the ground, they are all lined up into three large "figure eights." How would you explain such an occurance? That 1) it happened by chance or "evolved" that way? or 2) that someone with an intelligent mind made it to be that way?

The point: When you look at creation, that is proof that there is a creator. I don't need "faith" to believe there was a Creator; just need to look around.

Think about it: There is "order" throughout the whole of creation....from the atom, to the sun-moon-stars, the seasons of the year, the flowers, the trees, the earth spinning on its axis at the perfect place for "life" to exist. Is it really reasonable to say that the order of creation simply "happened?" I think not.

The same deep scientific principle can be used when referring to the human body. Look at the human eye, for example. 40,000 nerve endings and focusing muscles, and 137,000,000 light sensitive cells working in harmony for one to see. Even Charles Darwin said that to suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection was an utter absurdity in the highest degree. (The Origin of the Species, Page 167.)

Darn words sure can get in the way of communication can't they?

The idea of "God" or "theism" versus no "god" and "atheism" can be quite subjective.

I tend to agree with you Dragoness, if the word "God" can only be applied to concepts of egotistical Godheads (such as Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, etc).

I have a very hard time believing in that type of egotistical "godhead". In fact, that very notion seem utterly lame to me. The very idea that some surpreme egotistical being would create a bunch of lesser being to be his eternal servants and pets and that he would allow them to live in utter confusion whilst he plays hide-and-seek only to be judged later (and potentially even tortured for eternity should he happen to not want them as his own personal pets).

That picture of "God" is extremely difficult for me to believe in as well. In fact, I wouldn't even want to believe in that kind of a God on "Faith" alone because I truly would not even want the situation to be the truth of reality. I personally don't think it's a very good predicament for us, as humans to be in. Win or lose, we end up losing either way, in that picture.

However, when it comes to other pictures of 'god' or 'theism' such as Eastern Mysticism, it seems to me that these pictures actually make more sense than pure 'atheism'.

The reason being that pure 'atheism' basically demands that our very existence is nothing more than a freak accident that arose from what????

Even the best scientific theories have the universe arising from a quantum fluctation. Well a quantum fluctuation requires the existence of a quantum field. And a quantum field is some sort of "non-physical" information field. It's non-physical, in the sense that it cannot be directly detected or observed to be a physical phenomenon until it becomes 'excited' at which time it becomes manifest as physical "energy", or as E=mc² allows, as "matter".

So therefore even science is telling us that beneath this physical universe there exists organized information that is indeed non-physical in it's pure essence.

The Eastern Mystics call this the Akasha principle.

So in my mind it is that Akasha that is "god", and clearly we are it. Or at least a physical manifestation of it, "Tat T'vam Asi".

So in this sense, I personally feel that it makes far more sense to believe in spirit (i.e. the Akasha Principle) and that we are a manifestation of this eternal mind. In that sense, I think it makes more sense to believe in 'god' than to believe that there isn't a 'god'.

But do I believe in Zeus-like Gods? Or Gods like Yahweh who carve commandments into stone tablets and threaten to punish individuals who disobey them?

Well, if all that exists is the "Akasha" and the Akasha is "god", then God would be doing nothing other than threatening to punish parts of himself.

In other words, the whole idea of needing to be 'saved' or of being punished for wrong doing is absurd in this picture. There is nothing other than 'god'. We are not SEPERATE from "god" and therefore it would be silly to think that we could be cast into an eternal hell fire, or whatever.

Those kinds of mythologies were designed by men to try to keep other men in-line.

And many in some ways they are useful for that. I can't tell you how many Christians I've met who have said things like, "If there is no God then there's no need to be honest! I'd just run around and pillage and rape anything and anyone I want with no one to answer to".

So hey, if Christianity keeps those nasty Christians in-line, then maybe we should by PUBLISHING BIBLES instead of revealing their false nature.

Well, be prepared to stand in awe because I'm about to agree with you again. Although only after I correct some major flaws in your observations.

You say:


This is actually quite misleading and basically incorrect if it is meant to be an analogy with evolution.

First off, evolution did not occur via apples, and it didn't occur in week. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to explain how apples could get into a the pattern you describe on their own in a week. But then again, no explanation is require because that NEVER happens.

