What is your 'idea of GOD'?

you are talking about condition ,

Now you tell me how do assemble a ptotein without having enzymes since a enzyme is a proteinm tell me hoe do you produce ribose without photosynthesis, and tell me how do you produce amides in an aqueous system whithout enzyme and with RNA and Ribosomes

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

so explain what gravity is , it's causation all the way to first premise?
What is heat? All the way to first premise..
What is magnetism? All the way to first premise.
Remember no buzz words as everything has to be reduced to primary causation.

What exactly is a chemical reaction? Explain it in a way that is not pure theoretics and modelling, and hypothetics that simply chooses to ignore it's serious inadequacy.
What created a thing called "reaction"?
What created evolution and the need to evolve?
Sarkus, you know better than to repeat blind egocentric obedience to buzzwords!

Science can not even define energy properly let alone what created it. [cause]
To me Arauca's writing is just as plausible as any one of scientific persuasion in fact more so as at least Aurauca recognizes that science is missing the point...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What do you mean "to the first premise"? When has explaining any phenomena entailed tracing back a line of causation to some alleged uncaused first cause. I throw the rock and it smashes thru the window. Case solved. Nothing supernatural about it. Totally understandable in terms of energy and the laws of physics.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ok..

I throw a rock through the window and window smashes.. pieces fall to the ground: scenari..ok?

Who or what is "I"?
What is the energy that is used to move the rock?
What is Glass? [ what is atomic structure? What is chemistry?]
What is gravity that attracts the shards to the ground?
What is "ground"?

You know science really hasn't got a clue.. except that it has worked out how to theorize and make use of phenomena with out really understanding it at all.
As Wegs wrote.. God could well be unfathomable...we merely try to cope with our inherent inferiority to that which surrounds us by claiming knowledge that we don't have.

Well.. it depends on whether you take science seriously or not...
You say it is fully explained in terms of energy and the laws of physics, yet science can not define energy in a way that is consistent or understandable. Nor can you explain gravity etc?
This is what I mean by inadequate.
E=mc^2 could just as easily read God =mc^2

 

All of these things you ask the definition of have commonly understood definitions that work for the purposes of explanation. If they didn't we wouldn't be able to communicate the simple fact that my throwing a rock caused it to smash thru a window. What does adding the belief in a primary uncaused cause even add to explaining it? It contributes nothing. We accept the given definitions of the words we use in order to make sense in our speaking. No God is necessary to shed light on it, as if it even could.

 

but only if one wishes to accept that the explanations provided are all there is to know about said phenomena. Christians and theosophy generally can not define God properly either...

agrees ..the ignorant communicating with the ignorant in a way that the ignorant can understand... yes I agree...in my ignorant fashion...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It dampens the egocentric claim to fame that science unjustifiably feels it is entitled to.

It is not a question of using God as a sort of scape goat for sciences inadequacies... it is simply pointing out the limitations of our current understanding so that we continue to "go look" for the truth rather than simply believing our own egocentric lies.

 

I don't agree energy is undefined. It has a very specific and well understood definition that is sufficient in explaining phenomena. But let's say it isn't defined well enough. You think substituting that word with an even more mysterious and undefinable word like God is going to solve the problem? Ofcourse not. Saying God did it is tantamount to saying it just happened by magic. It doesn't explain one thing. At least with energy we have a quantifiable property that can be measured and detected. "God" offers nothing even close to it.

 

Well.. it depends on whether you take science seriously or not...
You say it is fully explained in terms of energy and the laws of physics, yet science can not define energy in a way that is consistent or understandable. Nor can you explain gravity etc?
This is what I mean by inadequate.
E=mc^2 could just as easily read God =mc^2 or
God = [ E= mc^2 ]
to me God is the "Unknown universal constant" and will always be that which is unknown.. the prize at a "way-point" of an intellectual journey etc...
the ultimate tease...etc
the thing that get's you out of bed in the morning looking to the horizon for the "sails of salvation"... blah blah blah...

 

saying God did it is saying simply "We do not know", a humbling statement that is so often not used when it should be or could be.
and energy is not properly defined... google it and find out for your self..

yep we are definitely good at measuring effects and theorizing as to their nature... granted.... [slight, light-hearted sarcasm]

 

Noone goes into that much detail to understand a basic fact. The window got smashed. How did it happen? I threw a rock at it. End of story. Cause and effect. No magical beings required.

You sound uncharacteristically hostile now. What is ignorant about speaking in a clear and concise manner that doesn't require a doctorate in theology to understand?

Where is the egocentrism in accepting that the universe happens in accord with the laws of physics? Seems more egocentric to think that there must be a magical humanoid being behind it all to make it understandable. As if events must have US in mind somehow. You know..That whole theist mindset.

Science already recognizes it is not a complete description of reality. There is still much we don't know and may never know. Why do we have to call this variable "God"? Why not just call it the Unknown?

 

eh? re-read what you just wrote...and ask again.. who is being egocentric?
[laws of physics according to who?]

 

The laws of physics according to the collective learning and experience of thousands of men and women thruout history. Where is the ego involved in that? A group effort see?

 

This is such a common mistake in approach to the issue if you don't mind me saying so...
It is ego centric to believe that the universe somehow obeys the laws of physics derived by Humans. In theosophy it is like telling "God" what he can and can not do...or what he is or isn't
The laws of physics are derived from what is observed not the other way round. There is no obligation for the universe to "obey", "adhere to", nor "justify" human egocentric claims to establishing laws of physics that some how the universe must magically obey or be in accord with

 

And you think a universe that must magically obey a God would be any easier to understand? Howso? How does saying God magically caused anything to happen explain anything?

 

Example:
Dark Flow:
A massive astronomical anomaly which scientist claim must be caused by physics "outside this universe"
Great attractor:
A massive astronomical anomaly which scientist claim must be caused by physics "outside this universe"
essentially saying that any thing that doesn't fit with our models is caused by physics that is "outside "our universe" - pure arrogant belief that the laws as we know them are correct....

 

I am not saying anything of the kind... in effect you are not me.
You are using God as a way to maintain your state of ego-centricism.... A magical God, a wand waving mythical being that can't exist because we have it right. If we are wrong the reason is because of a magical God, a wand waving mythical being that can't exist.

If it isn't us then who is it?
It has to be "A magical, wand waving mythical being that can't exist"

But what if you are really, really wrong and you are literally dying [average life expectancy - 85 years] to find out?
"Living and dying in an ego centric Matrix of our own making"
re: movie "Matrix"

 

And so how does saying God is causing the Dark Flow clear things up? You keep complaining about the things science doesn't understand yet, yet offer nothing better to explain them with. Indeed, by invoking the agency of a magical whimsical being you are essentially shutting off all further inquiry in this area. "Well, God's causing the Dark Flow, and that's that. Who knows why or how eh? Oh the inscrutable mysteries of Skydaddy! How dare we puny human even think we could understand such things. Better to just to have faith and remain ignorant!"

 

You have some definition of God that doesn't entail some magical handwaving being I'd like to hear it.

As for dying to find out, no. I'm quite content not to know everything. And I'm even more content not to project my ego out over a universe in the form of some God who is even more mysterious and unpredictable than the universe is.

 

Hey.. I didn't say that, science is saying that not me... "by forces from outside the universe!" [chuckle]

nothing that can be accepted due to egocentric delusions that science currently holds... true.

ahh there is that magical being you keep referring to... what sort of wand does he use do you think?

Science says that the forces are from outside the universe not me... go figure..

 

Zero Point Theory...

no I mean literally physically dying to find out... takes about 85 years on average...