There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life
Scooby Regular
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
From: Derbyshire
)
Scooby Regular
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 3,957
Likes: 0
The LHC has nothing to do with it anyway, we know that no god exists, they are doing science experiments i.e factual stuff. Why has you referred to god having 1 to nil over science?
Scooby Senior
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,566
Likes: 0
From: Scotchland
For all you know I might believe in them too!
What do you think of an organised society which also attempts to control those that you so rudely refer to as the great unwashed?
Once again you attempt ti use an old and worn out statement to denigrate someone else's beliefs.
I dont care what you want to believe in and would not try to change your mind. All you are doing is vainly trying to justify your ideas when I have not even tried to undermine them.
Les
What do you think of an organised society which also attempts to control those that you so rudely refer to as the great unwashed?
Once again you attempt ti use an old and worn out statement to denigrate someone else's beliefs.
I dont care what you want to believe in and would not try to change your mind. All you are doing is vainly trying to justify your ideas when I have not even tried to undermine them.
Les
You are quite right in that you have every right to believe what you want - and I'm quite within my rights to think you are a nutter for having said beliefs
.I couldn't give a toss if you believe in God or not - I'm simply trying to point out how religous types appear to folk who can think for themselves
.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Not at all Les - I just really find it hard to believe that there are people out there who still believe all the religous clap trap that has been going on since the first despot tried to control the masses.
You are quite right in that you have every right to believe what you want - and I'm quite within my rights to think you are a nutter for having said beliefs.
I couldn't give a toss if you believe in God or not - I'm simply trying to point out how religous types appear to folk who can think for themselves.
You are quite right in that you have every right to believe what you want - and I'm quite within my rights to think you are a nutter for having said beliefs
.I couldn't give a toss if you believe in God or not - I'm simply trying to point out how religous types appear to folk who can think for themselves
.In the first place there does not have to be a connection between what you call "religious claptrap", and the belief in the likelihood of a supreme being who is responsible for the Universe. What you need to try is a bit of lateral thinking, bit like scientists do really!
Secondly there seems to be a very tenuous link between what you think and just plain good manners.
Les
Scooby Regular
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,400
Likes: 0
From: STIFFSPEED
All very interesting stuff. Whilst not being a 'believer' myself, my girlfriend on the other hand is often telling me that 'Jesus loves me' etc so I've been down this 'Is there a god/God?' (see what I did there? 
) road sooo many times over the past couple of years now. We both just agree to disagree and respect each others beliefs (or non beliefs) and the subject very rarely comes up anymore.
Anyway, I always remember a quote by Arthur C. Clarke that stuck in my head
"Perhaps our role on this planet is not to worship God — but to create Him."
He also had a few other quotes I find interesting...
"Science can destroy religion by ignoring it as well as by disproving its tenets. No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, the non-existence of Zeus or Thor — but they have few followers now."
"The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion."
"There is the possibility that humankind can outgrown its infantile tendencies, as I suggested in Childhood's End. But it is amazing how childishly gullible humans are. There are, for example, so many different religions — each of them claiming to have the truth, each saying that their truths are clearly superior to the truths of others — how can someone possibly take any of them seriously? I mean, that's insane. ..."
Let's just agree to disagree and all get on peacefully.
) road sooo many times over the past couple of years now. We both just agree to disagree and respect each others beliefs (or non beliefs) and the subject very rarely comes up anymore. Anyway, I always remember a quote by Arthur C. Clarke that stuck in my head
"Perhaps our role on this planet is not to worship God — but to create Him."
He also had a few other quotes I find interesting...
"Science can destroy religion by ignoring it as well as by disproving its tenets. No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, the non-existence of Zeus or Thor — but they have few followers now."
"The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion."
"There is the possibility that humankind can outgrown its infantile tendencies, as I suggested in Childhood's End. But it is amazing how childishly gullible humans are. There are, for example, so many different religions — each of them claiming to have the truth, each saying that their truths are clearly superior to the truths of others — how can someone possibly take any of them seriously? I mean, that's insane. ..."
Let's just agree to disagree and all get on peacefully.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,081
Likes: 0
Holy thread resurrection !
(oops, perhaps not the most appropriate terminology)
Anyway, it seems those adverts have been reported to the ASA...
