How did the Universe get here?

[emilynghiem]

Then something caused the event. Couldn't have been something physical since things can't create themselves.

Dear Boss do you agree with Goedel's conclusion if there is a God only God can know truth? can't we all be wrong about anything that could change (like the Atheists you cited).

Isn't anything possible because we don't control the rules in the Universe?
So it is potentially possible for physical things to exist that didn't create themselves
but always existed and just did. It is possible, we can't know for sure
because we didn't see the beginning.

Can't we be "okay" with not knowing
and start the proof/consensus process with points that DO NOT DEPEND
on assuming this one way or another, especially since we cannot know for sure.

Even if you knew the truth Boss, and I believe you, someone else wil not or may never understand. So how can the proof be universal if it leaves out that person and others like that. why can't we structure the proof process where it doesn't hinge on that.

Like we can prove 1 + 2 = 3 by agreeing on definition of values and symbols
and don't need to prove the 123,456,789th decimal of PI which is not a condition.

We don't have to prove 1 exists or 2, but can agree on the rule
that if we have 1 and 2 then 1 + 2 = 3 but 1 X 2 = 2 etc.

We don't have to prove that these numbers came from Arabic or wherever.
If someone has a cow using Arabic numbers,
we can use their system of ! + @ = #
and agree what symbols and values line up all the same.

Can we agree what concepts we are talking about behind the symbols, what rules apply to all cases, and then agree what to apply these rules to in order to solve
problems and create sustainable solutions in society that have import and impact.

 

[dnsmith35]

Then something caused the event. Couldn't have been something physical since things can't create themselves.

Dear Boss do you agree with Goedel's conclusion if there is a God only God can know truth? can't we all be wrong about anything that could change (like the Atheists you cited).

Isn't anything possible because we don't control the rules in the Universe?
So it is potentially possible for physical things to exist that didn't create themselves
but always existed and just did. It is possible, we can't know for sure
because we didn't see the beginning.

Can't we be "okay" with not knowing
and start the proof/consensus process with points that DO NOT DEPEND
on assuming this one way or another, especially since we cannot know for sure.

Even if you knew the truth Boss, and I believe you, someone else wil not or may never understand. So how can the proof be universal if it leaves out that person and others like that. why can't we structure the proof process where it doesn't hinge on that.

Like we can prove 1 + 2 = 3 by agreeing on definition of values and symbols
and don't need to prove the 123,456,789th decimal of PI which is not a condition.

We don't have to prove 1 exists or 2, but can agree on the rule
that if we have 1 and 2 then 1 + 2 = 3 but 1 X 2 = 2 etc.

We don't have to prove that these numbers came from Arabic or wherever.
If someone has a cow using Arabic numbers,
we can use their system of ! + @ = #
and agree what symbols and values line up all the same.

Can we agree what concepts we are talking about behind the symbols, what rules apply to all cases, and then agree what to apply these rules to in order to solve
problems and create sustainable solutions in society that have import and impact.

My point exactly! There is no concrete proof. There is belief, one way or the other, and he who believes he can prove either condition is lying to himself and to the world. I chose to believe what I do for my own reasons. No one else is bound by those reasons.

 

[emilynghiem]

I admitted I was here to ridicule ANY WHO ASSERTS THERE IS CONCRETE PROOF EITHER WAY. Your opinion has been ridiculed very effectively.

As I said, you have proved NOTHING, but that you follow atheistic religion.

Hi [MENTION=33777]dnsmith35[/MENTION] Thanks for your honesty which is all that is needed to make this work.
I AGREE and glad if you and I are saying the same thing.

Do you agree then with Goedel's conclusion that only God could know truth.

And I agree that it is FALSE that "failing to prove something proves the opposite,"
which two people seemed to argue.

Can we start with an agreement that even if it is proven to certain people using their own standards of proof, it has NEVER been proven universally (and after Goedel can never be absolutely proven or known since man is not God if God exists).

I am okay with making fun, if it is good natured where it uplifts and corrects the other person in constructive ways; but bullying and mean spirited humor tends to hurt the person and the argument from being received, so no, I prefer not to use humor in that way which is negative and only if it achieves positive effects and helps build relations and community.

