Determinism and hope are good substitutes for karma and faith

I've always been scientifically-minded. What's changed is that I've realized the absurdity of trying to cram Eastern (or Western, for that matter) supernaturalism into a scientific worldview. 

For example, when I was a devotee of an India-based spiritual group, Radha Soami Satsang Beas, I wrote a book for RSSB called "Life is Fair." It set forth a karmic justification for vegetarianism.

Much of the book talked about the positive health effects of being a vegetarian rather than a meat eater. But some of the book discussed karmic theory in which causes and effects carry over from one life to another via reincarnation. 

Discarding that unproven speculative stuff leaves us with determinism.

Causes produce effects, which produce more causes, in an unbroken chain of causes and effects that goes all the way back to the Big Bang some 14 billion years ago. So nothing valuable was lost when I gave up a belief in the supernatural side of karma.

Because I'm left with determinism, the aspect of karmic theory that makes sense. 

Likewise, I used to have faith in God, a guru who was God in human form, soul, spirit, life after death, and journeying through higher supernatural realms of creation. 

I enjoyed believing in these entities, even though there was zero demonstrable evidence that any of them actually existed. I had faith that one day all would be revealed to me through copious meditation, adhering to certain ethical vows enjoined by Radha Soami Satsang Beas, and the grace of the Guru/God.

Now I've come to realize that faith is foolish.

People have faith in all sorts of mutually incompatible things. Christians have faith in God, Muslims in Allah. Members of opposing football teams each have faith that a divinity is on their side. Religious adherents have faith that their own peculiar rituals and theologies will lead to eternal salvation.

I much prefer hope in my current churchless frame of mind.

Hope is faith shorn of supernaturalism. Hope recognizes that almost always in everyday life the future can't be predicted with 100% accuracy. Yes, determinism rules. But often, if not usually, life is so complex some form of chaos theory comes into play, where small causes can have big effects.

Or, known causes can have unknown effects.

Either way, hope springs eternal, as the saying goes. Even when things look really dismal, and no way out seems apparent, there's the possibility of something unexpected happening.

Being found when you're lost in a wilderness. Recovering after a dismal diagnosis. Feeling better even though depression seems like it will be with you forever. Finding a true love after many years of loneliness. 

Hope is realistic. Faith isn't. Just as determinism is, and karmic theory isn't.

Comments

[vinny]

Ocean of vast spirit was present before creation of universe. Only consciousness / spirit existed.
Energy of spirit was highly concentrated. There was absolute force / potential energy due to concentrated spirit currents. Highly concentrated spirit necessitated the existence of depleted center.
As we know , energy exists in dipoles of positive & negative , North Pole - South pole.
This depleted center was created by withdrawal of concentration , this depleted concentration created mind , matter & lower creation. This depleted concentration of lower creation is in contact with higher regions of pure spirit by higher ethical spirit / super ego / moral compass present in lower creation.

Pure spirit attracts depleted spirit [ as North pole attracts South pole ] but due to depletion of
spirit energy , this region of depleted spirit is unable to merge with pure spirit.

This region of pure spirit is called " Anami Purush " by Soamiji.
Spirit energy is called " Unified field of consciousness "by scientists . This energy is powering the movement of electrons & sub-atomic particles. No- Atheist wants that this knowledge should be made public. It would bust the doctrine of atheism.

[Goku]

Wrong choice of words, Brian. People have beliefs, not faith. Faith is a trust that isn't cultivated.

http://www.osho.com/iosho/library/read-book/online-library-cogito-ergo-sum-descartes-thinking-4bc89baa-658?p=2052225ad3a41641d5186ad83e793152

Read this short page.

Also, hope is positive thinking. And that's just useless. Why not just drop the mental noise?

[vinny]

Agam purush , region of decreased spirituality was below Anami purush / Pure spirit.
Now the object of pure spirit is to help the region of depleted spirit regain its purity & merge
in supreme spirit. Two poles Pure Spirit / Christ consciousness & depleted region human / carnal
consciousness are connected by Sound current as North pole & South pole of magnet are
connected by magnetic flux.
This Sound current is called Holy Ghost by Christian Saints , as it connects the Father / Pure Spirit
& Son / Human- carnal consciousness. It is his mauj / divine will that carnal consciousness
should evolve to pure spirit by using Holy Ghost / Sound current.