BBC NEWS | UK | 'No God' campaign draws complaint
I find the complainant's position somewhat ironic:
But organisation Christian Voice has complained to the Advertising Standards Authority saying they break rules on substantiation and truthfulness.
(oops, perhaps not the most appropriate terminology)
Anyway, it seems those adverts have been reported to the ASA...
BBC NEWS | UK | 'No God' campaign draws complaint
I find the complainant's position somewhat ironic:
But organisation Christian Voice has complained to the Advertising Standards Authority saying they break rules on substantiation and truthfulness.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 9,173
Likes: 0
From: Under your bonnet
Imagine for a moment, that it were possible to take a modern luxury car back in time and give it to a tribe of stone-age people. Imagine how they might react.
Many would regard it with awe and wonder. It would be like nothing else they had ever seen. It would do amazing things, it would look and feel like nothing they had ever experienced. Everything about it would be obviously designed for the comfort and pleasure of its possessor. It would be clear, overwhelming evidence for the existence of a God.
Others might observe that it could be dangerous, and that it produced choking fumes. It would be feared and hated. In other words, not everything about it is good. They might want to destroy it.
Then there would be those who, though no less in awe than those who worshipped it, would also want to understand it. So, they'd begin to look at it more carefully, to figure out not just its most basic purpose, but what really makes it tick.
So, they might begin by taking off the wheels, thereby finding the suspension - and they'd work out that it's the suspension that's responsible for the comfy ride. They'd discover the engine and gearbox, and though they couldn't reproduce them with the tools and materials at hand, they could begin to understand their function in some detail.
On the way, they would discover metallurgy, ergonomics, synthetic materials, aerodynamics, mathematics and other sciences, and they would derive great benefits from these.
But, they'd never understand everything. They might well understand the need for the fuel injection and ignition timiing systems, and would marvel at how well they worked - but the inner workings of the ECU would be completely beyond them. The entire electrical system - consisting, as it does, of anonymous black boxes connected by wires, with its endless variety of responses to stimuli that somehow keep the whole ticking along - would be cited as evidence that the whole car could never be created by man.
They'd be wrong, of course. It might take a few thousand years, but eventually they would discover electricity, and semiconductors, and the ECU and the CD player would finally give up their secrets.
Not having all the answers, right now, does NOT constitute evidence of a God.
Many would regard it with awe and wonder. It would be like nothing else they had ever seen. It would do amazing things, it would look and feel like nothing they had ever experienced. Everything about it would be obviously designed for the comfort and pleasure of its possessor. It would be clear, overwhelming evidence for the existence of a God.
Others might observe that it could be dangerous, and that it produced choking fumes. It would be feared and hated. In other words, not everything about it is good. They might want to destroy it.
Then there would be those who, though no less in awe than those who worshipped it, would also want to understand it. So, they'd begin to look at it more carefully, to figure out not just its most basic purpose, but what really makes it tick.
So, they might begin by taking off the wheels, thereby finding the suspension - and they'd work out that it's the suspension that's responsible for the comfy ride. They'd discover the engine and gearbox, and though they couldn't reproduce them with the tools and materials at hand, they could begin to understand their function in some detail.
On the way, they would discover metallurgy, ergonomics, synthetic materials, aerodynamics, mathematics and other sciences, and they would derive great benefits from these.
But, they'd never understand everything. They might well understand the need for the fuel injection and ignition timiing systems, and would marvel at how well they worked - but the inner workings of the ECU would be completely beyond them. The entire electrical system - consisting, as it does, of anonymous black boxes connected by wires, with its endless variety of responses to stimuli that somehow keep the whole ticking along - would be cited as evidence that the whole car could never be created by man.
They'd be wrong, of course. It might take a few thousand years, but eventually they would discover electricity, and semiconductors, and the ECU and the CD player would finally give up their secrets.
Not having all the answers, right now, does NOT constitute evidence of a God.
Perhaps if you were stronger minded (not you Andy) you would not need to hold on to the notion of god to keep you sane from the thoughts of death.
I can tell you now, there are no words in existence that can adequately describe how utterly **** scared I am of dying...but I don't for one minute believe in God or have faith.
