Arguing about the existence of God is futile. From our spiritual texts it is obvious that the human race is not alone. Furthermore it is obvious that a great deal of effort has been expended upon dissociating mankind from its source. We came out of nothing, and were made visible by a process of incarnation which is still a mystery, how does our spirit become locked into its physical form and where did they both come from?

Evolution of terrible things is attributed to a mad God, evolution of good things is attributed to some unfathomable creative force which has yet to make itself known to us here. There are many players in this story of humanity, many formative beings who have made their mark on Earth over the last few millennia but they are all pointing to an end time. A time of release, of redemption. Then other "mad God" philosophies point to the destruction of mankind, the end of all things. It seems we are being given two messages, one cruel and one loving.

If we believe that the rescue is afoot, then we look to the future with hope and a fragile excitement, but that kind of mind is also expecting to see their Messiah standing on clouds and shining like the sun whilst killing all sinners with one look. So even the hopeful are deluded, nothing can happen unless it conforms to the physical laws of the known universe. The Law is everything, and it is understood quite well by science, quantum physics, epigenetics to name but a few.

If we believe that total wipe out is on its way and live in fear of that, then we are not living our lives, instead locked in terror or apprehension and not living in the moment, being interesting. I also agree that this Planet X, Niberu idea is a false prophesy, and I said so at the time when it first started to grab people. I was criticized and condemned for saying such a thing, but i have an eye for truth. The false prophets do play a useful role though, they act as signposts to the Truth, we are on the threshold of massive changes and this is true. The idea of a comet crashing into Earth at the end of 2012 is not Truth, it does not resonate properly. What is Truth though, is this.

A far reaching Consciousness is preparing to make landfall, it is not quite there yet although it is very close. According to allegorical analogy, a star or comet symbolizes some force of higher intelligence, with the ability, same as the rest of us, to incarnate. Incarnating such a powerful consciousness is a tricky process, by virtue of the associated radiations and the unsuitability of this environment for such a formative mind to unfold it makes for a very difficult path. The whole world was designed to drive the faith out of God itself, this was part of the journey of evolution. I don't know what exactly will manifest at the end of December in only 3 years time, but I am certain that it will be a very good time to be alive in earth...which is why there are more beings incarnated on Earth today than the total number ever in all of our known history. Not all incarnates are purely spiritual, some have finer cores and come to assist and others purely to witness.

I've always been interested in how we came to be on this earth in our galaxy in the universe, but nothing seemed to answer it.
Reading here has given me some thought, and in some ways the more I read the more confused I get.
Sometimes I think there must be a god, then I think but how can there be...

I've had a few theories myself, although I doubt I could probably prove them.
I've thought maybe the universe could be a black hole from another dimension and the universe could be made up of a sun which died from that dimension and when it died our universe was born, and perhaps why scientist can't seem to find any evidence before it.

I know UFO's haven't been mentioned, but with what your saying about time stopping at the speed of light, I think that perhaps way into the future (few thousand years) we will have developed so much that actually traveling back in time will be possible (just my opinion) and maybe UFO's are humans from the future.

I think there is other life somewhere out there.

Is there anyway the universe could be round? Maybe it's like a balloon being filled with air?

If there is a god, in Christianity they say he made Adam and Eve, but then what about other races?
If that's true surely there would be more than one god? One for each race right?
All religion beliefs say there is only one God, but if that were true there would only be one race of person wouldn't there? It just seems to contradict itself to me.

I wonder why some people have abilities to communicate with the dead in some ways, and other people have premonitions about the future yet other people don't have any.
I'm open minded to a lot of things, and if I was given 100% proof about something then it would clinch it, but there always seems to be something to question someone elses theory.
I mean am I right in guessing that only ONE of these theories is true, or maybe we haven't found the right theory yet so we "guess" and hence why there isn't enough evidence to prove which one is right and which one is wrong.

They may seem like silly questions to some, and some of them probably have logical explanations, but I've never found the answer to any of them so would love to hear people's views and answers.

eddie wrote:It's amazing how GOD believers use logic to get to their point about trying to understand nothingness, and how its impossible that all this came from nothing. Then you ignore the simple fact that using your own logic points to the fact that if all this life had to have been created, because we all know we can't get something from nothingness. Then please answer my next question USING LOGIC and SCIENCE "where did god come from?"

