Cern Debate:

Almost correct, any real GOD would not be natural.

If something is 'real' it is natural. just because it's beyond your ability to understand doesnt mean it's not natural to the "God" who understands it. it is most definitly natural to whatever energy it is a part of.I'm curios though, How is it that you define 'God' ?

By definition a real GOD is supernatural. Anything supernatural is not natural.It really is that simple.

Well since we disagree on that, we just have to agree to disagree on those points. So...I have nothing to debate with you concerning these things.Supernatural would imply something is beyond understanding, and natural to me means actually real. Anything real is natural by my definition; even if it's not understood.Nothing real to me is ever really supernatural.

Then the god you are searching for is not supernatural.

Correct.

Any "God" not supernatural is no God to me. A God of my understanding is the equivalent of declaring myself God.And, in my belief paradigm this is simply not an option.

I once saw a movie where a man spoke of dogs, saying "we are their Gods" and I'm sure to the eyes of an animal that trusts it's human, we are. We have cars and other things no animal can understand, yet the animals know we hold the power over those things. But what is supernatural to them, is quite natural to us.It is a difficult thing to wrap my mind around the possibility that we exist inside of a greater being, important to it somehow...Maybe similar to bacteria in our bodies. Which hold an important function. Yet how could we call ourselves God to a living thing that is so basic it is not even aware of its host.Everything is relative to a perspective. Our perspective does not allow us the ability to stand back and see the universe in real time and location. I have not yet seen a star map that would accurately display the planets and stars and galaxy as they would be located in this current moment, as the light we see is of locations of things at the age of the light that has reached us.Supernatural needs better definition, because if it is real, it is natural, it is just beyond our capacity to understand.

Aliens are not a "higher being". They would be natural beings just like us.Your misunderstandings may be due to a major difference in worldview. You have decided that one potential is important to study because of its emotional appeal. That is not how science works. Potential explanations in science are weighed by their explanatory power, not their emotional impact. "Higher beings" offers no explanatory power where science is concerned. You might as well ask why forensic scientists do not consider the potential that Leprechauns plant fingerprints at crime scenes. What evidence would lead us to this conclusion? What experiments could we possibly run to test this theory? How does this explain anything? Is it arrogance of man when mankind asserts that there are higher beings simply because they want it to be true? Is it arrogance to think that out of all the things in the Universe that we are the goal of the whole of creation, and that the creator of the Universe actually cares about our day to day struggles? Is it arrogance to ignore scientists who tell us that we are not the center of the solar system? What scientists want to know is what is going on in reality. If a higher being is having an effect in reality then of course scientists want to know about it. The only problem is that there is no evidence for this. Does it matter if it is a possiblity? Is it possible that Leprechauns plant fingerprints at crime scenes? Is it possible that invisible unicorns create clouds? Is it possible that fairies cause gravity? We can spend all day describing possibilities, but what is the use?

When I received the Nov 2010 copy of Scientific American in the mail I was startled by the headline for the lead story that was on the front page. It read: Hidden Worlds of Dark Matter - An entire universe may be silently interwoven with our own.Here is the link to the article. SA Nov 2010My belief as a Christian is that God’s so-called heavenly dimension is somehow, silently interwoven with our own, but is in some way that isn’t readily discernible to us, interlocked with our own. Obviously the article doesn't go anywhere near that sort of conjecture but just the same maybe science is drawing closer to painting a picture of our existence that is consistent with Christian thought.In addition there are physicists that study the nature of time. One that I find interesting is Julian Barbour. Here is the wiki page on him. Julian BarbourHere is an excerpt from that site.

quote:

---

His 1999 The End of Time advances timeless physics: the controversial view that time, as we perceive it, does not exist as anything other than an illusion, and that a number of problems in physical theory arise from assuming that it does exist. He argues that we have no evidence of the past other than our memory of it, and no evidence of the future other than our belief in it. "Change merely creates an illusion of time, with each individual moment existing in its own right, complete and whole." He calls these moments "Nows". It is all an illusion: there is no motion and no change. He argues that the illusion of time is what we interpret through what he calls "time capsules," which are "any fixed pattern that creates or encodes the appearance of motion, change or history."

---

Here is a link to articles about Barbour and his ideas. About Julian Barbour’s ideasOn that site is a quote from respected Canadian, (have to get that in there ) physicist Don Page who says this..

quote:

---

Don Page, a cosmologist at the University of Alberta in Edmonton who
frequently collaborates with Stephen Hawking, raised his hand that day. "I think
Julian's work clears up a lot of misconceptions," says Page. "Physicists might
not need time as much as we might have thought before. He is really
questioning the basic nature of time, its nonexistence. You can't make technical
advances if you're stuck in a conceptual muddle." Strangely enough, Page feels
that Barbour might actually be too conservative. When physicists finally iron
out a new theory of the universe, Page suspects that time won't be the only
casualty. "I think space will go too," he says cryptically.