On the other hand, evolution can be explained and has been explained in quite some depth. There's no problem with the theory of evolution. There is no need to have a "God" consciously guide the process of evolution.

If this universe was created by a God, that God used evolution as it's means to allow the universe to evolve on its own without any need for God to "babysit it". That's just a fact of scientific discovery and knowledge.

The REAL QUESTION is not "How do things evolve on their own?". We already know the answer to that question. The REAL QUESTION is, "Why is the universe made of just a handful of elements that CAN evolve into such complex systems sucn as self-sentient beings?"

That's the real question.

If there is such a thing as "Intelligent Design" it occurred PRIOR to the Big Bang. There was no need for any conscious Godhead to watch over the process and guide it or 'babysit' it during the evolution of the universe. Everything required for the evolution of life had already been "Designed into the universe" right at the Big Bang.

The question now becomes, "Was this indeed by design?, or did it just happen to be that way?"

I actually tend to agree with you.

I feel that the chances that it just happened by random accident for no reason is so absurd that I dismiss it altogether. That leaves the only other possibility, it was indeed by design in some way.

But again, this points to a pantheistic picture of the world. Not a picture of a Zeus-like, or Yahweh like godhead who stands over the universe as some sort of external magician guiding every little things and passing judgements on each and every little inhabitant.

Pantheism - Yes.

A Human-like Monotheistic Baby-sitting Intervening Judging Godhead?

I just don't see it.

Like I always say, if God can just speak to crowds of humans and say things like "This is my son in whom I'm well pleased", then why play hide-and-seek with us?

Obviously if this kind of God WANTS to communicate he could. Yet it never happens. Yeah sure, some people claim it happens to them. But let's face it, it doesn't happen to most people who are indeed sincere in their desire to know their creator.

And to even take that further that this supposedly personified judgemental Godhead would expect everyone to worship a religion that came out of the Middle East makes absolutely no sense at all.

Especially considering all the things that this God was said to have done! Asking people to stone sinners to death? Asking people to murder heathens? Condoning male-chauvinism to the point of actually stating that female slaves should only be worth half as much as male slaves, etc.

I mean. Come on?

I agree that letting go of man-made religion frees the soul. Christianity is not a man-made religion.

All the religions of the world, to one degree or another, all teach that man must somehow work his way into right relationship with God; to somehow earn God's favor through their spiritual performance. The center of Christianity is not (or is not supposed to be) centered around man and his performance, but is centered around the person and work of Jesus Christ. It's not about what we can do for God, but embracing by faith what He has already done for us through the finished work of Christ. It is by God's grace, through faith in the person and work of Christ, that we are "made righteous" in God's sight and enter into relationship with Him. It's a relationship, not a religion. And he is the best father you can ever know!

When we as people fly in an airplane, we don't have to logically understand all the intricacies of the law of aerodynamics in order to get on the plane and fly. We do a lot of things and accept a lot of things without having to understand it all. Just because we can't necessarily figure everything out about something with our minds isn't necessarily an absolute indicator that it is illegitimate. I believe God has given us reasonable evidence to his existence, and to the reality of His son. I would just ask you to consider opening your heart to the possibility that there really is a God whose intent is for you to enjoy Him and enjoy life, A God who certainly does not want to control you or punish you; but a God who loves you.

I disagree with you that to be a Christian, you have to believe in superiority, hypocrisy, and prejudice. Those things are appalling, but I will admit openly that there have been plenty of things done in the name of Christianity that have been appalling. Those things done by man that fit in this category certainly misrepresented the Christian faith, and misrepresented God. But those things don't change the reality of who Jesus really is, and who God really is.

I have heard many accusations over the years against things done in the name of Christianity. But rarely do you hear an accusation against Jesus. As a follower of Christ, I apologize to you on behalf of those who have done abominable things that perhaps put a bad taste in your mouth in regards to the Christian faith.