I look, I see, I learn from experiments at how the world ticks and take heed of the current theories. None of them are fact because that's how science works, you come up with a more plausible reason we are here and I will investigate that.
As for the notion of God being plausible... GTFO
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 60,269
Likes: 0
From: Cas Vegas
The thing is: there would be no scientific advancement whatsoever if there weren't people around who wanted to find out how things worked; rather than just take it on faith.
As Arthur C Clarke once said: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
Last edited by Kieran_Burns; Jan 8, 2009 at 11:15 PM.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 60,269
Likes: 0
From: Cas Vegas
Last edited by Bubba po; Jan 8, 2009 at 11:18 PM.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,490
Likes: 0
As to the HC I thought someone would perhaps spot the irony
.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
From: Home
Whilst it's a simple exercise, and a favourite pastime of Scoobynet's brighter users, to dismiss the God of the herd, it's a far greater challenge to refute the God of the adept. You know, the one they're really talking about. To help, I propose the following course of action:
Begin with Imhotep, then, chronologically, have a look at people like Euclid, Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Newton and Spinoza to mention but a few. Alongside this read and understand (once you've mastered Gematria, of course) the Old Testament. By the way, you'll also need to get your hands on a pre-Council of Nicea copy of the 'New' Testaments. Set aside about ten years to truly grasp the rudiments of this little lot and add another five to comprehensively explore the thinkers of The Enlightenment.
OK, next you need to achieve a doctorate level of understanding in quantum physics. Simply reading A Brief History of Time does not count. One does not truly understand God and as such cannot, with qualification, refute its existence until one understands quantum physics. I'm assuming, by the way, that you've moved on from the easy target.
The bad news, despite having done all this hard work, is that you'll still be missing a piece of the puzzle. We (the human race) still haven't sussed out primum movens, although Messrs Imhotep through Hawking have presented us with the LHC, thank God ().
Now, I'm sure there are some adepts frequenting this board and I'm wondering if they could help. The paper below talks about the relationship between conciousness and the early universe, but I'm struggling with some of the math.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0007/0007006.pdf
I hope you can help.
Yours, with divinely geometric and pandeistic regards,
J
Begin with Imhotep, then, chronologically, have a look at people like Euclid, Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Newton and Spinoza to mention but a few. Alongside this read and understand (once you've mastered Gematria, of course) the Old Testament. By the way, you'll also need to get your hands on a pre-Council of Nicea copy of the 'New' Testaments. Set aside about ten years to truly grasp the rudiments of this little lot and add another five to comprehensively explore the thinkers of The Enlightenment.
OK, next you need to achieve a doctorate level of understanding in quantum physics. Simply reading A Brief History of Time does not count. One does not truly understand God and as such cannot, with qualification, refute its existence until one understands quantum physics. I'm assuming, by the way, that you've moved on from the easy target.
The bad news, despite having done all this hard work, is that you'll still be missing a piece of the puzzle. We (the human race) still haven't sussed out primum movens, although Messrs Imhotep through Hawking have presented us with the LHC, thank God (
). Now, I'm sure there are some adepts frequenting this board and I'm wondering if they could help. The paper below talks about the relationship between conciousness and the early universe, but I'm struggling with some of the math.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0007/0007006.pdf
I hope you can help.
Yours, with divinely geometric and pandeistic regards,
J
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
From: Home
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (6)
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,661
Likes: 5
From: On a small Island near France
Colleague requested I post this:
"I have a question, if humanity was not created, is it safe to say it randomly happened as in what we may call by mistake?
Right, if something does not happen as planned, or as desired by a being that exists prior to it happening, then we know it happens by mistake, correct.
Now, if humans happened by mistake, then why does a mistake have a right to take participance in the action that we call live?
Does a mistake that happens randomly has rights at all?
Strangely, I would think not, making use of a gift that according to that argument was given to us by mistake, again do we have a right to think, since according to this argument, it was given by mistake.
You would not use a car that was parked on the street and might belong to someone, would you?
Why would you think if that just happened to be there, do you have a right to use it?(You are clearly stealing if this wasn't intended to be yours)
Again, nature, who's to say we should use it as we want, did any being bive this to us, clearly not if we happened by mistake, in face if we just randomly got born into nature, we should be cured, cause we are clearly a random illness on this planet that is proven with the stolen "gift" og thinking to hurt nature.