[Spencer Tepper]

Brian, you wrote so beautifully

"Being found when you're lost in a wilderness. Recovering after a dismal diagnosis. Feeling better even though depression seems like it will be with you forever. Finding a true love after many years of loneliness."

This is my religion. You have stated it perfectly in this passage.

We need no interpretation of these things. They are miraculous in the subjective sense of wonderful, as if creation were giving us a break from ourselves. The objective reality actually doesn't matter. It can never be more than just another, albeit more objective, explanation.

The sense that we are part of something greater than ourselves, something within ourselves, connected to a greater love, in the presence of God, that loves us, that makes being here, against all odds, OK. And the greater wonder that having such an impression of oneness with a benevolent love, is not actually defensible in objective terms. It's just part of the construction of the human being. That is miraculous.

[777]

-

But Brian, why your belief system is :

0*1=1

Isn't that more foolish than all other concepts
It makes even toodlers laugh out loudly

777

[Dungeness]

Hope is faith shorn of supernaturalism. Hope recognizes that almost
always in everyday life the future can't be predicted with 100% accuracy.
Yes, determinism rules. But often, if not usually, life is so complex
some form of chaos theory comes into play, where small causes can have
big effects.

Being found when you're lost in a wilderness. Recovering after a dismal
diagnosis. Feeling better even though depression seems like it will be
with you forever. Finding a true love after many years of loneliness.
Hope is realistic. Faith isn't.

I'd agree that blind faith without some evidence is unsustainable but a hope that
relies on chaos theory or probability quickly devolves to the same dead end. With
only the bleak landscape of dire odds, no matter how rational or brave we think we are, how committed to hope and to infinitesimal chances, magical thinking will step in when we're at the end of our rope. We'll pray for help... from someone... or some power. We may anonymize it to remove any religious trappings but it will still be there. There are no "atheists" in the foxholes.

In the meantime, we'll ignore the voice that warns us not to keep on following the same course: wasting our opportunities, going overboard in a thousand different ways, living in denial about our transient, fragile existence. Instead, we'll gladly chase a new miracle therapy, fantasize about windfalls, or plunge into escapist activities to
forget about it all. Until we're reminded by a brush with bad health, financial disaster, old age, seeing death up close...

In truth, none of us really want to hear the odds. Insanely, we go on doing the same things hoping for a different outcome. We live a lie and tell ourselves a vacation or a shiny new toy will pull us out of a funk. Of course, we'll always talk about the odds, try to have hope, but, after a few minutes, we'll go right on looking for yet another
distraction. Shuffle along day after day. Put on the blinders.

On the other hand, faith may be validating and affirmative in ways hope -at least reliance on chance or inchoate theory- likely will never be. I like to think of the Pentecostals mentioned in an earlier thread. Their faith is no longer "blind". It becomes a way to look into our selves and channel our inner strength rather than roll the dice outside.

* To de-sermonize, just substitute "I" for "we" above which is what I intended.

[Turan]

Here's a few definitions I've come across on faith, trust and hope:-

'Faith is something we have and doesn't recognise uncertainty.'

'Trust is a verb, it is something we do.'

'Hope sees the uncertainty of things but has a go anyway' – or as Brian says, “Hope is realistic”.

I feel happier about trust and hope. With trust I can go along with the issue I am putting my trust in and hope that it turns out the way I envisage. The only thing I have faith (certainty) in, is that which I call 'me' will someday die.

Not to sure about determinism. It comes down to the issue of free will. I don't see that we have free will in the sense that I am totally free to choose, to determine my behaviour. Free will feels to me to be decisions I make based on my particular upbringing, from where I was born and brought up, the influences of family, religion, cultural rules and a million other conditioning factors. In that respect my choices are extremely limited.

