"Truth is a foreign concept to the human mind."

[KathyM]

This explains why two scientists looking at the SAME data can draw different conclusions--one in favor of God (like Isaac Newton) the other against God (like 90% of scientists today).

 

 

 

I'm just going to take issue with this one thing you said above. Studies actually show that most scientists believe in God. The study I've linked below shows that belief in God depends on which particular science a person is affiliated with. For people in the field of natural sciences (biology, chemistry, etc.), 38% of those do not believe in God. 62% of natural scientists do believe in God. For people in the social sciences, their rate of belief in God is a bit higher (31% do not believe in God, and 69% do believe in God). I just wanted to put that out there, since your 90% is quite a drastic difference than what this study shows. It's a myth that scientists are not believers. This study shows that the vast majority of them are believers in God.

 

 

Scientists' Belief in God Varies Starkly by Discipline | LiveScience

[TaraMaiden]

By the way in the spiritual world, Jesus Christ and Guatama Buddha are brothers. They are very close! Jesus Christ had also studied early Buddhism and a host of others, so he's not all that foreign to other religions during his missing years.

I'm glad he obviously learnt something.

as Buddhism precedes Christ by over 500 years, little wonder he came under its influence.

 

All religions have the same core: Unconditional Love, unlimited kindness and Boundless Compassion.

[M30USA]

I'm glad he obviously learnt something.

as Buddhism precedes Christ by over 500 years, little wonder he came under its influence.

 

All religions have the same core: Unconditional Love, unlimited kindness and Boundless Compassion.

 

Lol, I think we've gone over this several times. Christ existed with God, and was God, before the beginning of time (see John 1). His physical birth in time-space in Bethlehem was not his beginning. One day our science may come to scratch the surface of how this can be, but for now I take it on faith.

 

As for your second point, if all religions taught the same thing and if we are all following the same path to heaven, then Christ's death was futile and you make him out to be a liar. Is Jesus a liar? Who are we to trust, you or Jesus Christ?

Edited January 25, 2014 by M30USA

[TaraMaiden]

Lol, I think we've gone over this several times. Christ existed with God, and was God, before the beginning of time (see John 1). His birth in time-space in Bethlehem was not his beginning.

as you say, regurgitated bolus.....

 

As for your second point, if all religions taught the same thing and if we are all following the same path to heaven, then Christ's death was futile and you make him out to be a liar. Is Jesus a liar? Who are we to trust, you or Jesus Christ?

 

I didn't say we're all following the same path to heaven - you take whichever path you want. What I said is that All religions have the same core.

Kindly desist from putting words in my mouth and twisting their intention.

 

How you have correlated that with 'Christ's death being futile and he is a liar' I don't know.

Strange thought chains you have going through your head.

Was Christ lying when he taught about Unconditional Love, forgiveness and compassion?

[jba10582]

By Jesus's time there were Buddhist emissaries well within reach of Jesus' learning's especially during his lost years ages 12-29 which could come from sources such as the reclusive Essenes and the Dead Sea Scrolls...and I understand there was a Russian author who in the late 1800's claimed Jesus was in India or Kashmir at the time, (not claiming any validity) on this or not, some people in the Middle ages claim he actually wento Britain at the time (??)...However, while he was 12, he obviously had spent time in the temples having discussions with the religious leaders of the age...and there are many striking similarities in the religious practices and "truths" of other religions which would have been estabished especially after Alexander the great had spread his influence in the world some 300 years prior. And whether he had any contact with them during that time or not appears to be esoteric or even lost knowledge completely.

[TaraMaiden]

Yes....M30USA will tell you that was always God, all along. Nobody else could possibly have had anything to do with it.

 

But that's ok.

That's his truth, as he sees it, and if that's his personal truth as he sees it, we cannot pour him any more tea.

[M30USA]

Yes....M30USA will tell you that was always God, all along. Nobody else could possibly have had anything to do with it.

 

But that's ok.

That's his truth, as he sees it, and if that's his personal truth as he sees it, we cannot pour him any more tea.

 

It's not my truth. It's been in Scripture for 4000 years. And before that, from eternity, there has been the Holy Spirit which leads men to all truth. The Scriptures are the true testimony of men inspired by the Holy Spirit. They are not the technical Word of God. Jesus Christ is the Word of God.

Edited January 25, 2014 by M30USA

[TaraMaiden]

no, let us be precise:

If it was universal truth, everyone would have tested it and would believe it.

Simply because it's scriptural is no reason for anyone to believe it if they don't want to.

And many people don't and many people do.

because such belief is divisible, it is not universal, and therefore, is personal.