Instead of proof, can we focus on a consensus on what God and Jesus mean.
What is the content and principles in laws that are universal to all of us.

We can never prove these come from God or a common source.
But if we can agree what is true for us regardless of such conditions
can we at least reach agreement on that. and prove it can be reconciled
without changing or converting anyone's religion or beliefs from one system to another.

thanks and please keep sharing openly and honestly
but don't be too hard on people if they are not responding to it

there are very sensitive people here who are great to work with
and don't deserve to be mocked for their efforts in sharing of themselves

if Boss asks for a butt kicking maybe he can take it, but not all are like him!

 

[AVG-JOE]

Hi dnsmith35 Thanks for your honesty which is all that is needed to make this work.
I AGREE and glad if you and I are saying the same thing.

Do you agree then with Goedel's conclusion that only God could know truth.

And I agree that failing to prove something proves the opposite,
which two people seemed to argue.

Can we start with an agreement that even if it is proven to certain people using their own standards of proof, it has NEVER been proven universally (and after Goedel can never be absolutely proven or known since man is not God if God exists).

I am okay with making fun, if it is good natured where it uplifts and corrects the other person in constructive ways; but bullying and mean spirited humor tends to hurt the person and the argument from being received, so no, I prefer not to use humor in that way which is negative and only if it achieves positive effects and helps build relations and community.

Instead of proof, can we focus on a consensus on what God and Jesus mean.
What is the content and principles in laws that are universal to all of us.

We can never prove these come from God or a common source.
But if we can agree what is true for us regardless of such conditions
can we at least reach agreement on that. and prove it can be reconciled
without changing or converting anyone's religion or beliefs from one system to another.

thanks and please keep sharing openly and honestly
but don't be too hard on people if they are not responding to it

there are very sensitive people here who are great to work with
and don't deserve to be mocked for their efforts in sharing of themselves

if Boss asks for a butt kicking maybe he can take it, but not all are like him!

Bullshit!

There ARE unprovable subjects.

If there weren't, there would be absolutely no need for 'faith'.


The two biggies are origins and after-life, which is the reason that every religion has answers to those two questions, no matter what else is addressed.


The trick to living in peace in spite of the unprovable subjects is admitting that EVERYONE has exactly the same odds of being right, and EVERYONE has exactly the same odds of being wrong.

 

[emilynghiem]

"I don't know. It was here already when I arrived."

I agree with this starting point as universal.
1. admitting we don't know and could be wrong
2. talking from our own experiences since we've lived here

if we stick to that, our experiences and understanding of life
from our relationships are enough to form a consensus
on the universal laws and patterns of human society development and growth.

we may use diverse language and laws in science or religions to express
relationships, but the point is to communicate to establish agreed truth.

We are not required to prove things that are not universal to all people.
just sticking with the points and principles of agreement is enough to map the truth
that is necessary to do all the things that are important in life.

 

[emilynghiem]

How can anyone verify a theory about how the universe came about?

No one can. Stephen Hawking says we will probably never be able to. But that does not seem to phase people like eddy and silly boob, as they present their various theories as if they are proven conclusive facts. These are people who have adopted a faith-based religion in science and use it to replace their spirituality.

Dear [MENTION=36773]Boss[/MENTION] I couldn't find the post where you insisted it was necessary to prove energy was not spiritual. I think this is an issue of terminology.

I find nothing wrong with substituting secular terms like "collective truth"
or "collective responsibility" in place of "spirituality" because it refers to similar levels.

the RELATIONSHIP or patterns between the 3 levels are parallel
so these systems can be aligned or translated between them

they don't have to be the same

Numan used the term "spiritual reality" to be the highest level instead of God

a secular humanist author I know used
* respect for truth
* respect for freedom
* respect for people/environment/society/humanity
or whatever you call the physical reality of life in the real world

this is the same 3 levels of the holy trinity without using religious symbols

unlike your fear this is in conflict
I find it is harmonious and can be reconciled without converting or changing.
especially if you force someone to prove their side and they challenge you,
you both deadlock competing to prove the other side first. why not just them even
and not have to prove either one.