Ok lets get one thing straight you are physically correct, notice I said physically. Now in your mind while you where typing this, you where thinking of God as a physical character. God is not a physical character, that is why something can become out of nothing.

Physically it is not possible to create something out of nothing. (I agree with you on that) but since god is not physical it is possible to create something out of nothing.

Here is a site that describes God more in depth from the Bible http://www.seekgod.org/bible/godis.html.
The descriptions are from the Bible because it is the only book in the world to be written in a period of over 2000 years by many different people that had no knowledge of each other and with no flaw. Even a science book has mistakes. (the Bible does not)

What exactly is 1-10 dimensions - it is physical space (you can feel, smell, see, taste and listen to it (physically))
Because god is not physical, he can exist outside of the dimensions and also interact with them. That answers the nothing out of something. In fact every scientific explanation deals with the physical dimensions of space. Have you ever heard of the quote or seine (Think outside of the box)? Well it truly is as simple as that.

To answer the where did God come from??
I will use what I had said above:
Because God is not a physical character he does not need a start and an end, he was always there. So the question, where did God come from is an inaccurate question. He did not come from anywhere, he has always existed and always will (because he cannot die). Physically a person needs to be born and needs to die (physically). The bible states that God/Lord is not a man. A man is a physical character. hummm Logic and science.

Oh by the way, my information will not be given out because of reasons that people tend to ignore some things that people say because of their background, age, sex, and other stuff. Now yes, you are able to track my email address and find all of my info but I could care less.

I believe in God, not only because of what I have stated but, mainly because of my experiences. Can anyone scientifically explain the scenario where a person has cancer or some deadly illness and was told by the best doctors in the world that he/she will not survive more than a week and that person ends up living for more than 3 extra years of her/his life? (No I didn't think so)

-Also it is a lot harder to comprehend that we came from an explosion and formed by a bunch of randomly moving particles that mysteriously transformed into complex organisms like humans.
- Can explosion rely form a perfect orbit around stars?
- If the gravitational pull of the sun and other stars were rely holding the planets in the orbit for "BILLIONS" of years, well wouldn't the planets be a part of the sun and other stars and not in orbit around it? (what goes up must come down)
- Why is it that the big bang theory has the only explosion ever recorded in history that has created something? Doesn't an explosion destroy stuff?
- Oh and there is a lot more.

VERY NICE

That's a pretty good theory...

romoemi wrote:-Also it is a lot harder to comprehend that we came from an explosion and formed by a bunch of randomly moving particles that mysteriously transformed into complex organisms like humans.
- Can explosion rely form a perfect orbit around stars?
- If the gravitational pull of the sun and other stars were rely holding the planets in the orbit for "BILLIONS" of years, well wouldn't the planets be a part of the sun and other stars and not in orbit around it? (what goes up must come down)
- Why is it that the big bang theory has the only explosion ever recorded in history that has created something? Doesn't an explosion destroy stuff?
- Oh and there is a lot more.

Study up, you're embarrasing yourself.

In 2008 I wrote a thesis about why the "Big Bang Theory" as explained by science, both physicists and astronomers is incorrect.

http://www.doddvideoproductions.com/Dodds-Paradox.htm

If you approach the current explanations of the Big Bang Theory from a perspective of astronomy, it's easy to see why the Big Theory is False. And if you do the same thing from a perspective of gravity, Light, mass, force, and Einstein's formula E=MC2, then a good argument can be made that the Big Bang could not have happened as physicists try to explain it.

Current scientific thinking has not brought forth any other theory to explain creation other than The Big Bang Theory. And since two separate issues exist with that theory, one could conclude that The Big Bang may indeed be false. If the Big Bang Theory is wrong, then science has not developed any other rational theory to explain the creation.

Albert Einstein himself said that he believed that a greater power created the universe.
"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details."

My Big Bang Theory Goes Like This: "God Spoke and Bang It Happened"

GeraldDodd wrote:My Big Bang Theory Goes Like This: "God Spoke and Bang It Happened"

I'd agree that the BB is not said and done, and I would disagree that it is the only theory out there. Supporters seem to think there was another driving force back at the BB, that drove inflation. Nobody knows yet - I wouldn't rule it out yet because there seems to be alot of evidence backing the idea, if not the cause. Perhaps our models of it are wrong - have you considered that? We've only just begun studying this stuff - It's by no means resolved. Perhaps the LHC may give us some idea's in the next decade.