It's personal to you, and to anyone who believes it.

 

I do not believe it. And you can call it truth, but it's not my truth, because it cannot be accepted as such by my discernment.

You may firmly believe yourself to be right, and believe me to be wrong.

That is your prerogative.

But Scriptural truth doesn't stand up to scrutiny, or else we'd all believe it as much as you do.

so - it's 'your' truth.

[M30USA]

no, let us be precise:

If it was universal truth, everyone would have tested it and would believe it.

Simply because it's scriptural is no reason for anyone to believe it if they don't want to.

And many people don't and many people do.

because such belief is divisible, it is not universal, and therefore, is personal.

It's personal to you, and to anyone who believes it.

 

I do not believe it. And you can call it truth, but it's not my truth, because it cannot be accepted as such by my discernment.

You may firmly believe yourself to be right, and believe me to be wrong.

That is your prerogative.

But Scriptural truth doesn't stand up to scrutiny, or else we'd all believe it as much as you do.

so - it's 'your' truth.

 

Some people believe the sky is polka-dot pink. You can test it all you want, they're still gonna believe it.

[TaraMaiden]

Exactly.

That's their truth.

And they're welcome to it, if that's what they want to believe. But it's not universal truth.

It's 'theirs'.

[M30USA]

Exactly.

That's their truth.

And they're welcome to it, if that's what they want to believe. But it's not universal truth.

It's 'theirs'.

 

Well I just hope "their truth" stands up to Christ when he returns to earth in righteousness and judgement. I sincerely mean that. It's not gonna be a happy time. I even get sad thinking about it. I'm sure there will be people I love who aren't covered by the blood of Christ.

[TaraMaiden]

I'd be focusing more on your truth and hope it stands up to scrutiny.

As you have learnt by your time on this forum, many dispute your truth and feel you are completely wrong.

Sadly, you have insufficient proof to sway them, so whatever you may think, it's still only 'Your truth' and quite frankly, therefore just as frail as you perceive theirs to be.

 

Obviously you don't see it that way, so utterly convinced are you that you are right, and they are wrong.

 

But your conviction stands on shifting sands, and you believe the foundations to be rock solid.

 

That, for me, is the tragedy I perceive.

 

That there's no room in your cup.

[M30USA]

I'd be focusing more on your truth and hope it stands up to scrutiny.

As you have learnt by your time on this forum, many dispute your truth and feel you are completely wrong.

Sadly, you have insufficient proof to sway them, so whatever you may think, it's still only 'Your truth' and quite frankly, therefore just as frail as you perceive theirs to be.

 

Obviously you don't see it that way, so utterly convinced are you that you are right, and they are wrong.

 

But your conviction stands on shifting sands, and you believe the foundations to be rock solid.

 

That, for me, is the tragedy I perceive.

 

That there's no room in your cup.

 

Actually the reason I believe Scripture and the Holy Spirit is because I have found my own ideas flat-ass wrong so many times. That's precisely why it's not "my truth". It's anything BUT my truth. I don't have any truth of my own.

[KathyM]

The truth is absolute, whether one believes in it or not. Either there is a God or there isn't. Whether some believe in God doesn't make it true, just like whether some don't believe doesn't make it untrue. Eventually, we will find out what is true, and what is not. Until then, we believe what we feel makes the most sense, based on our learning and experiences.

[TaraMaiden]

How can you say 'truth is absolute' and then contradict yourself?!?

 

Truth is NOT absolute.

It is a personal perspective.

Otherwise there would be no 'either/or'....

 

we believe what we feel makes the most sense, based on our learning and experiences.

 

Precisely.

It's 'our' truth, and cannot be said to be either universal OR absolute!

[M30USA]

Truth is NOT absolute.

 

Is that an absolute statement I hear?

[KathyM]

How can you say 'truth is absolute' and then contradict yourself?!?

I didn't contradict myself. I simply said that the truth is absolute. A person's beliefs are not necessarily true. A person forms his beliefs based on his learning and experiences. I may believe that there are sunfish in a certain lake, based on the fact that some fishermen have testified that they caught sunfish in that lake, and based on the fact that I learned/read that there are many sunfish in that lake. Does that make it true because of the testimonies of others, or because I read about the likelihood of there being sunfish in that lake? No. Either there are sunfish in there or not. That truth is an absolute. My belief about it does not make it true or untrue. My belief is my personal perspective based on my learning and experiences. My belief doesn't affect if it is true or not. Either there are sunfish in the lake, or there are not. But I form my beliefs about it based on what I have learned from various sources, and my own experiences and observations.