I have nothing against people who think they got to this planet by mistake, randomly and without any reason or cause.
Obviously, they should correct the mistake, if they see it as such.
Being able to see something as a mistake and to feel you have the right to distinguish between something that was created, and something that happned randomly is that also a mistake that was not planned?
And if that is the case, perhaps stop using it an after a few decades of evolution it will be corrected.
You should not continue to take advantage of it."
"I have a question, if humanity was not created, is it safe to say it randomly happened as in what we may call by mistake?
Right, if something does not happen as planned, or as desired by a being that exists prior to it happening, then we know it happens by mistake, correct.
Now, if humans happened by mistake, then why does a mistake have a right to take participance in the action that we call live?
Does a mistake that happens randomly has rights at all?
Strangely, I would think not, making use of a gift that according to that argument was given to us by mistake, again do we have a right to think, since according to this argument, it was given by mistake.
You would not use a car that was parked on the street and might belong to someone, would you?
Why would you think if that just happened to be there, do you have a right to use it?(You are clearly stealing if this wasn't intended to be yours)
Again, nature, who's to say we should use it as we want, did any being bive this to us, clearly not if we happened by mistake, in face if we just randomly got born into nature, we should be cured, cause we are clearly a random illness on this planet that is proven with the stolen "gift" og thinking to hurt nature.
I have nothing against people who think they got to this planet by mistake, randomly and without any reason or cause.
Obviously, they should correct the mistake, if they see it as such.
Being able to see something as a mistake and to feel you have the right to distinguish between something that was created, and something that happned randomly is that also a mistake that was not planned?
And if that is the case, perhaps stop using it an after a few decades of evolution it will be corrected.
You should not continue to take advantage of it."
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
From: Home
Please let your colleague know that this makes as much sense to me as this:
Originally Posted by Clever Italian lady
At time t (n 1)t * n = + the quantum gravity register will consist of (n +1)2 qubits:
( 1 ) 1 = +1 1 = ( +1)2 n + n + n n n
We call N the state (n +1)2 , with N = (n +1)2 .
Now, let us consider a de Sitter horizon ( ) n Y t [11] [12] at time t (n 1)t * n = + , with a
discrete area A (n 1)2 L*2 n = + [12] (where L* @ 1.6´10-33 cm is the Planck length) of
N pixels.
By the quantum holographic principle [11], we associate N qubits to the nth de Sitter
horizon:
( ) n N º Y t .
Let us remember that 1 = Had 0 where Had is the Hadamard gate (which is a very
important gate for quantum algorithms):
÷ ÷ø
ö
ç çè æ
-
=
1 1
1 1
2
1
Had
and 0 is the vacuum state, which can be identified either with the basis state on or
with the basis state off .
( 1 ) 1 = +1 1 = ( +1)2 n + n + n n n
We call N the state (n +1)2 , with N = (n +1)2 .
Now, let us consider a de Sitter horizon ( ) n Y t [11] [12] at time t (n 1)t * n = + , with a
discrete area A (n 1)2 L*2 n = + [12] (where L* @ 1.6´10-33 cm is the Planck length) of
N pixels.
By the quantum holographic principle [11], we associate N qubits to the nth de Sitter
horizon:
( ) n N º Y t .
Let us remember that 1 = Had 0 where Had is the Hadamard gate (which is a very
important gate for quantum algorithms):
÷ ÷ø
ö
ç çè æ
-
=
1 1
1 1
2
1
Had
and 0 is the vacuum state, which can be identified either with the basis state on or
with the basis state off .
Last edited by JTaylor; Jan 9, 2009 at 04:02 PM.
Scooby Senior
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
From: North Wales
What a complete crock!
None of us has any rights, only what we mutually agree to be acceptable or our government grants us.
You cannot impose human derived values to determine that we are designed not evolved.
He is confusing 'mistake' with 'random', they are quite different. A mistake is when something is intended, but something else transpires.
The evolution of the Universe and ultimately life, is due to trillions of random events, there is not intention.
Geezer
None of us has any rights, only what we mutually agree to be acceptable or our government grants us.
You cannot impose human derived values to determine that we are designed not evolved.
