100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: The God Hypothesis | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
anacondaarms
on
Sat 03/26/11 06:47 PM
|
|
Ah, so now josie68 wants to re-write the dictionary. The words mean what they mean. In order for us to communicate we must agree on what the words mean. I feel the dictionary definitions should apply. Something must be moving from inside your brain to God for him/her to get the message. A thought is a tiny impulse of energy and information. It must move from you to God to be heard, even if it all takes place within your own head. Here you go Dear.  And I got you a Thesaurus too!  But I don't think Dunny is in this USA Dictionary.  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, so now josie68 wants to re-write the dictionary. The words mean what they mean. In order for us to communicate we must agree on what the words mean. I feel the dictionary definitions should apply. Something must be moving from inside your brain to God for him/her to get the message. A thought is a tiny impulse of energy and information. It must move from you to God to be heard, even if it all takes place within your own head. Here you go Dear. And I got you a Thesaurus too! Oh my gosh  the only thing i am going to use those things for will be to knock people in the head with if they try to get me to look in them. i can talk fine, sort through my words and work out what i am saying even if it has the wrong meaning, none of you are silly enough to not know what i am trying to say. So deal with it and dont try and dodge the subject by picking on some silly word which to me means whatever it was supposed to mean to me. and I still have no idea which one it is . Please use you higher intelligence to correct my mistake  . It will make me feel much better about myself.  I love you too darlin man, but i will hit you with these things if you dare to bring them near my home. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. Of course in this scene, God is not clearly defined, but lets talk about what prayer actually is. Prayer is thought. Next question: Where does thought originate from? I think, it originates from the mind. (Not the brain.) Here, we must define "the mind." I think, a person's individual mind is a unified quantum field. Unified means that is in some way contained and connected to the human brain and body, but it is not inside the brain. It surrounds the body. That individual mind has a quantum connection to other fields outside its boundaries. All fields are or can be connected and pass thought information back and forth into the larger field of mind... what some call the subconscious mind. That can also be called the universal mind. Thoughts are things, hence they can be measured and even projected into the quantum field. These are visualizations or prayers. As Wallace D. Wattles states it: "THERE is a thinking stuff from which all things are made, and which, in its original state, permeates, penetrates, and fills the interspaces of the universe. A thought in this substance produces the thing that is imaged by the thought. Man can form things in his thought, and by impressing his thought upon formless substance can cause the thing he thinks about to be created. In order to do this, man must pass from the competitive to the creative mind; otherwise he cannot be in harmony with the Formless Intelligence, which is always creative and never competitive in spirit." A person's mind a unified quantum field? I think your are making a leap here into your own hypothesis. Do you have anything to back up this idea? Whether prayer can be measured or not, God, if he is real and has an effect on the universe, must be quantifiable. We should be able to measure that effect. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 03/26/11 09:38 PM
|
|
A person's mind a unified quantum field? I think your are making a leap here into your own hypothesis. Yes, I probably am. I'm certainly no scientist. Do you have anything to back up this idea? I'm working on it. Whether prayer can be measured or not, God, if he is real and has an effect on the universe, must be quantifiable. We should be able to measure that effect. To "measure" anything, I'm guessing that you would have to establish a unit of measurement. (like an inch, a quanta, planck, etc.) But have you defined and described this phenomena you call God yet? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, so now josie68 wants to re-write the dictionary. The words mean what they mean. In order for us to communicate we must agree on what the words mean. I feel the dictionary definitions should apply. Something must be moving from inside your brain to God for him/her to get the message. A thought is a tiny impulse of energy and information. It must move from you to God to be heard, even if it all takes place within your own head. I don't think josie is trying to rewrite the dictionary. A Scientific Law can be "proven" experimentally, and repeatedly. A Scientific Theory can not be proven, The theory is usually derived as the result of observations, and is only "verified" to the extent that it accurately confirms the Hypothesis under the experimental and observable conditions available at the time. There are many scientific theories that have been proven wrong as technology and new information becomes available. At one time the theories that the World was Flat, the Earth was the center of the Solar system, and the Universe was static were all accepted scientific theories. paul1217, I don't think those were theories, more like religious ideas. The Static Universe theory was Einstein's, I could list others, just trying to show that a Theory no matter how accepted is not the same as a Scientific Law. Many widely accepted scientific theories have been proven wrong after years or even decades of acceptance. That is the reason they are called "theories" so they can remain theories until they are proven wrong. But to reach the status of being a theory there has to be some good criteria. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The thing about these theories is they are WORKING theories. We can use them to make prediction about the universe.