[TaraMaiden]

Is that an absolute statement I hear?

 

Yup.

And nope.

Can you contradict it?

[Robert Z]

If you want to get technical about it, consider Special and General Relativity. Each observer of an event can measure different values for length, time, mass, and even the order of events, relative to each other, and all be correct. For each frame of reference there exists a unique reality.

 

 

The same may be true at the quantum level. The "Schrodinger's Cat" problem of observer dependence has not be resolved to the point of a consensus. Reality as we think of it may only exist when we look. It may be that all of reality exists in a superposition of eingenstates - the potential for all possible realities exist in tandem. Or, according to quantum cosmologists, reality may be independent of observation, but the observer himself exists in a superposition of eigenstates, where no absolute reality exists, until making an observation. And in the most extreme, there may be parallel universes where all possibly realities play out, all of this in an infinite multiverse of infinite universes.

 

 

So we can say that at the deepest level, absolute truth is in serious doubt.

 

 

Does God exist or not? Wouldn't it be funny if he only exists for those who believe he exists. But it is true that not everything is relative.

Edited January 26, 2014 by Robert Z

[jba10582]

If you want to get technical about it, consider Special and General Relativity. Each observer of an event can measure different values for length, time, mass, and even the order of events, relative to each other, and all be correct. For each frame of reference there exists a unique reality.

 

 

The same may be true at the quantum level. The "Schrodinger's Cat" problem of observer dependence has not be resolved to the point of a consensus. Reality as we think of it may only exist when we look. It may be that all of reality exists in a superposition of eingenstates - the potential for all possible realities exist in tandem. Or, according to quantum cosmologists, reality may be independent of observation, but the observer himself exists in a superposition of eigenstates, where no absolute reality exists, until making an observation. And in the most extreme, there may be parallel universes where all possibly realities play out, all of this in an infinite multiverse of infinite universes.

 

 

So we can say that at the deepest level, absolute truth is in serious doubt.

 

 

Does God exist or not? Wouldn't it be funny if he only exists for those who believe he exists. But it is true that not everything is relative.

 

yeah...life changes, and the infinite is unfathomable...and abstraction of the mathematical mind.

[TheFinalWord]

If you want to get technical about it, consider Special and General Relativity. Each observer of an event can measure different values for length, time, mass, and even the order of events, relative to each other, and all be correct. For each frame of reference there exists a unique reality.

 

 

The same may be true at the quantum level. The "Schrodinger's Cat" problem of observer dependence has not be resolved to the point of a consensus. Reality as we think of it may only exist when we look. It may be that all of reality exists in a superposition of eingenstates - the potential for all possible realities exist in tandem. Or, according to quantum cosmologists, reality may be independent of observation, but the observer himself exists in a superposition of eigenstates, where no absolute reality exists, until making an observation. And in the most extreme, there may be parallel universes where all possibly realities play out, all of this in an infinite multiverse of infinite universes.

 

 

So we can say that at the deepest level, absolute truth is in serious doubt.

 

 

Does God exist or not? Wouldn't it be funny if he only exists for those who believe he exists. But it is true that not everything is relative.

 

in other words...if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it really make a noise?

 

Edited January 26, 2014 by TheFinalWord

[Robert Z]

in other words...if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it really make a noise?

 

In the extreme, that becomes an interesting question. A more moderate view is that the tree does make a sound whether anyone is there or not, due to gravitational interactions at the atomic level.

 

That is very misleading and highly inaccurate. Also, they are talking apples and oranges. When the guest refers to evidence that the universe appears to be designed for life, we are not talking about evolution!!! We are talking about the physical constants. We don't know why the physical constants - Planck's Constant, the gravitational constant, the electromagnetic constant, the speed of light, electron mass, etc = have the values that they do. We don't have a theory that can predict these values. They have to be determine through experimentation and measurements.

 

If these fundamental constants were different than they are, the universe as we know it could not exist. By the laws of physics that we understand, atoms could not form, so there would be no molecules, and life as we know it would not be possible. But we are talking about atoms forming, not evolution.

 

So the question arises, "Did these values happen by chance, or will a complete theory of physics predict their values, or were they somehow forced by the nature of the big bang for reasons that we just don't understand yet?"

 

Parallel universes were not posited in order to explain evolution or the value of the physical constants. The implication that this was invented as a patch is ludicrous. It is in fact a fortuitous result of existing hypotheses that it was realized to be a possible explanation. If an infinite number of universes are constantly emerging from an 11-dimensional hypersurface, then it is inevitable that some universes will emerge where atoms, and molecules, and ultimately, life as we know it, are possible.