[777]

DUNGENESS wrote :

"" On the other hand, faith may be validating and affirmative in ways hope -at least reliance on chance or inchoate theory- likely will never be. I like to think of the Pentecostals mentioned in an earlier thread. Their faith is no longer "blind". It becomes a way to look into our selves and channel our inner strength rather than roll the dice outside. ""

This is a good analysis

Pentecostals Like dancing dervishes
energize their 3 & 4 chakra

like voodoo energizes the lower
normally used for procreation, sex and pleasures

like in many "religions" -hesitating using the word because religare means reconnect- groups they activate the 4th Chakra with always neigbouring chakras joining

It explains how it makes sense to energize the higher ones and
take the associated pleasure ( hormones & spiritual )

I will avoid preaching and this time not elaborate
on the Highest Chakras - see my other comments

Everybody knows about prana and the 5th chakra
and acquiring the 6 siddhis if you desire
an ego-risk-operation

ALL THIS TOGETHER IS WHAT WE ARE
a tiny&giant melting pot

and where the benefits &disadvantages come in the open
specially when the molecules around the chakras vanish

We go where we were

777

better Love a lot at high places
practice some proven methods

-

[777]

No practice is good or bad

Everybody should do whats parallel ly associated
with his quest, his hopes,

Nobody forces us to escape from chaurasi

One Law only : DO NO HARM !

Don't steal a smile, an apple, a man/wife, a car, a planet, a Galaxy

There is no punishment but you must give it back
and the quarks are re-aligning to make that possible

777

[Appreciative Reader]

Brian, that "determinism" in your title set me off again. (You know how I find myself unable to wrap my head arbound this determinism business. We've exchanged notes more than once on this.)

I went back and went through your old posts on free will one more time. And, frankly, emerged no wiser from the exercise. But still, I did end up with some thoughts about this, a 'solution', if you will, for what to me was the mystery of this whole free will business.

We have two possibilites. The first is, that a wholly materialist worldview is the 'correct' one. (And this is the one I accept as the default assumption.) The second possibility is that there's a world beyond this world, a world which, no matter what its details, is 'beyond' this world of matter. (And a "seeking" for this option is what you may say is my hobby. Nevertheless, pending evidence for the latter, the former remains my default assumption.)

Now if you operate within the materialist paradigm, then it goes without saying that any and every thing is caused by stuff within this paradigm. I mean, that's obvious, in fact it's tautological. And yes, given some all-encomapassing knowledge about all causes (the linkages, as well as the values of the myriad functions), it's again tautological that all effects can be determined. That's determinism for you. And yes, that applies to each and every thing, and "each and every thing" includes our free will. Therefore, as you say, within the materialist paradigm (which is the default paradigm), there is, as you say, no free will, and determinism reigns.

I've gone through most of your writings on this, one more time now this new year, both on your blog and in our email exchanges, and I guess I agree with you. I mean, how could I not? Like I said, it's tautological, following directly from materialism.

As I asked myself for the umpteenth time what the big deal is about this trivial observation, the penny dropped. Or so I believe, and I'm writing this comment to cross-check this with you.

For someone who's spent a large portion of their life believing strongly in a religious framework, this term, "free will", become very important to explain a number of things. This would apply to all religions, be it Christianity, or Islam, or your own RSSB faith.

Now, coming from that background, one might actually be dazzled by the realization that there is, in fact, no free will at all, and that determinism rules. I mean it's obvious, but to one for whom exactly the opposite had been obvious over a long period, this relevation might appear very important, even earth-shakingly important.

Perhaps that might explain why you place so much importance to this determinism business? Not just you, I've read enough to realize that many people have spent a great deal of time and effort sussing this out. I suppose a background of implicit belief in free will (beyond materialistic bounds) in times past, that is what fuels interest in this subject?

Otherwise, like I said, meh, it's all tautological, obvious, even mundane?

...

P.S. A very happy 2018 to you, and to all other readers of your blog!

[777]

A R
And a "seeking" for this option is what you may say is my hobby.

Since new NSA quantum computers, holodeck matrixes are coming close
See the movie : Inception

With our so low IQ , isn't it plausible
that a 7 figures IQ does all this already
in rs terms Kal a proctor/administrator

It can only be hacked via LOVE
nothing & nothing else

Let s admire the architect of all this
which is at the end of time OUR SOUL

777

[Appreciative Reader]

Hello, 777.

Yup, I too absolutely LOVED that movie, Inception. Have watched it as many as five times, I’m not ashamed to admit. (Twice in the weekend when it was released -- I had to watch it twice to be fully clear about the details of the plot, the first viewing had left me vastly entertained but somewhat mystified about some parts of it.