He is confusing 'mistake' with 'random', they are quite different. A mistake is when something is intended, but something else transpires.
The evolution of the Universe and ultimately life, is due to trillions of random events, there is not intention.
Geezer
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (6)
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,661
Likes: 5
From: On a small Island near France
What a complete crock!
None of us has any rights, only what we mutually agree to be acceptable or our government grants us.
You cannot impose human derived values to determine that we are designed not evolved.
He is confusing 'mistake' with 'random', they are quite different. A mistake is when something is intended, but something else transpires.
The evolution of the Universe and ultimately life, is due to trillions of random events, there is not intention.
Geezer
None of us has any rights, only what we mutually agree to be acceptable or our government grants us.
You cannot impose human derived values to determine that we are designed not evolved.
He is confusing 'mistake' with 'random', they are quite different. A mistake is when something is intended, but something else transpires.
The evolution of the Universe and ultimately life, is due to trillions of random events, there is not intention.
Geezer
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (6)
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,661
Likes: 5
From: On a small Island near France
What a complete crock!
None of us has any rights, only what we mutually agree to be acceptable or our government grants us.
You cannot impose human derived values to determine that we are designed not evolved.
He is confusing 'mistake' with 'random', they are quite different. A mistake is when something is intended, but something else transpires.
The evolution of the Universe and ultimately life, is due to trillions of random events, there is not intention.
Geezer
None of us has any rights, only what we mutually agree to be acceptable or our government grants us.
You cannot impose human derived values to determine that we are designed not evolved.
He is confusing 'mistake' with 'random', they are quite different. A mistake is when something is intended, but something else transpires.
The evolution of the Universe and ultimately life, is due to trillions of random events, there is not intention.
Geezer
In science which is what you seems to base your ideas on, everything is a result that occurs is a result of a situation.
That is how the logic of science comes into being.
So according to you there is a system in which trillions of completely random events without intention exist, yet though there is no intention, patterns emerge, we call this very patterns science, such as biology, chemistry and physics.
So you are in contradiction of yourself, meaning always wrong.
So there is no intention, there are only very clear patterns(that we call laws)
Now, as I said, in science we study processes occurances and results, such as the big bang or whatever theory or idea you subscribe to.
However, no one explains how did these laws or patterns came into being.
Did physics always exist, or was it also the result of random events.
Lets say it always existed, or it didn't(tautology*).
It always existed, meaning there were always certain patterns, a pattern is by definition, a configuration or design.
That means there were always certain intentions.
Even if you claim there was no awareness, those intentions are sophisticated enough to create a world in which complex organisms exist.
The universe acts on those intentions and obeys those patterns, it is where we learned the laws of science from, perhaps our mentor and our home.
The other option, is physics and biology and all those patterns(we sometimes call laws, such as "The laws of physics" were not intended and came into being randomly, and it all started from random nothingness.
However, in science, everything starts from something(ie: energy is not created or destroyed), that's how science works so if that is true, then science fails as a science and if anything came from nothingness and patterns such as physics and biology just come and go as random events occur, then evolution is a hoax, cause it is based on the study of patterns we call science, and if science fails, since patterns did not always exist, then evolution is an epic fail.
To sum things up, there were always patterns(laws), and therefore there was always intention, as patterns are design, even if you claim there is no awareness and they just happened to be there.
Or science fails, since there is nothing(randomness) to hold onto.
And then evolution fails or is possibly just as proven to atheist as the concept of God.
It is merely a legend since it is based on a theory that is only occasionally correct which makes it invalid.
*That logically means , a compound propositional form all of whose instances are true.
An instance of this form: the patterns always existed or they did not.(ie: they came into being at a certain point( it cannot be neither)).
That is how the logic of science comes into being.
So according to you there is a system in which trillions of completely random events without intention exist, yet though there is no intention, patterns emerge, we call this very patterns science, such as biology, chemistry and physics.
So you are in contradiction of yourself, meaning always wrong.
So there is no intention, there are only very clear patterns(that we call laws)
Now, as I said, in science we study processes occurances and results, such as the big bang or whatever theory or idea you subscribe to.
However, no one explains how did these laws or patterns came into being.
Did physics always exist, or was it also the result of random events.