I think God can remain vague at this point. We aren't discussing what God is, but his effect on the universe. If he answers a prayer, he must be effecting the universe. So, the study I posted at the top is a good place to start. Other studies could be done. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If we think of the universe and time as an infinite possibility then somewhere in the infinite possibilities there would be God. Then again there could be Gods in the plural. Each one a facet of an overall super presence of infinite possibilities. But in that how the HECK do you quantify infinity? It has been done but take the number Pi for example, it was assumed for ages it was an infinite number. Not so, And end has been found for it but it was ridiculously long! We are talking a number so fractional to write everything past the 3.14 went on for piles of paper, something to the order of filling two 20 x 20' rooms to find the end proving Pi is finite. To quantify God as an entity you must find its life signs or "Vitals" you can read. Communication is a bonus! But in the scope and scale of what god is assumed to be it would be the same thing as you recognizing a Neutron in your sub atomic structure yelling "Hi" to you! That is where God would be with us. But arguably if God is everything then God is Among us and Not among us. This makes for a really perplexing Philosophical conundrum and paradox! Now scientifically this makes for a rather honked up set of equations to set up and then quantify and have the math recognized by others and repeatable by others but what is a infinitely variable equation? Again when you add an infinite quantity to the equation you get CHAOS!
In a way God could be the Chaos Against a Static order. Now the equation gets even more honked up! Now God becomes a infinite finite possibility (One God= Finite, One God that is an Infinite possibility) being that God only asserts Chaos against a Null (Zero Quantity) Finite Order. Oh the mathematical headache! Now for experimentation purposes one would have to have a way of discerning a personal impression of the evidence of any given attempt to "Show" God exists vs. coming up with a universally acceptable method of discerning the presence of such an Entity since God is assumed to be something "living." Now in many past philosophies God could be found in the "Music of the Spheres." It could be possible to find a frequency of some kind of energy to be able to perceive God's thoughts. But the great question hides behind this, would we be able to even remotely understand any of it? Would God be so much higher in existence that there is no way possible for us to prove he, she, it exists? That is a very definite possibility! Now I am really confusing myself! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you all are going down the definition of "God" then most would say one of the characteristics would be omnipotent (can do what ever). This can be stumped with the simple boulder theory: "Can God make a boulder so big that he can not lift?" If he can lift it then he can not make it, if he can make it then he can not lift it... Either way the idea of a god fails.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you all are going down the definition of "God" then most would say one of the characteristics would be omnipotent (can do what ever). This can be stumped with the simple boulder theory: "Can God make a boulder so big that he can not lift?" If he can lift it then he can not make it, if he can make it then he can not lift it... Either way the idea of a god fails. Not really. God can make a boulder that he can't lift. He can't lift it because he is busy making it. Then, in the next instant of time, he can lift it.... because he is God. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If we think of the universe and time as an infinite possibility then somewhere in the infinite possibilities there would be God. Yes because we thought of it and created him.  Then again there could be Gods in the plural. Each one a facet of an overall super presence of infinite possibilities. But in that how the HECK do you quantify infinity? Quantify infinity? That does not compute. It has been done but take the number Pi for example, it was assumed for ages it was an infinite number. Not so, And end has been found for it but it was ridiculously long! We are talking a number so fractional to write everything past the 3.14 went on for piles of paper, something to the order of filling two 20 x 20' rooms to find the end proving Pi is finite. Really? Who did this experiment?  To quantify God as an entity you must find its life signs or "Vitals" you can read. Communication is a bonus! But in the scope and scale of what god is assumed to be it would be the same thing as you recognizing a Neutron in your sub atomic structure yelling "Hi" to you! That is where God would be with us. But arguably if God is everything then God is Among us and Not among us. This makes for a really perplexing Philosophical conundrum and paradox! Now scientifically this makes for a rather honked up set of equations to set up and then quantify and have the math recognized by others and repeatable by others but what is a infinitely variable equation? Again when you add an infinite quantity to the equation you get CHAOS! What wrong with chaos? In a way God could be the Chaos Against a Static order. Now the equation gets even more honked up! Now God becomes a infinite finite possibility (One God= Finite, One God that is an Infinite possibility) being that God only asserts Chaos against a Null (Zero Quantity) Finite Order. Oh the mathematical headache! You remind of an ant following a trail that leads in a circle wondering when he will reach the end of that trail. Now for experimentation purposes one would have to have a way of discerning a personal impression of the evidence of any given attempt to "Show" God exists vs. coming up with a universally acceptable method of discerning the presence of such an Entity since God is assumed to be something "living." I exist. Trust me.  Now in many past philosophies God could be found in the "Music of the Spheres." It could be possible to find a frequency of some kind of energy to be able to perceive God's thoughts. But the great question hides behind this, would we be able to even remotely understand any of it? Would God be so much higher in existence that there is no way possible for us to prove he, she, it exists? That is a very definite possibility! Now I am really confusing myself! We can't prove God exists because we fail to believe that we ARE GOD. SILLY. I EXIST. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Sun 03/27/11 06:22 PM