---

If time and space are illusions then it seems likely that there is a greater reality that those illusions are a reflection of which leads to the idea that we aren’t alone. I read somewhere that we are essentially photon detectors with our five senses. If we had different senses it seems to me that we could detect another existence that would be totally foreign to this one and this one might even be invisible to us.Who knows what science will discover but it is interesting to ponder. I think that all this points out is that science will go where the evidence leads, and if it starts overlapping religious faith it will do so regardless of whether or not that is the accepted starting point.Edited by GDR, : left out linkEdited by GDR, : No reason given.

Yes it does matter. and higher being is literally defined as greater than our current state of 'being' which by all evidence is potential, since every living species has a higher being that its own species, except for humans, as humans are the greatest state of being currently found. Yet that's foolish to assume the end of being given the previous observation. And observations of the magnitude of the universe we live in.If you ignore potentials, you have limited ability to ask the right questions, and you will agree that science is about asking the right questions if you have any real science knowledge.

Well...I'm not really sure about religious doctrine anymore. But Time as I use it mathematically is very real. it is a measure between an areas distance and how long it takes to reach that distance at a given velocity. Now space-time, or other more advanced areas of science may have a different concept for time, as many words used scientifically may have different meanings and values associate4d with them.I do not believe that science and religion need to merge. But I do believe scientists should stop using science facts as an excuse to force their anti-religious agendas on those who choose to follow a God. But I also believe that religious leaders, especially Christian ones, should not alienate science or downplay its importance. The religious leaders that are doing that many times are just trying to keep their jobs professing a faith they do not have, and a belief they do not believe for purely financial gain, and in order to do that they must teach their followers to endorse ignorance. That’s pretty easy to do and allows people a scapegoat for their personal decisions to be lazy and safely ignorant of the world around them.But that is not the path of all religious peoples. Many religious are very intelligent, even wise, and are good problem solvers. Their faith does not need destroyed for them to be productive members if the science community. Science just needs to stop trying to destroy religions with their doctrine, and explain and report the data they have found more accurately, without throwing spins on why a religion is "wrong". if they were to do that, those religious can examine the data, and come to whatever conclusion they will personally develop within their capabilities of understanding.God is rarely defined the same way by two people in idea, even if they use the same words to describe what God is to them in words. After examination of different religions and their versions, the definition that is most common has been that God is beyond comprehension, and his power is not possible to ascertain.My take on that is that sure, I can fit that within the bounds of my definition of God, which is a physical definition and location of God, as the first energy that all has come from, and still exists inside of.Where I differ with others definitions is that I do not believe that it is beyond our ability to connect with that energy on a conscious level if it does exists. But the path to being able to do that starts with accepting the possibility of it, and looking for ways to explore that potential through the understanding of the body we are in, namely: the greater body of space we call the 'universe', and the communication of greater species through consciousness.I'm not a fighter for the left or the right concerning science and religion, I am the middle ground. I am the one that say's I know what I know, but I'll accept what I do not know.The evidence of existing things and all science point to a beginning of sorts, a singularity beyond math’s description. Many religious texts agree with that. (i.e. in the beginning there was only God)So I've drawn my conclusions to best fit what is most believable given the data we have been exposed to, and accepted. Be it religious, or scientific.My final point here is that I believe when science has enough answers it will conclude that God is. And my hope is that in discovering that, we can open a door to communication, and get a little help with our foolish societies on how to manage the human species and our lives for greater fulfillment, and prosperities.

Really? It is possible that Leprechauns plant fingerprints at crime scenes, so should we spend a lot of time and money trying to learn about this possibility? You are still talking about natural beings, not supernatural ones. There are an infinite number of potential explanations for any phenomenon. Using your approach we would never get around to asking questions because we need to create an infinite list of "potentials".

You are not even listening. you are closing your eyes and your ears. you have made whatever your belief is your mantra, you know I've pointed out a valuable and real path to exploring and demystifying what is called God, and you will not accept that.What is supernatural exactly? It defies all knowledge of physics and human understanding. so go back 50 years ago, and you'll see that if the technology we had today was in someone’s hands back then, people would consider them supernatural for being able to make objects invisible, or maybe being able to doctor and Photoshop pictures we could convince the entire world of a phenomenon that does not exist. And was it supernatural to be able to project an image into the ground from space with enough energy? But wouldn't it appear supernatural if a man on a bench melted in broad daylight?What is supernatural?Is it king Midas turning everything to gold with but a touch? Or those leprechauns that so many here seem to like to talk about? Should God be able to make atoms fly apart by command if the designer set a process in motion instead with the aim of the atom to eventually split, what is the difference?What world did you build that you can say supernatural is anything more than a word used to describe the apparently impossible? But here is the rub: if it is impossible, then it's supernatural. But it will never be real.I'm discussing reality. If you would like to start there, then examine your argument, because you’re leaving me with the impression your dense.

Amen to all of that. Would you consider yourself a pantheist? Isn't that what theists believe they do on one level or another now? Isn't prayer an attempt to reach our from our consciousness in order to communicate with that greater species namely God? I think in my previous post I was suggesting that science is getting closer to understanding what is beyond what we currently call the natural. Presumably another universe at this point would be supernatural but if science is able to identify it then presumably what was supernatural becomes natural.