IN FACT, for reconciling different systems, I find it is MORE productive
NOT to push to change the other person's system; the more open we
are to using the other person's natural terms, they forgive us our differences as well.

this is a mutual process, so both people end up stretching equally to find
common terms they can both use. you get the same courtesy, respect or forgiveness
liberty you extend to the other person, and vice versa. no proof is required for points where
we already agree certain concepts or principles are true, so start with those
and build from there.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Antony Flew was a reknown Atheist for most of his life. He is probably best known to Atheists for his "No True Scotsman" argument. He is said to have concluded by the age of 15 that there was no God. This was not a man who was undecided or meek in his Atheistic beliefs, he was a devoutly Atheistic person who argued vociferously with theists on the concept of God. In 2004, he converted to theism because of "the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species."

Here is another such testimony from Philip Vander Elst.

"Growing up in a non-Christian family with intellectually gifted but unbelieving parents, I used to think that belief in God and the supernatural had been discredited by the advance of science, and was incompatible with liberty. Religious faith seemed to me to involve the blind worship of a cosmic dictator, and the abandonment of reason in favour of ‘revelation’. Why, in any case, should I take religion seriously, I thought, when the existence of evil and suffering clearly discredited the Christian claim that our world owed its existence to a benevolent Creator?"

Here are but two examples of people who believed as strongly as anyone on this forum that God was not real, did not exist, was a silly and foolish notion to believe in. Yet we see, they changed their minds. There are literally thousands of such examples, and this happens daily around the world. It's not because they are stupid or weak minded, it's not because some televangelist is beating them over the head with a Bible, and it's not because they've been brainwashed by religion. Quite simply, it's because they dared to open their minds and explore the possibilities objectively.

Too many of you are simply stuck in a rut. You've made up your minds and nothing can change it. But the mere fact that you spend such inordinate amounts of your personal time, here, debating against God, trying to convince people to believe as you do, that shows you are not fully content with your beliefs. It's not enough satisfaction for you to disbelieve, you need others to disbelieve with you. So you come here, day in and day out, to enter one post after another, garnering strength in support of each other like co-dependent enablers. And it frustrates you because even that is not enough, you have to be mean and vindictive as well, insult and denigrate, attempt to hurt people with your words.

This is where Moonbat usually pops in to interject the "pot and kettle" analogy, but my purpose here is to fight the decline of humanity. I don't need to justify my beliefs. I don't have anything to prove.

Of course you, AKA Don Quixote, haven't established that there is any "decline of humanity" in the first place.

The only thing that remains the same is change. Change happens. When an individual doesn't like the change, it's "the decline of humanity". That opinion and $4 will get you a tasty beverage at Starbuck$.

Opinion, opinion, opinion.

"Proof" does not occur when an opinion is popular. Never has / Never will

 

[emilynghiem]

1. Bullshit!
There ARE unprovable subjects.
If there weren't, there would be absolutely no need for 'faith'.

2. The two biggies are origins and after-life, which is the reason that every religion has answers to those two questions, no matter what else is addressed.

3. The trick to living in peace in spite of the unprovable subjects is admitting that EVERYONE has exactly the same odds of being right, and EVERYONE has exactly the same odds of being wrong.

1. YES I agree and that is why agreement on what to focus on and what to set aside is so important.
Because some things can never be proven, it helps to
a. AGREE on the things we are taking on faith and not worrying about proving if we both already believe those are true and right
b. AGREE what things are not necessary or cannot be proven so we don't waste time on those

2. Not all beliefs/religions include these two.

My beliefs in Constitutional laws as "representing" natural and universal for all people
does not require faith in origin or in afterlife. I can work with people with no faith these came from natural laws and the "same concepts" still apply to their free speech, right to petition and due process, etc. in the present situation with no consideration of anything after death. Sure It helps if we have the same beliefs about origin, but by religious freedom if people do not share these beliefs, they still have equal rights freedoms and responsibilities by natural laws as others.