But wherever it goes, or whatever new theories may come - through quantum mechanics, holographic, M theory (Id say steady state, but I doubt it) etc. I'd expect the explanation will have considerably more depth than 'It Happened because someone said so'. That's just an age old explanation to explain what we were not yet equipped to explain. At any rate, where does this theory lead? How do you prove it? Surely not with religious text telling us the universe 'switched on' a few millennia ago, despite ALL the evidence to the contrary.

Poor old, misunderstood Albert

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

eddie wrote:Well Time/Science will hopefully lead us towards either a purpose or as i believe just another life form no different from an ant society just a much bigger scale.

I'm leaning towards purpose. But if it's nothingness that awaits me when I die, I'm cool with that too because I would never know there is no afterlife! When you speak of another life form, are you referring to life on other planets?

It will be interesting to see what this "GEO600 Gravity Wave Detection experiment" comes up with in time.

Yes it will. And if confirmed, then a strict materialistic view of reality is false.

"It's just amazing what these people are going to do with this world" <-- I meant all these people or anyone who is so sure that their belief is the right cause, but especial Muslims.

I have no problem with someone believing their faith is the right one. What I object to is when they attempt to impose or legislate it onto the general population.

I was born and raised in the middle east till i was at the age of 12. MY dad is a christian minister, and i was a believer at a point in my life you could say.

I'm glad you and your family were able to immigrate out of the Middle East. Because as I understand it, even though you are Arab, you would still be harassed (or worse) as a Christian.

Now as for being forced to learn about Islam this happened in the middle east.

I suspected as much because Europe is too liberal to allow an imposition of a religion on the unwilling.

fuzoid wrote:I have been told many times by my Muslim friends that it means to submit. As in submit to God.

eddie wrote:this is actually incorrect the Arabic word "Islam" comes from an Arabic word "istaslim" which doesn't not have a exact translation in English, but this word came from the days when Islam was on a rampage through the middle east/Europe when they were at war with the crusaders.

Well, since you are Arab and was forced to learn Islam, I will have to take your word for it. But I have to say that I do not believe my Muslim friends intentionally mislead me. I believe they honestly think submit is the correct translation. You would have to talk with them to understand what I'm talking about.

The word "istaslim" was said to anyone christian/atheist/agnostic..... that the Muslim occupied. This gave those people/society a choice. You had the options

1. Becoming a Muslim and you will be left alone
2. Pay a tax/royalty to the occupiers on a regular schedule
3. If you don't accept either 1-2 you were killed instantly on the spot.

I'm actually aware of this. I do know a little about the history of Islam. But nowhere near enough to carry on an intelligent conversation about it.

Now again in Arabic this word comes after a person has been subdued.

Thank you for this bit of information. I plan on bringing this up the next time I have a conversation with my Muslim friends.

subdue <--to bring under control especially by an exertion of the will.

I have an excellent grasp of the English language. So the definition was not necessary. But thank you anyway!

Also my friend I don't want you to take my word. Read an unbiased history of how Islam was spread and you will understand the meaning of the word Islam.

As mentioned, I do know a little of Islam. And just as the Christians had their crusade, so did the Muslims.

I'm an atheist and have been for a longgg time, and I have no bias toward either religions, but the history of Islam I learned back home, and the teachings I heard in my own ears are NOT what these people lay out for people in north America/Europe.

Since I've never been to a mosque, I have no clue what US based Imam's are teaching. I can only tell you what I discuss with my Muslim friends. And they do indeed have a moderate view of Islam. However, I have had a negative experience in a Muslim forum with some obvious radical Muslims. Even one of the moderators was radicalized. I was eventually banned from the forum because I accused the moderator of being a hypocrite. But I also met some other moderates on this forum. One was from India. A very well learned and intelligent individual. But the radicals harassed him as well because he had a different view of Islam. Very Sufi like.

There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim unless he chooses to ignore his BOOK.

While I'm positive you have a much better grasp of the situation, I'm going to hesitantly disagree. I own two copies of the Quran and both of them specifically state the killing of innocents is unacceptable. Especially intentional killing! It also states not to attack unless attacked. So these suicide bombers who indiscriminately kill hoping for martyrdom are actually going against what the Quran teaches! As are the Taliban who are trying to spread their distorted view of Islam through force.

The Quran is no different than the Bible. Yes, it does say to kill the infidel, but in what context? Was it something that pertained to a specific time in history? And just as there are fundamentalist Christians who believe the Bible is the unerring inspired word of God and that all of it is relevant today, there are Muslims who believe the same of the Quran.

