Write4U:

You may be the best proof of a Supernatural. You see arguments in my response I failed to find. Now you know my humor is no better than my debate.

You asked why assume a supernatural. If I assume no supernatural, is there no creation of time? If no creation of time, must I also assume no beginning of time. Is there always a prior time span before the “beginning of time?”

You mentioned God’s punishment and no pleasing God. Generally, no argument from me. Going off topic, the more fun discussion would be on who God punishes instead of if God punishes. You are welcome to ignore this off topic comment.

student

student - 05 July 2012 07:55 PM

Write4U:

You may be the best proof of a Supernatural. You see arguments in my response I failed to find. Now you know my humor is no better than my debate.

You asked why assume a supernatural. If I assume no supernatural, is there no creation of time? If no creation of time, must I also assume no beginning of time. Is there always a prior time span before the “beginning of time?”

You mentioned God’s punishment and no pleasing God. Generally, no argument from me. Going off topic, the more fun discussion would be on who God punishes instead of if God punishes. You are welcome to ignore this off topic comment.

student

I assure you I am natural…

What does creation of time have to do with the supernatural? Why not natural?
What is time?  As far as i understand it time is a measurement of spatial order. If before the beginning there was no space, time is a meaningless term. But with the beginning of space, time becomes a necessary component. As they say “space keeps events apart, time keeps them from happening all at once” and that is why it is now known as “spacetime”.

My vision of the Beginning is a single instant of almost infinite potential (the Implicate) which has no spatial dimensions, becoming reality (the Explicate), through a single mega quantum event, at which space was created and time began.

IMO, before the Beginning there was no measurable time but only potential.

Below is a summation of David Bohm’s (prominent physicist) work. I find it very interesting and seems to confirm my own intuitive concept of the “nature” of god.

The Explicate Order, weakest of all energy systems, resonates out of and is an expression of an infinitely more powerful order of energy called the Implicate order. It is the precursor of the Explicate, the dreamlike vision or the ideal presentation of that which is to become manifest as a physical object. The Implicate order implies within it all physical universes. However, it resonates from an energy field which is yet greater, the realm of pure potential. It is pure potential because nothing is implied within it; implications form in the implicate order and then express themselves in the explicate order. Bohm goes on to postulate a final state of infinite [zero point] energy which he calls the realm of insight intelligence. The creative process springs from this realm. Energy is generated there, gathers its pure potential, and implies within its eventual expression as the explicate order.’
Will Keepin, David Bohm, Noetic Science Journal

http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/david_bohm.htm#HOLOMOVEMENT

As I posited before, if there is a force it does not reward, nor does it punish. It is a mindless (but orderly) function. Bohm calls it the “realm of insight intelligence”, but I doubt if he had a biblical god in mind. Whatever we think is of no consequence, however what we do has an impact on the potential inherent in all physical things, be it constructive or destructive, i.e. dynamic change.

You may be the best proof of a Supernatural.

There is no such thing. If it exists at all….doesn’t matter what it is…then it’s a part of nature.

Write4U:

You listed infinite [zero point] energy, Implicate order, and Explicate order. If going back in time, is this list correct starting with Explicate order (presently) and ending with infinite energy?

student

student - 06 July 2012 08:14 AM

Write4U:

You listed infinite [zero point] energy, Implicate order, and Explicate order. If going back in time, is this list correct starting with Explicate order (presently) and ending with infinite energy?

student

No, according to Bohm it starts with the Implicate (non real).

Thus the question becomes if god is real (explicate) or unreal (implicate). In any case it would not be supernatural.

We are constructed by the universe in such a way that we percieve what we percieve.  Our scientists and technicians have expanded the boundaries of what we can percieve (and guess at), but we have no way of knowing what lies beyond that, nor just how limited our perceptual boundaries are in relation to all that is.

So I am agnostic.  Sure there is no God of Abraham, or Mohammed or Santa Claus, etc., but what is there?  Who can say?

Speaking of purpose and meaning in life.
Below is a link to the life of Hypatia. She lived around late 4th century She was a remarkable woman of her time and may have been the first mathematician/astronomer to propose the “elliptical” orbits of planets.
Of course she was killed as a witch by Cyril a warrior priest and his “holy army” who later was canonized by the church. What bitter irony.
http://www.womanastronomer.com/hypatia.htm

Write4U :

You mentioned Hypatia. Does Hypatia answer the blog’s title question?

student

student - 07 July 2012 08:24 PM

Write4U :

You mentioned Hypatia. Does Hypatia answer the blog’s title question?

student

Yes, it clearly contradicts any notion that the biblical god created humanity. On the contrary, the link refers to someone who tried to enlighten mankind, but was killed as a witch and ended scientific inquiry into the mysteries of the universe, earth, and philosophy.
The death of Hypatia was the beginning of a thousand years of the Dark Ages, when the church ruled without merci or compassion and certainly not with respect for any divinity of man. The contrary is true. What would the purpose be to give man a brain and then forbid him to use it.