Although -- to build on your comment -- even if we assume, hypothetically, that such a thing were possible IRL, that is emphatically not the kind of “seeking” I was referring to in my comment that you quote. The dream world(s) would be SUB-world(s), one level (or more) LOWER than the reality of our world. (Sorry, that sentence came out sounding somewhat garbled, but I hope you can follow my meaning.) Such sub-world(s), even if they turned out to be accessible IRL, would be no more than entertainment. Or, at the very maximum, additional elements of our own reality (in as much as they might throw greater light on our subconscious, which -- our subconscious, I mean -- is indeed very much part of our reality).

What I’m referring to are levels of reality BEYOND our mundane reality. SUPER-worlds (as opposed to sub-worlds), in relation with which our own world, our own mundane reality itself might be seen as sub-worlds, dream worlds even.

Which is, of course, exactly the sort of thing religions posit. Exactly the sort of thing your own RSSB faith posits.

You, and a good many others here, do indeed seem to have found your own personal subjective validation for such super-reality. I wouldn’t doubt your personal honesty when you talk of your experiences on here, but a second-hand validation can be little more than entertaining anecdote (or, at the most, a source of inspiration) for me. We must, each one of us, seek our own personal validation ourselves. (And that’s just fine. I mean, the process is rather fun too, as far as I am concerned!)

.

.

Re. the Advaitic-ish portion of your comment (“Let s admire the architect of all this … which is at the end of time OUR SOUL”), may I sit down with you for a while, and share with you a personal anecdote, and generally just ramble on a bit? For a slightly different take on that Inception theme that you introduced?

I was visiting with a very dear friend of mine this New Year, an elderly gentleman whose health is beginning to fail. He is quite learned (in a folksy and rather religious sense), of a decidedly Advaitic persuasion (a bona fide Jnana Yogi, and something of a Guru to a number of people, as a matter of fact, although he is liberal enough to never grudge me the pinch of salt I always carry with me, and nor does he ever attempt to convert me to his pet ideology) : so anyway, he was, he said, rather looking forward to “merging back with the ocean” as he called it.

But wouldn’t the ocean be something of a dick, I asked him, to subject the waves to so much pointless strife and suffering (along with a great deal of pleasure and happiness), if the whole point of this whole convoluted exercise is to simply merge back into the ocean again? (Which, I realize, is no real ‘argument’ at all, since the Ultimate Reality is under no obligation to me to conform to my standards of non-dickishness. But then we weren’t arguing, just generally talking.) This gentle old man, with all of his vast stock of lore and folksy wisdom, did not really have an answer, and I hadn’t the heart to badger him further on this point.

But your comment, directly following your reference to the movie Inception, set me thinking : If like the protagonist of Inception, I had with me the means of extending my life -- or at least, of extending my perception living -- indefinitely (by living entire dream lifetimes in the span of a few real hours, again and again and again), would I then go ahead and do it? Forget about “indefinitely”, would I do it even a few times, even once? Knowing fully well that such dream lifetime(s) would probably contain a great deal of suffering (along with a great deal of pleasure and happiness as well) for my dream self/selves? In moral terms, in ethical terms, wouldn’t I be in the same exact same position of the Ocean my elderly friend referred to? If I elected to do this, either for sheer entertainment or, like the protagonist of Inception, for some purely utilitarian end, wouldn’t I then be just as “dickish” (or would that be more masochism than dickishness?), in as much I would be subjecting a part of me (my dream self) to a great deal of suffering (albeit no doubt a great deal of pleasure and happiness too)?

I have no immediate answer. And that is precisely what is interesting to me. Given that I don’t self-describe as a ruthless dick, that open-endedness, that sense of “Gee, I don’t know, I wonder what what I’d do, let me think it through” that I seem to end up with, that is what seems fascinating to me. I don’t know what I’d actually end up doing if such a choice actually presented itself to me, but apparently I would at least consider, I would at least think about (as opposed to immediately dismissing out of hand), the possibility of extended fun and games for my dream self/selves, even at the cost of some strife to said dream self/selves.

.

Sorry, that was somewhat rambling -- I did warn you about that at the outset! :-) -- but perhaps you can empathize with the thought? In any case, even if you don’t actually empathize, I though you might perhaps enjoy listening to this perspective, food for thought and all that.