No I do not agree that agreement with others "requires" proof or agreement on these things of origin, heaven afterlife, but agreement depends on what they say is important for them.

3. I agree with this part, that to let go and treat things equally helps the process.

The way to get to this point is mutual trust and forgiveness.

If all issues are resolved that otherwise cause distrust or projection, then people can generally sort through what is critical and what is not, and agree on what is important.

the rest we may never agree on, but at least we agree the important issues are included.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Antony Flew was a reknown Atheist for most of his life. He is probably best known to Atheists for his "No True Scotsman" argument. He is said to have concluded by the age of 15 that there was no God. This was not a man who was undecided or meek in his Atheistic beliefs, he was a devoutly Atheistic person who argued vociferously with theists on the concept of God. In 2004, he converted to theism because of "the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species."

Here is another such testimony from Philip Vander Elst.

"Growing up in a non-Christian family with intellectually gifted but unbelieving parents, I used to think that belief in God and the supernatural had been discredited by the advance of science, and was incompatible with liberty. Religious faith seemed to me to involve the blind worship of a cosmic dictator, and the abandonment of reason in favour of ‘revelation’. Why, in any case, should I take religion seriously, I thought, when the existence of evil and suffering clearly discredited the Christian claim that our world owed its existence to a benevolent Creator?"

Here are but two examples of people who believed as strongly as anyone on this forum that God was not real, did not exist, was a silly and foolish notion to believe in. Yet we see, they changed their minds. There are literally thousands of such examples, and this happens daily around the world. It's not because they are stupid or weak minded, it's not because some televangelist is beating them over the head with a Bible, and it's not because they've been brainwashed by religion. Quite simply, it's because they dared to open their minds and explore the possibilities objectively.

Too many of you are simply stuck in a rut. You've made up your minds and nothing can change it. But the mere fact that you spend such inordinate amounts of your personal time, here, debating against God, trying to convince people to believe as you do, that shows you are not fully content with your beliefs. It's not enough satisfaction for you to disbelieve, you need others to disbelieve with you. So you come here, day in and day out, to enter one post after another, garnering strength in support of each other like co-dependent enablers. And it frustrates you because even that is not enough, you have to be mean and vindictive as well, insult and denigrate, attempt to hurt people with your words.

This is where Moonbat usually pops in to interject the "pot and kettle" analogy, but my purpose here is to fight the decline of humanity. I don't need to justify my beliefs. I don't have anything to prove.

Of course you, AKA Don Quixote, haven't established that there is any "decline of humanity" in the first place.

The only thing that remains the same is change. Change happens. When an individual doesn't like the change, it's "the decline of humanity". That opinion and $4 will get you a tasty beverage at Starbuck$.

Opinion, opinion, opinion.

"Proof" does not occur when an opinion is popular. Never has / Never will

Too bad the "boss" has defined his "purpose" for being here as being based upon nothing but his opinion.

Oh well, there is always for us normal average folks!

 

[emilynghiem]

The only thing that remains the same is change. Change happens. When an individual doesn't like the change, it's "the decline of humanity". That opinion and $4 will get you a tasty beverage at Starbuck$.

Opinion, opinion, opinion.

"Proof" does not occur when an opinion is popular. Never has / Never will

Dear Joe:
1. Instead of proof, since some things may never be proven,
what about focusing on what concepts or principles we AGREE are universal
where we don't require proof. (for example, if someone refers to dreams, or gravity,
I don't demand proof those exist first if we already know what we mean and agree it doesn't need proof.)

2. For example, if we all agree to respect each other's free speech and press, free exercise of religion or beliefs, and right to petition to redress and resolve conflicts until consensus is reached, do we need to prove the source of these natural laws to agree to enforce them?

if we can "agree" that faith in jesus symbolizes the same process as bringing equal justice for all humanity, can we still discuss this process,
which Christians may call salvation, Buddhists call enlightenment, and secular humanists call world peace.
if we agree that seeking Kingdom of God means seeking "shared understanding of universal truth and laws" is that close enough.
can we agree that establishing truth sets humanity free from conflict and division, so this is the same meaning and process in the Bible, without having to prove the history of Jesus in the bible.