Lets say it always existed, or it didn't(tautology*).
It always existed, meaning there were always certain patterns, a pattern is by definition, a configuration or design.
That means there were always certain intentions.
Even if you claim there was no awareness, those intentions are sophisticated enough to create a world in which complex organisms exist.
The universe acts on those intentions and obeys those patterns, it is where we learned the laws of science from, perhaps our mentor and our home.
The other option, is physics and biology and all those patterns(we sometimes call laws, such as "The laws of physics" were not intended and came into being randomly, and it all started from random nothingness.
However, in science, everything starts from something(ie: energy is not created or destroyed), that's how science works so if that is true, then science fails as a science and if anything came from nothingness and patterns such as physics and biology just come and go as random events occur, then evolution is a hoax, cause it is based on the study of patterns we call science, and if science fails, since patterns did not always exist, then evolution is an epic fail.
To sum things up, there were always patterns(laws), and therefore there was always intention, as patterns are design, even if you claim there is no awareness and they just happened to be there.
Or science fails, since there is nothing(randomness) to hold onto.
And then evolution fails or is possibly just as proven to atheist as the concept of God.
It is merely a legend since it is based on a theory that is only occasionally correct which makes it invalid.
*That logically means , a compound propositional form all of whose instances are true.
An instance of this form: the patterns always existed or they did not.(ie: they came into being at a certain point( it cannot be neither)).
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 60,269
Likes: 0
From: Cas Vegas
Scooby Regular
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,260
Likes: 3
From: Derbyshire
Right, time to watch today's darts on sky+
Scooby Regular
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,227
Likes: 0
Whilst it's a simple exercise, and a favourite pastime of Scoobynet's brighter users, to dismiss the God of the herd, it's a far greater challenge to refute the God of the adept. You know, the one they're really talking about. To help, I propose the following course of action:
Begin with Imhotep, then, chronologically, have a look at people like Euclid, Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Newton and Spinoza to mention but a few. Alongside this read and understand (once you've mastered Gematria, of course) the Old Testament. By the way, you'll also need to get your hands on a pre-Council of Nicea copy of the 'New' Testaments. Set aside about ten years to truly grasp the rudiments of this little lot and add another five to comprehensively explore the thinkers of The Enlightenment.
OK, next you need to achieve a doctorate level of understanding in quantum physics. Simply reading A Brief History of Time does not count. One does not truly understand God and as such cannot, with qualification, refute its existence until one understands quantum physics. I'm assuming, by the way, that you've moved on from the easy target.
The bad news, despite having done all this hard work, is that you'll still be missing a piece of the puzzle. We (the human race) still haven't sussed out primum movens, although Messrs Imhotep through Hawking have presented us with the LHC, thank God ().
Now, I'm sure there are some adepts frequenting this board and I'm wondering if they could help. The paper below talks about the relationship between conciousness and the early universe, but I'm struggling with some of the math.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0007/0007006.pdf
I hope you can help.
Yours, with divinely geometric and pandeistic regards,
J
Begin with Imhotep, then, chronologically, have a look at people like Euclid, Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Newton and Spinoza to mention but a few. Alongside this read and understand (once you've mastered Gematria, of course) the Old Testament. By the way, you'll also need to get your hands on a pre-Council of Nicea copy of the 'New' Testaments. Set aside about ten years to truly grasp the rudiments of this little lot and add another five to comprehensively explore the thinkers of The Enlightenment.
OK, next you need to achieve a doctorate level of understanding in quantum physics. Simply reading A Brief History of Time does not count. One does not truly understand God and as such cannot, with qualification, refute its existence until one understands quantum physics. I'm assuming, by the way, that you've moved on from the easy target.
The bad news, despite having done all this hard work, is that you'll still be missing a piece of the puzzle. We (the human race) still haven't sussed out primum movens, although Messrs Imhotep through Hawking have presented us with the LHC, thank God (
). Now, I'm sure there are some adepts frequenting this board and I'm wondering if they could help. The paper below talks about the relationship between conciousness and the early universe, but I'm struggling with some of the math.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0007/0007006.pdf
I hope you can help.
Yours, with divinely geometric and pandeistic regards,
J
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 60,269
Likes: 0
From: Cas Vegas