[D.r]

Hope is a type of faith.

Do you believe in limited free will or do you believe that absolutely everything is determined? It seems you can't make up your mind because you refer to chaos theory, but you like to stick fanatically and dogmatically to the belief in determinism.

The plain and common sense view to me seems to be that we have limited free will. we can make choices, even if those choices are few between things.

On the subject of the Big Bang, how is your view that this is determinism any different to the view that God will predestined people to heaven and others to hell? I'm not bringing up any hypotheticals involving evidence or non-evidence for God or the unseen. It's just a simple question that uses an analogy.

I don't have time to trawl through all your past posts on your views of determinism and free will. But please state what you believe here.

Surely you must know that if causes produce effects and ultimately everything is caused by a big bang, this doesn't mean that science can predict absolutely everything that will happen in the future? Science doesn't even claim such an absolute stance. Yet theorists of science make wild absolutist speculations all the time. It's just dogma in another form.

[777]

Yes A R Yes

In the Matrix movies we find also some
of that sub-sub-entity work out

and thoughts / imaginations about the eventual consequenses around what happens
here with us are so fascinating.

Yes it is not always SUB
It happens all at the same time
Actually our attention is in the body and not much in the other 95% of
( thoughts go to black energy-matter I think the 5% is black
they better say 95% radiantenergy and Brilliant Matter )

If you, . . through the whole sequence of what actually happens to us, . . combine with the very high force of Love, It becomes even more interesting.

Now we can see by Solipsism ( Solopism) the reason , the Goal of
al these molecules bouncing in and around us

I tried to make it clear more clear, 5 times now by asking Brian and let's do it again :

If you were an All Powerful, all Knowing, Eternal, All Loving, Phenomenon Entity,
what would you like to receive for your Birthday ( :-) )
He never answered and that is because
there can not be any other answer than LOVE, More LOVE , Tons of it !

Not IQ
In All other universes our high IQ would be moronic

Creating such a scheme, One possibility is around YOU as a center
From your entity which must be VIBRATION c q SOUND
you make local LIGHT and slow frequency particles of yourself
but you don't give knowledge
Only enough to take some soup.
Amnesia implies

In your Wisdom You know already that ALL these JEEVAS cannot do otherwise than to develop Love, be transformed in Love
Some Jeevas (Soul+ego) in a nano second, others in macro ages measured with big bangs

Isn't that a good way to let Love grow for ever

Seeing , knowing that this really works
You do it many many times: creations of Light/quantums
creations of superquadruples ( totally new concept )
and next you take rest
assuring that administators, proctors, kals, do the work for you
cause You are to busy to receive all these incoming love-blockchains
Saints, other stuff

This corresponds perfectly with my idea I had as a child
"what must heaven be a dull boring plce"

It is NOT
It's THE place to be : bruising with all types of Love , full of individualities
without gross and nastyness & ego but dynamic evolved refined Souls

Many will have quitted reading by now
but I must add:

As a half century rssb practitioner , i said many times : not a good one even ,
as hoped for,
I am so happy that the outcome during the years was so much better than expected
so many aspects can be found back as described in Inception, in 'holy' books
in un-holy books, in good and bad Sc-Fi
in ufo logy; in NDE

Nobody forces us to exit chaurasi, - like Tucson said
Let's enjoy to the maximum, . . no risks -, do no harm
don't steal , be prudent karma wise

but preparing exiting this low grade environment is wiser

Pity that so little is told about the really fascinating happenings
including the above_eyes orgasmic aspect
Mystics do and did a little
but are prudent , not to be killed
or other ramifications like th use of Butt and 69 here demonstrated

And not negligible :; DEATH DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE
by entering the SOUND STREAM
pretty long before we die
We just need a good Adobe Gurus FlashPlayer to do that

Everything makes sense

Sorry for making you read between my words
When english is your 4th language you speak , it's a must

777

[777]

Nobody forces us to exit chaurasi, - like Tucson said

I have to correct this somewhat

It's the home-sickness of the Soul , forcing the mind
This is difficult >
When You have it , you must go - no escape from exalting subjective happiness

777

[D.r]

777, Your posts make no sense whatsoever. If you are trying to type English and you can't do it properly, you need to learn and study how to speak and write English first.