3. also is this a good example of what may never change:

that human nature may always involve the need for free will, consent and expression
that human nature is a combination of body mind and spirit
or physical/individual, psychological/relationships, and collective social experiences as a whole.

do we agree that any change we experience in life happens on those levels?

 

[dnsmith35]

I admitted I was here to ridicule ANY WHO ASSERTS THERE IS CONCRETE PROOF EITHER WAY. Your opinion has been ridiculed very effectively.

As I said, you have proved NOTHING, but that you follow atheistic religion.

Hi [MENTION=33777]dnsmith35[/MENTION] Thanks for your honesty which is all that is needed to make this work.
I AGREE and glad if you and I are saying the same thing.

Do you agree then with Goedel's conclusion that only God could know truth.

And I agree that failing to prove something proves the opposite,
which two people seemed to argue.

I categorically disagree that failing to prove anything proves the opposite. That is incorrect. I have failed to prove the sun exists, therefore according to your statement it does not.

Can we start with an agreement that even if it is proven to certain people using their own standards of proof, it has NEVER been proven universally (and after Goedel can never be absolutely proven or known since man is not God if God exists).

I can agree that there has never been proof one way or the other. Why certain people believe is their own business.

I am okay with making fun, if it is good natured where it uplifts and corrects the other person in constructive ways; but bullying and mean spirited humor tends to hurt the person and the argument from being received, so no, I prefer not to use humor in that way which is negative and only if it achieves positive effects and helps build relations and community.

Your choice!

Instead of proof, can we focus on a consensus on what God and Jesus mean.
What is the content and principles in laws that are universal to all of us.

We can never prove these come from God or a common source.
But if we can agree what is true for us regardless of such conditions
can we at least reach agreement on that. and prove it can be reconciled
without changing or converting anyone's religion or beliefs from one system to another.

Did you read my original post?

thanks and please keep sharing openly and honestly
but don't be too hard on people if they are not responding to it

I only get hard on people when they tell me I am wrong, and in this case I made no positive assertion one way or another.

there are very sensitive people here who are great to work with
and don't deserve to be mocked for their efforts in sharing of themselves

if Boss asks for a butt kicking maybe he can take it, but not all are like him!

People who live in glass houses should refrain from throwing stones.

 

[dnsmith35]

1. Bullshit!
There ARE unprovable subjects.
If there weren't, there would be absolutely no need for 'faith'.

2. The two biggies are origins and after-life, which is the reason that every religion has answers to those two questions, no matter what else is addressed.

3. The trick to living in peace in spite of the unprovable subjects is admitting that EVERYONE has exactly the same odds of being right, and EVERYONE has exactly the same odds of being wrong.

1. YES I agree and that is why agreement on what to focus on and what to set aside is so important.
Because some things can never be proven, it helps to
a. AGREE on the things we are taking on faith and not worrying about proving if we both already believe those are true and right
b. AGREE what things are not necessary or cannot be proven so we don't waste time on those

2. Not all beliefs/religions include these two.

Maybe! But there are truths in religions other than Christian. In my opinion Hinduism, Islam, Judaism as well as Christianity all contain truth and likely were all divinely inspired by the same God to different people with different cultures.

My beliefs in Constitutional laws as "representing" natural and universal for all people
does not require faith in origin or in afterlife. I can work with people with no faith these came from natural laws and the "same concepts" still apply to their free speech, right to petition and due process, etc. in the present situation with no consideration of anything after death. Sure It helps if we have the same beliefs about origin, but by religious freedom if people do not share these beliefs, they still have equal rights freedoms and responsibilities by natural laws as others.

No I do not agree that agreement with others "requires" proof or agreement on these things of origin, heaven afterlife, but agreement depends on what they say is important for them.

3. I agree with this part, that to let go and treat things equally helps the process.

The way to get to this point is mutual trust and forgiveness.