As a Christian, I do share the good news of Jesus with those in my sphere, whether Athiest, Muslim, Budhist, etc... But I respect their ultimate choice regarding whether to embrace God's grace in Christ, or not. Some are my friends; they know where I stand spiritually, and I know where they stand, and we just continue going about being friends. It is possible to agree to disagree and still be friends. Whether they receive Christ is their choice, but me choosing to share that Christ claims to be the only path to God does not make me prejudiced. Neither am I superior, for every good and perfect gift comes from Him, even the grace of life. But I very well may be a hypocrite in many people's eyes, for many think those who profess Christ should be perfect, and when the smallest mistake is witnessed, they are jumped upon with the "hypocrite" label. Yet I can understand why you mentioned the term "hypocrite" when referring to Christians for there are many who go to church on Sunday, yet give no thought to God's purpose for their lives Monday thru Saturday. But I believe to lump all who profess Christ into that category is unfair.

I appreciate your comments and thank you for sharing. You speak for a lot of people who have been turned off by religiousity in general.

laughandlove4ever,

Here are some more thoughts in response to your thoughts on evolution:




The idea that the Earth just happens to be in the right situation for life to evolve does not seem very miraculous to me at all (GIVEN the composition and size of the universe)

There are several things you need to realize. First, there are only apporimately 100 naturally occuring elements in the ENTIRE universe. Moreover, these elments occur in precisely ratios of quantities for reasons that make perfectly good scientific sense.

So the entire universe is made up of a soup of 100 elements in the exact same proportions throughout (on average). Taking into consideration that these clouds of matter condense to form stars, planets and galaxies.

There are over 70 Sextillion stars in the observable universe. (the actual universe could be infinite in size for all we know).

By the way "70 Sextillion" is 70 Thousand, Million, Million, Million stars. That's 70 Thousand, Million, Million, Million rolls of the cosmic dice to get a planet like planet Earth.

In all truthfullness considering that each of these "rolls" (each star system) is basically comprised of the same basic composition of elements (on average), then I would personally expect Earth like planets to be a fairly common event in the univesre as a whole. And that may indeed be the case. We just don't know yet.

There is also no need to assume that life would require our precise 'seasons' etc. In fact, a planet with a slight more gentle change of seasons may very well be even better.

Precisely who important our moon is we cannot know for sure. Our moon has indeed affected life on this planet. But if there were no moon would that mean no life? We just don't know yet.

Finally, the particular matter composition of our planet tends to form in an orbit where we are. In other words, just about any star that has the same composition, size and spin of our sun would very likely produce planets like Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars. Mars was actually a very likely candidate for life, as was venus. By that I mean they were in orbit that could have potentially sustained life. Mars was just slightly too small in size and thus lost it's atmosphere.

But the point being that a planet would not need to have precisely teh same orbit as Earth. The range probably spans from Venus to Mars. So it's not as critical as you might think.



First off, Charles Darwin wasn't in a position to make that assessment. He had only just begun to realize the possiblities.

Secondly you can't just look at the human eye and say, "How could that have evolved as a GOAL"? Evolution doesn't work that way.

It simply works on scientific principles of physics. What starts an eye to evolve is the simple fact of the photo-electric effect. Some materials will emit electrons when photons shine on them. This causes an electric charge to be produced. There are many examples of very primitive bacterium that are 'photo sensitive'.

Actually from there, given literlly millions of years, it's almost a given that a more complex eye will indeed evolve.

So I personally have no problem with an eye evolving in this universe given the nature of physics. Again, there's simply no need for a baby-sitting designer to design an eye. The universe already constains all the required physics for an eye to evolve on it's own.

The REAL QUESTION is whether or not that physics was "designed".

There simply is no need for a 'baby-sitting' God to guide evolution along. All of that was already taken care of way back at the Big Bang.

I've been telling you all week that Jesus is God's beloved Son in whom He is well pleased, but you're not listening!

That's clearly a matter of personal belief and faith.



This is true, but in vastly different ways. There's a humongous difference between the way that this is veiwed in Eastern Mystcism verses in Christianity. In Christinaity it is placed in terms of appeasing the desires, wants and demands of a Godhead (which includes supporting a particular religion and dogma I might add)

In Eastern Mysticism it's about coming to the realization that your true nature is divine. It's about losing the illusion of being Seperate from God. With Chrsitianity it's just the opposite. Christianity views the idea of seeing one's self as divine as 'blaspheme'. That's a big no-no.




But again, that picture is frowned upon in terms of actually becoming one with God whilst you're still in human form. Instead it's entirely focused on a "judgement day" that supposedly happens only after this life is over.