[Jen]

777, I've been trying to decipher what you are saying and I agree with quite a lot...

"If you, . . through the whole sequence of what actually happens to us, . . combine with the very high force of Love, It becomes even more interesting."

"One possibility is around YOU as a center
From your entity which must be VIBRATION c q SOUND
you make local LIGHT"

"In your Wisdom You know already that ALL these JEEVAS cannot do otherwise than to develop Love, be transformed in Love"

"DEATH DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE
by entering the SOUND STREAM"

"It can only be hacked via LOVE nothing & nothing else
Let s admire the architect of all this which is at the end of time OUR SOUL"

I do find the "Love" word annoying because it has so many different meanings. So, I looked up and read about Love trying to understand this and how to feel love. Obviously I do love my children, nature, animals and birds etc but when it comes to the way I feel about this world and people its usually.. meh.

So, being very honest with myself now...

Rumi quotes:

"Your task is not to seek for love, but merely to seek and find all the barriers within yourself that you have built against it.”

“This is love: to fly toward a secret sky, to cause a hundred veils to fall each moment. First to let go of life. Finally, to take a step without feet.”

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi Jen

" Oh, now you got me going... Here's another one:
love is the every only god

who spoke this earth so glad and big
even a thing all small and sad
man may his mighty briefness dig

for love beginning means return
seas who could sing so deep and strong

on queerying wave will whitely yearn
from each last shore and come home young

so truly perfectly the skys
by merciful love whispered were,
completes its brightness with your eyes

any illimitable star. "
- e. e. Cummings

[Spencer Tepper]

Jen
Sail the singing sea.

[Spencer Tepper]

Another of my favorite Cummings on love

"may my heart always be open to little
birds who are the secrets of living
whatever they sing is better than to know
and if men should not hear them men are old

may my mind stroll about hungry
and fearless and thirsty and supple
and even if it's sunday may i be wrong
for whenever men are right they are not young

and may myself do nothing usefully
and love yourself so more than truly
there's never been quite such a fool who could fail
pulling all the sky over him with one smile
- e. e. Cummings

[Jen]

Yes, Spencer, beautiful poetry and music... :)

[777]

Thank You so much
&
Love You D.r |
777

Songs
The Look of Love
Love is in the air
Isn't She Lovely
Love, Love, Love
Sweet Love
Google Love
Yet nobody knows, . . . so many tears

[Jim Sutherland]

777 writes,...”Love, Love, Love”......

Me: We are told in the Bible that God is Spirit, and we must worship ( work for ) Him in spirit and in Truth.

Plus we are told that no man has ever seen God at any time.

The Bible also says that God breathed in to man the “Breath of Life” , and man BECAME a living soul.”

So it appears that no soul was living until God breathed the Breath of Life in to it.

Therefore, that Breather must have been the CREATOR of souls, right?

Gnostics know that only SPIRIT is Eternal, so why would Spirit love some thing that is always impermanent?

I think Anami Purush, the Sant Mat Deity, i.e. RADHASOMI hates Creation, rather than loves it.

Why? Sant Mat teaches that soul has spirit , bound in physical bodies , bound to creation or Charauisi , by Reincarnation or Trasmigration.

When the physical body dies, it takes the knotted soul/spirit to the Astral or Causal Planes, where the soul continues to be punished or rewarded, depending on karmas created while in a human body.

So why do you believe Eternal SPIRIT loves Creation or any thing in it created by the lower rebelleous god, with many pseudo names such as Brahman, Jehovah, Satan, , etc. etc.?

I think Anami Purush HATES all of Creation, and the Deceiver Creator!

😰

Jim

[Jen]

Jim, interesting - the Deceiver Creator...

The ultimate mystery, who or what created this universe. Will we ever know who we are and make sense of anything. What about Science? Found this from...

https://www.closertotruth.com/series/what-can-science-say-about-god

"Most scientists believe that science can say nothing about God other than to show there is no need for such a being. Scientists claim that science is quite capable of providing most explanations today and virtually all explanations in the future.
Others say that the breathtaking visions of science are the perfect expressions of a Creator God".

Maybe we are living in a kind of Matrix. I remind myself to live an interesting life and do unexpected things so that the simulators don't shut me down lol

I do at times feel like I've been through this all before, very creepy! Just stuck in a kind of computer game.