 

The notion of parallel worlds has evolved in physics through a number of paths, perhaps the earliest being what was once known as the wave-particle duality paradox. The official Many Worlds Theory was first proposed by a physicist named Hugh Everett, in 1950.

 

The Many Worlds Theory

 

This is from Michio Kaku, who was the coauthor of a landmark paper on String Theory, which also predicts parallel universes but of a different nature perhaps than in the classic Many Worlds Theory

 

The trouble has been that there was no definitive test to help resolve these questions, but there is progress. As for some of the more recent science

 

Scientists say that they have found evidence that our universe was 'jostled' by other parallel universes in the distant past.

 

The incredible claim emerged after they studied patterns in the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) – the after-effects of the Big Bang.

 

They say they may have found evidence that four circular patterns found in the CMB are 'cosmic bruises' where our universe has crashed into other universes at least four times.

Read more: First evidence of other universes that exist alongside our own 'discovered' | Mail Online

This all lies at the heart of the deepest mysteries of science.

Edited January 26, 2014 by Robert Z

[TheFinalWord]

In the extreme, that becomes an interesting question. A more moderate view is that the tree does make a sound whether anyone is there or not, due to gravitational interactions at the atomic level.

 

That is very misleading and highly inaccurate. Also, they are talking apples and oranges. When the guest refers to evidence that the universe appears to be designed for life, we are not talking about evolution!!! We are talking about the physical constants. We don't know why the physical constants - Planck's Constant, the gravitational constant, the electromagnetic constant, the speed of light, electron mass, etc = have the values that they do. We don't have a theory that can predict these values. They have to be determine through experimentation and measurements.

 

If these fundamental constants were different than they are, the universe as we know it could not exist. By the laws of physics that we understand, atoms could not form, so there would be no molecules, and life as we know it would not be possible. But we are talking about atoms forming, not evolution.

 

So the question arises, "Did these values happen by chance, or will a complete theory of physics predict their values, or were they somehow forced by the nature of the big bang for reasons that we just don't understand yet?"

 

Parallel universes were not posited in order to explain evolution or the value of the physical constants. The implication that this was invented as a patch is ludicrous. It is in fact a fortuitous result of existing hypotheses that it was realized to be a possible explanation. If an infinite number of universes are constantly emerging from an 11-dimensional hypersurface, then it is inevitable that some universes will emerge where atoms, and molecules, and ultimately, life as we know it, are possible.

 

The notion of parallel worlds has evolved in physics through a number of paths, perhaps the earliest being what was once known as the wave-particle duality paradox. The official Many Worlds Theory was first proposed by a physicist named Hugh Everett, in 1950.

 

The Many Worlds Theory

 

This is from Michio Kaku, who was the coauthor of a landmark paper on String Theory, which also predicts parallel universes but of a different nature perhaps than in the classic Many Worlds Theory

 

The trouble has been that there was no definitive test to help resolve these questions, but there is progress. As for some of the more recent science

 

 

This all lies at the heart of the deepest mysteries of science.

 

Thanks for watching. What is your opinion of Dr. Ross (astrophysicist) opinion that appeal to multi-verse is a version of the gambler's fallacy? I have watched many of Kaku's shows. I think he is more of a sensationalist and futurist (no offense). BTW, I agree that multiverse wasn't created to "explain away" fine-tuning. I think the show is trying to appeal to a non-scientific audience by in large. Here is an updated article from Ross's website: http://tnrtb.wordpress.com/2013/11/25/multiverse-musings-is-it-testable/

 

"Did these values happen by chance, or will a complete theory of physics predict their values, or were they somehow forced by the nature of the big bang for reasons that we just don't understand yet?"

 

Could any of those reasons be supernatural?

Edited January 26, 2014 by TheFinalWord

[Eggplant]

If you want to get technical about it, consider Special and General Relativity. Each observer of an event can measure different values for length, time, mass, and even the order of events, relative to each other, and all be correct. For each frame of reference there exists a unique reality.

I wouldn't take this physics and try to make any big philosophical extrapolation about Truth with a capital T. The fact that space and time is wrapped up together still just tells you how to calculate and estimate parameters. And in general relativity, what remains definite is when two different people/objects meet, touch, collide, and interact. If an event happens, then all the space and time frames have to line up for it. If 2 events are displaced in time or space, then the order and all that stuff is a matter of where you're sitting, but events, in the theory, an event is accounted for from all perspectives somehow.

[M30USA]

Eggplant gets the award for best username and avatar.