I have already stated my position on what I believe to be the causality of the universe(s).

Originally, Maswah asked why god created earth and people. Maswah admitted being agnostic to god. Maswah asked WHY god created, not IF god created or even exists.

Dom1978’s June 13 suggestion does avoid the contradiction of a god that wants his needs fulfilled and a god that is all powerful. Dom1978 suggested that the most logical answer would be that god wanted to love people.

Without answering if god created or even exist, is Dom1978’s suggestions viable?

If I have paraphrased incorrectly, please feel free to point out.

student

student - 08 July 2012 05:42 AM

Originally, Maswah asked why god created earth and people. Maswah admitted being agnostic to god. Maswah asked WHY god created, not IF god created or even exists.

Dom1978’s June 13 suggestion does avoid the contradiction of a god that wants his needs fulfilled and a god that is all powerful. Dom1978 suggested that the most logical answer would be that god wanted to love people.

Without answering if god created or even exist, is Dom1978’s suggestions viable?

If I have paraphrased incorrectly, please feel free to point out.

student

No. The why cannot be answered logically until the properties of god are known. Dom answered the question hypothetically with the assumption that god is intelligent AND has human qualities.
a) If god is not consciously intelligent, then god is not capable of love or hate and would not require adoration.
b) If god is consciously intelligent but supernatural, then god would not be capable of human emotions OR, if he did, he would have had to program them into humans and we end up with a computer game. It’s easy to create a program that adores the programmer. But in that case, there must be a glitch somewhere, similar to HAL in the movie. So far man has not been able to come to agreement of HOW to adore god, because we do not know what god requires. And we are back to the properties of god.

Write4U:

You are right. We are back to the properties of god. What properties can we start with? On the reverse side of the coin, what properties can we eliminate?

student

student - 08 July 2012 08:51 PM

Write4U:

You are right. We are back to the properties of god. What properties can we start with? On the reverse side of the coin, what properties can we eliminate?

student

IMO,
a) God cannot exist as the Explicate, the state of Reality, because then it would have to have been preceded by the Implicate (potential).
b) God is the name we have given to the implicate state of pure Potential. This does bring up a host of other questions if the implicate can be influenced in any way, but almost certainly none of them would include mere thought or prayer and most certainly would not require worship. However I do believe that some of the implicate can be made explicate by our actions and deeds.

one example of the implicate which humans can make explicate:
E=Mc^2 is a perfect definition of one universal implicate. The recognition of enormous power potential implicit in the structure of the atom. However this implicit power (potential) is morally neutral. Humans have used this implicit power to become explicate in nuclear energy, which in turn has the morally neutral potential (implicate) to be used (made explicate) constructively or destructively.

Write4U:

You said god cannot exist . . . because then [god’s existence] would have to have been preceded by the Implicate (potential). Are you saying god cannot really exist because god’s existence was not proceeded by god’s potential?

No doubt energy and nuclear power are tools people have used for both good and bad. At the risk of running off topic, Iran and the international community come to mind.

Would you say the god is a tool (like energy or nuclear) the people use for (depending on view points) good and bad?

student

student - 09 July 2012 07:56 AM

Write4U:

You said god cannot exist . . . because then [god’s existence] would have to have been preceded by the Implicate (potential). Are you saying god cannot really exist because god’s existence was not proceeded by god’s potential?

I am saying that everything that existed, exists, or will exist was, is, and will be preceded by potential (implicate). Thus, if god exists as an entity, it would not be the First Causality.
In fact the thread question begins with the end of history (the presennt), not with the beginning. The only question that can be legitimately asked is if god is the creator of the universe and existed before the BB. Everything that has come after the BB has been almost completely explained by science.
Thus we end up with the question if God = Potential.  If so then the word God becomes moot as the word Potential is a clearly defined property and accepted in science, philosophy and everyday life, without the vague personal interpretations of God and the bells and whistles attached to scripture and organized religion. 

No doubt energy and nuclear power are tools people have used for both good and bad. At the risk of running off topic, Iran and the international community come to mind.

Would you say the god is a tool (like energy or nuclear) the people use for (depending on view points) good and bad?

student

Clearly god as a spiritual concept is a personal tool for some and yes, because of the exclusive nature of scripture and religion, it has been used for bad. The problem lies in the assumption that My God gives Me permission to do bad if You do not believe in My God. Witness Hypatia and a million other examples.

Ironically the phrase “only through Me” can be attached to the common concept of Potential (it is the single common denominator of everything), but not to the concept of god (there are just too many).