If all issues are resolved that otherwise cause distrust or projection, then people can generally sort through what is critical and what is not, and agree on what is important.

the rest we may never agree on, but at least we agree the important issues are included.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi [MENTION=9429]AVG-JOE[/MENTION] and [MENTION=33777]dnsmith35[/MENTION]
thanks I corrected this mistyped error as below
thank you for catching that!!!
clearly it is the opposite of what I mean or it makes no sense

I will post the original post to Boss and Itfitzme who both
kept saying that failing to prove something was or wasn't
"proved the opposite" which I also disagree with as you do

thanks for pointing this out I left out the negative sorry!

CORRECTED typing:
Do you agree then with Goedel's conclusion that only God could know truth.[/COLOR]

And I agree [IT IS FALSE] that failing to prove something proves the opposite,
which two people seemed to argue.

SORRY I will post the original post where I brought this same
argument up to Itfitzme and Boss Thanks!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...did-the-universe-get-here-34.html#post9349489

Here's the post ^ [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION] can you help me figure out what itfitzme was trying to say and why I couldn't resolve it?

 

[emilynghiem]

1.

I categorically disagree that failing to prove anything proves the opposite. That is incorrect. I have failed to prove the sun exists, therefore according to your statement it does not. I can agree that there has never been proof one way or the other. Why certain people believe is their own business.Your choice!
Did you read my original post?

Thanks [MENTION=33777]dnsmith35[/MENTION] I corrected that typo that makes no sense. I will look for your original post, or can you post the link?

My original post was to both itfitzme and Boss.
Boss seemed to assert other people needed to prove energy wasn't spiritual, but I disagree.
itfitzme seems to assert other people needed to prove God existed, and went so far as to say failing to prove it in over 400 years was definitive proof.
So that is what I wanted help to reconcile.
My attempts to clarify got nowhere.

DNS if you can please address Boss instead of Derideo_Te,
I wanted Derideo to look at what itfitzme was saying and help clarify that.

It does not help for you and DT to jump on each other, when we didn't even
resolve the original issues with Boss and itfitzme, can we finish that first?

2.

I only get hard on people when they tell me I am wrong, and in this case I made no positive assertion one way or another.

People who live in glass houses should refrain from throwing stones.

Yes, I cannot always tell which people need to have stones thrown back at them,
which I usually do not take enjoyment in or do very effectively.

I prefer to teach people not to throw stones by not throwing stones.

Derideo and others seem to respond better to that, not to more stone throwing.

For Boss, I prefer to throw support and compliments to what is said right which helps the resolve arguments.

pushing to prove what is spiritual, and especially this assumption things can't be proven physical or they are no longer spiritual, I disagree with.

I think Boss is more interested in the tougher throwing stones back and forth.

But please do not crush Derideo as a bystander. Maybe that more sensitive approach could better help resolve the original issue I couldn't figure out with itfitzme.

It seems obvious to me, but if not, that means there is some deeper concept that just wasn't expressed correctly, like me typing wrong and saying the opposite instead.

thank you for your help with Boss
if we agree to quit arguing over points that don't need to be or can't be proven
we can better focus on what we can demonstrate that is practical and helps more people

 

[emilynghiem]

Maybe! But there are truths in religions other than Christian. In my opinion Hinduism, Islam, Judaism as well as Christianity all contain truth and likely were all divinely inspired by the same God to different people with different cultures.

1. YES I agree these are different languages that reflect universal laws, and
2. YES I believe more people will recognize the patterns that show they come from or represent the same source, whether they call this universal laws of god or natural laws of human nature that have always existed, that's fine they are still the same laws in many forms
3. I believe the focus on Christ Jesus represents reconciling all huamnity, including all diverse tribes, in the unifying spirit of "Restorative Justice"
I find no matter if people are Muslim or Atheist, Jewish or Buddhist, liberal or conservative,
if we believe in Restorative Justice first before retributive justice, we still agree on values.

so that is what I call the secular name of Jesus, Justice or Equal Justice or Justice with Mercy

we can be neighbors in Christ or by conscience by seeking Justice as the key way to get to Truth or what God represents the source of all life truth laws wisdom love etc.

the key is forgiveness so that is where the divine grace in Christ brings healing comfort or Holy Spirit to restore relations. all these symbols in Bible/Christianity have secular names that are universal to all ppl and don't rely on being of the Christian culture but of the same spirit as Jesus but governing people of different tribes or nations using different laws.

all laws are stil fulfilled in the same universal spirit of Love of Truth and Love of Justice that God/Jesus represent.
But as you describe and I beleive as well, people wlll retain their native laws or religious culture in order to organize all people of the world into tribes.

we can organize and form a consensus that covers all people of all tongues laws tribal religions and languages, and still be at peace with all our diversity in place.