|
|
I'm of the opinion that the question of God's existence is ultimately a scientific one. If God is real and has an effect on the universe we ought to be able to measure it. For example, prayer (if it is real) is a transfer of energy from one's own mind to God. Something must move out of the prayer's brain and go out into the universe in order to communicate with God. If so why couldn't we find a way to measure it or at least measure it's effects? This isn't a debate about whether or not God is real. It's about whether or not God's existence is a scientific question. There was a real scientific study of prayer done in 2006. The results can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html I look forward to reading your thoughts. Well I certainly wasn't impressed with the results of the study see the quote below: American Heart Journal Volume 151, Issue 4, April 2006, Pages 934-942 doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2005.05.028 | How to Cite or Link Using DOI Clinical Investigation Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: A multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer Herbert Benson MDa, , l, , Jeffery A. Dusek PhDa, l, Jane B. Sherwood RNm, Peter Lam PhDm, Charles F. Bethea MDb, William Carpenter MDivc, Sidney Levitsky MDd, Peter C. Hill MDe, Donald W. Clem, Jr. MAf, Manoj K. Jain MD, MPHg, David Drumel MDivg, h, Stephen L. Kopecky MDi, Paul S. Mueller MDj, Dean Marekk, Sue Rollins RN, MPHb and Patricia L. Hibberd MD, PhDl, m Abstract Background Intercessory prayer is widely believed to influence recovery from illness, but claims of benefits are not supported by well-controlled clinical trials. Prior studies have not addressed whether prayer itself or knowledge/certainty that prayer is being provided may influence outcome. We evaluated whether (1) receiving intercessory prayer or (2) being certain of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with uncomplicated recovery after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. Methods Patients at 6 US hospitals were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: 604 received intercessory prayer after being informed that they may or may not receive prayer; 597 did not receive intercessory prayer also after being informed that they may or may not receive prayer; and 601 received intercessory prayer after being informed they would receive prayer. Intercessory prayer was provided for 14 days, starting the night before CABG. The primary outcome was presence of any complication within 30 days of CABG. Secondary outcomes were any major event and mortality. Results In the 2 groups uncertain about receiving intercessory prayer, complications occurred in 52% (315/604) of patients who received intercessory prayer versus 51% (304/597) of those who did not (relative risk 1.02, 95% CI 0.92-1.15). Complications occurred in 59% (352/601) of patients certain of receiving intercessory prayer compared with the 52% (315/604) of those uncertain of receiving intercessory prayer (relative risk 1.14, 95% CI 1.02-1.28). Major events and 30-day mortality were similar across the 3 groups. Conclusions Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications. doi Reference: doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2003.10.071 The OP states: If God is real and has an effect on the universe we ought to be able to measure it. First you would need to determine by whose definition of characteristics, and attributes assigned to god that you would rely on. Remember that some religions believe that god is all things and is everywhere at at the same time. That might indicate that the god being worshipped is something like Einstien's idea of the spacetime fabric of the universe. Then there are those who claim that god exists OUTSIDE the physical universe. That one is tricky because most of those people believe that god controls the physical realm from outside the universe by merely projecting thought directly to the molecules it intends to influence. So, first you have to begin with some idea of god's attributes, in order to know exactly how god would be relating to the physical world. Since science is totally based on objective, empirical, research - as the OP said there If God is real and has an effect on the universe we ought to be able to measure it BUT - WAIT - HERE'S THE THING consider the following form the newspaper article posted in the OP The study cost $2.4 million, and most of the money came from the John Templeton Foundation, which supports research into spirituality. The government has spent more than $2.3 million on prayer research since 2000. In another of the study's findings, a significantly higher number of the patients who knew that they were being prayed for — 59 percent — suffered complications, compared with 51 percent of those who were uncertain. The authors left open the possibility that this was a chance finding. But they said that being aware of the strangers' prayers also may have caused some of the patients a kind of performance anxiety. "It may have made them uncertain, wondering am I so sick they had to call in their prayer team?" Dr. Bethea said. FIRST We really should not be doing that particular kind of research because it REALLY is a test of faith and it's not fair to go to that extreme and at the expense of sick people. It is INSTINCT that makes us want to live but if people want to as god to save their lives why not let them? SECOND - If you prove the existence of some other worldly connections to our physical realm, how do you possibly expect to determine if it is the creator and which one??? Odds are that EVERY religion would say it was an evil entity like satan - so they would not have to risk being the faith who lost their god. THIRD - why in the name of all who suffer would we