[777]

No Jim

without that deceiver we were all lost
in our hypocrisy

lost is not possible for a God particle as we are
but a long nasty time waiting is not advisable

Charan said : If such a planet would not exist,
it should be invented speedily

Héé my corrector sais it s really an english word - wow speedily

777

[D.r]

Jen, your age is showing because I believe that when people get older they have done the rounds of life so much everything seems to begin to be and look the same. A strange kind of deja vu sets in, which is probably actually the beginning of memory issues.

Nobody in their right mind actually seriously believes that humans are a simulation from a giant computer before the big bang made by an incompetent deity that isn't GOD. That leads to an infinite regress of gods and universes and causation becomes untenable. Yet, creation is evident in the universe through demonstrable science. All living creatures will die, the big bang shows a finite past or creation moment, collective universal energy runs out, things come into being and come to an end. The most logical conclusion to reach is not some infinity or eternal god and universe but that there is only one God and creator. Most people trip up there, literally, and don't seem to understand that God is infinite and the universe is not. They are still stuck in infinite regress mentality and thought, so they ask "who created God?" Yet this is no different to asking, "Who created the cause of everything that exists?" It is a completely circular self imploding contradictory and oxymoron-ic question that is devoid of logic. It makes an infinity of more sense to simply just postulate a cause, since that is what the data of science in biology and cosmology, shows.

[Brian Hines]

D.r, actually science doesn't posit a cause of everything. Infinity is a concept science is comfortable with. Obviously something must always have existed in order for everything to exist. That something is the cosmos, no need for God. If God created the universe, we have to ask, what created God? This introduces an extra unnecessary step of causation. A simpler explanation is that the cosmos always has existed.

[D.r]

Brian, your premise is based on the totally erroneous concept that the Big Bang never happened. This goes against all science as it is known today and continues to be known.

You are obviously defeated by my intellect here, because you contradicted yourself stating that a cause happens within the universe and not outside of it. You said science (what science?) posits that the universe is eternal or statically eternal, made from nothing yet always existed.

This isn't semantics, this is literally the way you think.

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi Brian

You wrote

"A simpler explanation is that the cosmos always has existed."

There is no scientific evidence of the above. It's just a convenient way to say "we can't explain any more than this."

But there are conjectures about the nature of matter before the big bang. It's just difficult to place any argument on the absence of an empirical base.

Even the big bang is problematic. The universe is not expanding in a nice linear way, so to trace it all back to a single point is hopelessly simplistic though very roughly correct.

[D.r]

Spencer, the influence of the new atheism has expanded your brain into a cheese board of nonsense. You believe in God and yet cater to atheists like Brian, making your words on his blog into a kind of game or nonsense endeavour. He will not listen to your quasi religious bullshit any more than you will take his atheist bullshit seriously.

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi D. r.
You wrote
"Spencer, the influence of the new atheism has expanded your brain into a cheese board of nonsense. You believe in God and yet cater to atheists like Brian, making your words on his blog into a kind of game or nonsense endeavour."

Having lived in Wisconsin for twenty years I'm proud to claim that I'm a cheese head.

Your comments strike me as words from God to confirm this is so.

The only question is, would you like water biscuits and tea with your Swiss colony aged cheddar?

[Jen]

Hi D.r - are you tAo back again?

[Karim W. Rahmaan]

Originally posted by D.r:

777, Your posts make no sense whatsoever. If you are trying to type English and you can't do it properly, you need to learn and study how to speak and write English first.

Originally posted by D.r:

Spencer, the influence of the new atheism has expanded your brain into a cheese board of nonsense. You believe in God and yet cater to atheists like Brian, making your words on his blog into a kind of game or nonsense endeavour. He will not listen to your quasi religious bullshit any more than you will take his atheist bullshit seriously.

With all due respect. Religion is not what RSSB essentially teaches. Mysticism is at the core of what they teach.

(Not trying to convert, hawk, or preach but there is a difference between the two)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mysticism

[Brian Hines]

D.r., correction: I said the cosmos has always existed, not the universe. The cosmos is everything in existence. The universe is our corner of the cosmos. It may be the only universe, or there could be a multiverse of universes. We do know that the universe is more extensive than what we can observe, because space can expand faster than light, which is happening.