So in short, in Christianity you must WAIT UNTIL YOU DIE, before you can become one with God. But in Eastern Mysticism you can become one with God right now.




For me, this has nothing at all to do with any modern day "Christians". People who merely follow the religoin.

From my point of view, the superiority, hypocrisy, and prejudice is "Built-into" the doctrine. It's a fundamental property of the stories. It has absolutely nothing to do with any modern day "followers" of the religion.

For example you say:



I'm in complete agreement with this. In fact, I have nothing bad to say about Jesus himself either. Although I confess that I might reject some of the things that some authors might have attributed to Jesus.

But the problem I have with "Christianity" (and again I'm speaking of the actual doctrine and not the modern day followers), is that in order to accept that Jesus is the Son of Yahweh automatically uses Jesus to endorse everything that's in the Old Testament, as well as much of the writings of Paul and others in the New Tesatment who have used Jesus as an excuse to drege up nasty stuff from the Old Testament.

For example did Jesus himself say anything at all about homosexuality?

No.

Did Jesus himself make any comments that were male-chauvinistic?

No.

Did Jesus himself say antything about heathens being unrighteous?

No.

On the contrary, Jesus actually called the scribes and pharisees hypocrites.

But yet, taken as a complete doctrine, in order to endorse Jesus as the son of Yahweh a person must also endorse the WHOLE DOCTRINE. And it's in that very endorsement where the hypocricy and predjudices etc, seep in.

You can't endorse Jesus as the "Son of Yahweh" without also endoring Yahweh as God.

This is why I would much prefer to endorse Buddha. Buddah taught the preicse same moral values as Jesus, however Buddah doesn't carry with him the baggage of all the predjudices and hypocrisy that Jesus brings via the idea that he's the "Only Begotten Son of Yahweh"

That's the straw that breaks the camel's back right there.

You can't worship Jesus without also endorsing Yahweh.

That's like telling me that I can't worship Jesus without also endorsing Zeus. Only Yahweh is even worse than Zeus in some respects.

So I'd rather follow the teachings of Buddah. He may not be the son of any ficticous God. But at least he doesn't bring all the baggage of that with him either.

Jesus has not only been nailed to the cross, but he has also been nailed to the Old Testament. And that's the deal breaker for me.

And who is God in this case?

Yahweh?

No wonder I'm not listening.

I have absolutely NO RESPECT for Yahweh.

None. Zip, Zilch, Nada.

That's OK; He still loves you.

Getting late on the east coast; signing off.

amen!!!

You are incorrect in saying that in Christianity, you are not "one with God." It is all about a relationship with God and being one with Him in spirit, through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. "I in them and them in me" is a foundational truth to the Christian faith taught by Jesus and repeated throughout the New Covenant and brings a better understanding to what the writers are talking about when referring to being "in Christ." Also, if you talk to Christians they will testify that this isn't just dry theology but actual experience. The Holy Spirit takes up residence in the believer's heart.

I have no idea why you would want to follow the teachings of a mere man who died and decayed, when there is someone who neither died (or rather, was raised) nor decayed, who atoned for your sin.

And there are a lot of things we approach and do whereby it is a generally accepted fact that there is only one approach, or one way, to proceed. Yet say that there is only one way to God through Jesus, and the labels are endless: bigot, narrow-minded, prejudiced, etc..

Your problem with Yahweh and certain things in the Old Testament are understandable because it can seem harsh and confusing. But there was a reason behind these things, mostly having to do with God's dealings with His covenant people (the Jews) according to His law for purification, and separation from sin. So extreme that we as humans find it very hard to relate, yet it should tell us how this whole "sin issue" was not a small thing in the Old Testament, and it definately sheds more light as to God's ultimate plan of salvation, and that is where Jesus comes in. SO Yahweh and Jesus are indeed inseparable, but for good reason. Yahweh is not the horrible God you think He is. God doesn't rebel against man, but man does rebel against God. Even so, Yahweh has provided through Jesus, and it is not for just the afterlife; that is not an accurate reflection of the Christian faith. It is for the here and now, and of course, the afterlife, too. But when the Bible refers to "eternal life" it is specifically talking about "Zoe" or abundant life right now, from the moment one receives Christ, and on.