spend this enormous amount of money for that kind of research when we are on the verge of makeing great strides in curing millions of diseases they will otherwise surely die from???? FAITH is for those who need it to beleive that the universe is a safe controlled environment, even if they don't understand it -- so let them take comfort in the unknown that is their faith --- the rest of us will find our comfort somewhere else, perhaps by being cured of AIDS or a Cancer or Parkinsons ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If they are going to do experiments like that, then they should pit one god against another and see who gets the godly cures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, so now josie68 wants to re-write the dictionary. The words mean what they mean. In order for us to communicate we must agree on what the words mean. I feel the dictionary definitions should apply. Something must be moving from inside your brain to God for him/her to get the message. A thought is a tiny impulse of energy and information. It must move from you to God to be heard, even if it all takes place within your own head. I don't think josie is trying to rewrite the dictionary. A Scientific Law can be "proven" experimentally, and repeatedly. A Scientific Theory can not be proven, The theory is usually derived as the result of observations, and is only "verified" to the extent that it accurately confirms the Hypothesis under the experimental and observable conditions available at the time. There are many scientific theories that have been proven wrong as technology and new information becomes available. At one time the theories that the World was Flat, the Earth was the center of the Solar system, and the Universe was static were all accepted scientific theories. I see where you are coming from but I think your idea is flawed. Just because people thought the earth was flat or the center of the universe doesn't make it a scientific theory. They have to try to prove it to be true with testing. It was merely a belief. For when they tested "the earth is flat" by sailing around the world it showed that hypothesis was wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Keep in mind that faith is a gift from God. It is given to all. Not all accept it.
If you are going to go with a hypothesis, that is a great start. Are there people who do not accept gifts freely given to them. If so, why? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First you would need to determine by whose definition of characteristics, and attributes assigned to god that you would rely on. Remember that some religions believe that god is all things and is everywhere at at the same time. That might indicate that the god being worshipped is something like Einstien's idea of the spacetime fabric of the universe. Einstein's theories has been tested. All we'd have to do is decide what effects god has on the universe. Do people that pray for (whatever) get better results than people who do not? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is all very interesting.
I enjoy science as much as the next guy. If you get sick science makes you well. I you want to learn more about plants or animals. You study them. Stars,planets, bugs, people, all part of science. I think the best way to explain science is: "The search for answers using the five senses" Since God and prayer cannot be measured using the five senses one cannot look at from this perspective. Doing so according to "Kent Hovnids" son "Is like looking at a computer from the inside" You can see how it all works but don't know if there is anyone controlling it on the outside. To fully understand you have to look at the computer from the outside. Science can't do that. Therefor your idea is flawed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First you would need to determine by whose definition of characteristics, and attributes assigned to god that you would rely on. Remember that some religions believe that god is all things and is everywhere at at the same time. That might indicate that the god being worshipped is something like Einstien's idea of the spacetime fabric of the universe. Einstein's theories has been tested. All we'd have to do is decide what effects god has on the universe. Do people that pray for (whatever) get better results than people who do not? It depends on how much they actually believe. So if a person has cancer and prays to be healed will they be healed? Maybe, if they have enough belief. But their belief has to be greater and stronger than the actual cancer. Does this happen often? NO. But it does not matter what God you pray to or even if your prayers are simply healthy thoughts or visualizations. A prayer is actually a visual picture or command put forth to the "thinking stuff" in the universe that Wallace D. Wattles talks about. That "thinking stuff" could be defined as "God." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you all are going down the definition of "God" then most would say one of the characteristics would be omnipotent (can do what ever). This can be stumped with the simple boulder theory: "Can God make a boulder so big that he can not lift?" If he can lift it then he can not make it, if he can make it then he can not lift it... Either way the idea of a god fails. Not really. God can make a boulder that he can't lift. He can't lift it because he is busy making it. Then, in the next instant of time, he can lift it.... because he is God. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How does one prove-scientifically they have had an outer body experience.... or that they have reincarnated from a previous life? How can you prove this to another being who was not involved in this astral projection process...scientifically speaking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Keep in mind that faith is a gift from God. It is given to all. Not all accept it. If you are going to go with a hypothesis, that is a great start. Are there people who do not accept gifts freely given to them. If so, why? Also, since I was a kid I was told never to accept gifts from strangers... since I never met this god then that makes him a stranger...lol (Sorry, had to say it...lol) |
|
|
|
|