What I wanted to focus on with Boss is proving how the forgiveness process
heals mind and body as well as relationships between people or even conflicting groups.
we don't have to change our ways or each other's beliefs to change our perceptions and work together, given our different ways exactly as they are.

so how can we move from arguing over proving this or that
and just aligning our systems to show we can still communicate and establish a consensus.

if this can be done in small groups first, then mediate with others,
can't we form a worldwide consensus between all religious and political groups by forgiveness and collaboration? thanks

we have the internet, and groups generally organized by academic, religious and political affiliation
why can't we use these resources to resolve conflicts, agree on solutions, and enforce common principles instead of fighting where we have differences?

 

[edthecynic]

In light of eddy's theory that energy can't be created or destroyed

As any grammar school student in an Earth science class knows, that is not my theory, in fact it is not a theory at all. It is a LAW of science, specifically the First Law of Thermodynamics. Even someone with an almighty BS in Psych should be expected to know that!

 

[dnsmith35]

Maybe! But there are truths in religions other than Christian. In my opinion Hinduism, Islam, Judaism as well as Christianity all contain truth and likely were all divinely inspired by the same God to different people with different cultures.

1. YES I agree these are different languages that reflect universal laws, and
2. YES I believe more people will recognize the patterns that show they come from or represent the same source, whether they call this universal laws of god or natural laws of human nature that have always existed, that's fine they are still the same laws in many forms
3. I believe the focus on Christ Jesus represents reconciling all huamnity, including all diverse tribes, in the unifying spirit of "Restorative Justice"
I find no matter if people are Muslim or Atheist, Jewish or Buddhist, liberal or conservative,
if we believe in Restorative Justice first before retributive justice, we still agree on values.

so that is what I call the secular name of Jesus, Justice or Equal Justice or Justice with Mercy

we can be neighbors in Christ or by conscience by seeking Justice as the key way to get to Truth or what God represents the source of all life truth laws wisdom love etc.

the key is forgiveness so that is where the divine grace in Christ brings healing comfort or Holy Spirit to restore relations. all these symbols in Bible/Christianity have secular names that are universal to all ppl and don't rely on being of the Christian culture but of the same spirit as Jesus but governing people of different tribes or nations using different laws.

all laws are stil fulfilled in the same universal spirit of Love of Truth and Love of Justice that God/Jesus represent.
But as you describe and I beleive as well, people wlll retain their native laws or religious culture in order to organize all people of the world into tribes.

we can organize and form a consensus that covers all people of all tongues laws tribal religions and languages, and still be at peace with all our diversity in place.

What I wanted to focus on with Boss is proving how the forgiveness process
heals mind and body as well as relationships between people or even conflicting groups.
we don't have to change our ways or beeifs to change our percetions and work togehther.

I am not sure exactly what you mean by the Secular Name of Jesus. That he was a great man, yes! That he is the Christian son of God, yes! That there may have been other great men in God before and after him, absolutely. It is not simply the manifestation of God in any specific person or persons. It is my opinion that from Brahman, through the Buddha, Jesus the Christ, Allah, Jehova et all, are in my opinion the manifestations of God as he inspired each culture. As I said, opinion. It would be nice to be able to prove these things, but I don't think such an event will ever take place.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

How did the Universe (i.e. everything that exists) get here?

Well, where the hell else you gonna put it?

Texas?

All big things come from Texas, so the Universe must have came from there...

I find the discussion about the creation of the Universe and how or why it has expanded to be very interesting...

I also find it interesting how so many people can not understand the Universe and to wrap our little minds around the actual creation of the Universe blows our minds away...