I'm not defending Christians and especial the right wing, but I do have to admit at least Jesus did not spread his word with a sward at your neck like Mohammad,

You're correct, Jesus didn't. But his followers did. And many more evil deeds. All in the name of their blood thirsty war mongering god. The Taliban are no different.

and he did not marry a girl that was 3 years of age, and teach that it was legal as long as you "DO NOT HAVE INTERCOURSE TILL SHE HAS HIS MINISTERIAL PERIOD".

While I know young girls were, and still are, being married off to males old enough to be their grandfather, 3 years old is far too young. I don't care how anyone tries to justify it, this is pedophilia.

search the story of the 8 year old girl in Saudi Arabia which her mother is trying to get a divorce. YES 8 years old.

I read this in the news last week.

This might come out to sound like paranoia my friend, and I don't blame you for taking that stance, but I again as you know by now am 100% atheist, and think ALL RELIGIONS are just very SADDDDD.

Well, I'm a 100% God believer and I also think all religions are very sad.

However; from my experience of living through and along side those people I will tell you this in conclusion.
If the Muslim leaders/TEACHERS had the option/means to wipe out the non believers (Christians/Buddhist/Hindu......) they would not hesitate for 1 minute because this is their teaching from their holy book.

While I have no problem believing this of the more radical and hate filled Muslims, I have a hard time believing the same of moderates.

Take care

Thanks! You too!

fuzoid
http://www.live365.com/stations/fuzoid

mindkind wrote:

fuzoid wrote:...I do not believe consciousness can arise from inanimate matter. Because if it did, then this means the universe itself is alive and is seriously schizophrenic!

Much appreciated If you could please go into some more detail on that fuziod thought.

Well, I'm not sure if there is much more detail to go into! If inanimate matter is just that, inanimate, then I do not believe it is possible for consciousness to evolve through it. This would be like rearranging the individual particles of a rock (or coffee cup) so that they were identical to life and expecting some sort of consciousness/awareness to arise out of it. Remember, on the particle level, we are all made from the same stuff. I'm not saying this is not possible, I just believe it is highly unlikely.........unless the universe is ALIVE, that is! And it's quite possible it is if pantheism is the correct view. And if pantheism is the correct view, then the universe has a severe case of multiple personalities. Literally billions! And that's just on this planet!

My thought on this would be consciousness is the resistant force to reality. So a rock per say would not resist being a rock and is thus less conscious (or aware). We as humans per say in our pursuit to challenge reality and shape nature to our will is consciously driven by the very act of resistance. Essentially resistance is the up arrow (evolution) in the Kosmos. When we stop being conscious per say we ado so when we stop in any resistant aspect and naturally move towards the downward arrow called entropy.

This actually makes sense if consciousness is an emergent property of a self aware universe! My only problem with this theory is that it signifies a universe with internal struggles. Meaning it is competing against itself. For example, as you mention above, humans are involved in the act of resistance. Resistance against what? Entropy! And the universe is always moving towards a state of entropy. Although the universe will eventually win this battle, this doesn't stop humans from fighting it every step of the way.

So a marker or measure for consciousness is directly linked then to resistance.

While I understand the point you're making, I have to disagree with it. If the holographic theory is correct for our universe, then this seems to imply that consciousness is at the forefront of what we experience as reality regardless which direction your arrow analogy is pointing. It also seems to imply consciousness will continue on even after our universe has ripped itself apart or collapsed back in on itself. But hey, since no one really knows for sure, one theory is as good as the other!

This is not the same thing as awareness. In awareness one does not need to be in a state of resistance but only an observer of how things are.

Understood.

So can a rock be aware it is a rock or a planet be aware it is in motion?

In a self aware universe, possibly. But not necessarily. To use an analogy, let's say the human body is like the universe. The body itself is the universe in its entirety. However, the body is composed of billions upon billions of living cells which make up our organs, muscles, tissue, blood, etc... As an example, let's say the heart is a planet within your universe. While the heart is alive (on the cellular level), is it aware that it is a heart? Do the individual particles know they are assembled in such a way to create living cells? Do the cells know they are assembled in such a way to create the heart? Personally, I don't believe so. But if pantheism is correct, then it is quite possible.

I hope this response answered your question(s).

fuzoid
http://www.live365.com/stations/fuzoid