It is like the debate if we are alone and if not why have Aliens never shown themselves and not understanding that humanity is a infant in the Universe and our limited understanding make us very ignorant...

Where did the Universe come from?

Hell if I know but if I did know I would never tell anyone because then I would know everything and that is something that should never be shared...

So in the end we will have theories from a Deity farting the Universe from his butt ( Family Guy ) to the Big Bang Theory and no not the show...

 

[Boss]

Dear @Boss I couldn't find the post where you insisted it was necessary to prove energy was not spiritual. I think this is an issue of terminology.

I find nothing wrong with substituting secular terms like "collective truth"
or "collective responsibility" in place of "spirituality" because it refers to similar levels.

[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION] I appreciate where you're coming from and applaud your efforts to unite people for the greater common good. I also agree this has a LOT to do with terminology. You have people here who refuse to acknowledge immortal spiritual nature (God) but readily accept immortal energy and gravity. They laugh and ridicule the idea of "something that can't be proven" while believing in things that simply can't be proven. They will attempt to argue that science can't prove things, yet it has somehow proven God doesn't exist. They jump back and forth from this concept of science exploring possibility to science determining facts, as if to say, science doesn't need to prove anything as long as it proves God doesn't exist. It's actually a perverted assault on science and should be rejected for the fanaticism it is.

Everybody wants to say "you can't prove spiritual God exists!" But maybe you can? Maybe we already have and we just didn't know it? Maybe God is gravity and energy, which are immortal? Maybe we CAN quantify spiritual nature? I pose these questions to them in order to make this point, not because I demand an answer. I know they don't have one.

Where you and I differ is on our understanding of these people. You still think they can be reasoned with, that you can reach out to them and find common ground. I'm telling you, it's a waste of your time. They are not interested in finding common ground with anyone. They will literally lie to your face and admit that "science can't prove or disprove God" then turn around in the next paragraph and say "but science has evidence God doesn't exist!" They want to have the cake and eat it too. They want you and I to be pinned down by the inability to prove God with science, while they parade around using science as proof against God. I don't put up with their nonsense. If I thought for one second they had a rational bone in their body about this, I'd be on board with your approach. I don't think they are rational. I think they are on a mission and they'll do anything to make that happen.

 

[emilynghiem]

In light of eddy's theory that energy can't be created or destroyed

As any grammar school student in an Earth science class knows, that is not my theory, in fact it is not a theory at all. It is a LAW of science, specifically the First Law of Thermodynamics. Even someone with an almighty BS in Psych should be expected to know that!

1. We can start by sticking to points and principles that don't depend on if
this is theory or law, true fact or possible changeable.

Most of the world can still function without agreeing if this law
is immutable or could possibly change or proven wrong.

2. [MENTION=13101]edthecynic[/MENTION] some people may never be where you are with your understanding
some people may always rely on faith that what you and scientists say are true is true

If we judged people based on this, how much of the world would be in trouble.
Can we agree how to use energy in positive ways that help humanity
without having to agree what created it in the first place.

The use of energy I would like to challenge Boss to focus on proving the process
rather than arguing here on a theoretical / logistical level,
is the use of forgiveness prayer and deliverance to heal people's
* minds of mental illness
* bodies of root causes of physical illness that may still require medical help as well
* relationships of unforgiven conflicts and emotional wounds and injustice/wrongs

Can I ask your help to form a team with Boss to set up
a system of documenting stats to measure correlation between
* forgiveness and reconciling between conflicting groups and healing social ills
* unforgiveness and inability to reconcile conflicts or to manage treatment for illness
or a technological way to measure the difference between
* negative energy in occult voodoo sorcery curses spells spiritism demonism black magic
* positive energy in healing prayer, forgiveness recovery programs, regression therapy

Boss thinks proving that spiritual energy is physical makes it no longer spiritual
but I disagree. I believe we can capture spiritual changes using physical studies
and data. we cannot prove the spiritual level the changes occur on, but we can report those physically and it is still clear it represents a process for all humanity where the collective level is still considered spiritual.