ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

So You Believe in the Nothing

Updated on July 11, 2012
Coal Sack dark nebula, found in the Crux constellation. It looks like a great void of nothing, but really it is a dark cloud blocking the light of the Milky Way, beyond.
Coal Sack dark nebula, found in the Crux constellation. It looks like a great void of nothing, but really it is a dark cloud blocking the light of the Milky Way, beyond. | Source

Then again, maybe you don't. But if you are an atheist, you do. What?

Let me explain.

For some, God is a big "nothing." He is invisible and, for the atheist, non-existent. Is this the nothing to which I refer?

For the atheist, there was no source to the universe. It merely exists. For some, it always existed. Prior to the Big Bang was a Crushing Collapse. And the universe has been expanding and collapsing forever.

God's Universe
God's Universe

A scientist's view of God's universe. A refreshing treat for the mind and the soul.

 
Indescribable (Illustrated Edition): Encountering the Glory of God in the Beauty of the Universe
Indescribable (Illustrated Edition): Encountering the Glory of God in the Beauty of the Universe

The beauty of the universe combined with inspirational words and scientific descriptions.

 

Is there a limit to the mass which can be contained by an event horizon? Do black holes have an upper limit? If so, when a black hole reaches that limit, does it explode? Otherwise, a universal collapse should result in merely another black hole of universal mass. Nothing could escape that collapse—not even the universe.

Whether time is finite, bounded on one end by the Big Bang, or whether it is infinite, the atheist claims that the universe had no cause. Unlike everything else discussed in science, the universe is the one effect for which there is no source. Nothing caused it. Curious.

It just happened.

Sounds like a bumper sticker I once saw in L.A. "Stuff" happens. This sounds pretty Zen—the effect for which there is no cause. Here is the new bumper sticker: "Universe Happens." Now, it sounds as though we are neck deep in a whole lot of stuff—a universe of it.

If you believe that the universe just happened, then you believe in the Nothing that caused it all. Sounds like a religion to me.

Cosmology
Cosmology

A monumental book full of intellectual thrills.

 
Relativity, Gravitation and Cosmology: A Basic Introduction (Oxford Master Series in Physics)
Relativity, Gravitation and Cosmology: A Basic Introduction (Oxford Master Series in Physics)

If you want to learn how Relativity fits into the grand scheme of things, this book is a keeper.

 

I Don't Know

Perhaps a more intelligent point-of-view is that of "I don't know"—agnostic, rather than atheistic. This contains a great deal of humility. And what a beautiful thing for a scientist. This is the standard operating basis of a scientist. This is compatible with the rules of scientific method. Too bad that scientists are too frequently socially and professionally so unscientific. How can I say that? In a word—skepticism.

A scientist should be neutral about the unknown, but they are not. They are biased. Scientific method cautions against any bias, but the foremost tool of science—skepticism—contains a bias—that of doubt. Doubt is not neutral. Restraint and humility are.

The Dark Side

It gets worse. The benign form of skepticism used by most scientists looks a lot like restraint, but with a dash of doubt thrown in. Science has done quite well with this imperfect paradigm. But skepticism has a dark side.

All too often, you will read an article about some scientist up in arms, ridiculing another scientist or group of scientists for presenting ideas which are "obviously" crazy. But how do they know? Shebam, the all-seeing, has spoken. This happened recently when NASA scientists reported on a microbe which seemed to thrive in an arsenic environment. And yes, some scientists went crazy with ridicule. What happened to skepticism? They can aim that "cannon" at other scientists, but carefully forget to use it on their own ideas.

Even the current laws of science are not immune to question. Newtonian physics got revamped by Einsteinian Relativity. Self-skepticism is far better than ridicule, and self-restraint is even better.

This type of rowdiness also happened in North American anthropology with the Clovis-first dogma. For awhile, if you did not bow down to the Clovis "god," you were ridiculed. Who is going to fund a scientist who remains a laughing stock? If you wanted to remain in your chosen field, you towed the party line. Excommunication from this church meant finding a new career. That's not science. That's ego. That's arrogance.

When a scientist goes on such a rampage, it looks a lot like delusions of grandeur. Remember Shebam, the all-seeing? How do they know? Some scientists speak without even looking.

 

Mechanics of Creation: zero over n raised to the minus-one power. in the Numerator= Cause; Denominator= Effect. Inner expression reveals initial condition -- the conceptualization. Resulting value is the finished creation. Copyright Rod Martin, Jr.
Mechanics of Creation: zero over n raised to the minus-one power. in the Numerator= Cause; Denominator= Effect. Inner expression reveals initial condition -- the conceptualization. Resulting value is the finished creation. Copyright Rod Martin, Jr.

Formula for Creation

From my extensive experience with "miracles"—the mechanics of creation—I have devised in symbolic form an expression for creation. This is my current, working hypothesis.

(0/n)-1

Zero over "n" raised to the minus-one power. There you have it—the secret to the universe. Isn't it beautiful in its simplicity? Don't you want to rush right out and create something? But what does it mean?

This is not a normal mathematical expression, though it possesses similar properties. The bar separates cause from effect—cause on top, effect on the bottom.

Zero symbolizes the Nothing. The letter "n" signifies "anything."

The expression, "0/n," tells us that the Nothing as cause and something (the "anything") as effect, results in zero persistence. This is the "word" or "idea"—the template or blueprint—of that something.

The negative exponent does here what it always does in normal mathematics—it yields for us the reciprocal or inverse—n/0. Here, the Nothing is at effect and the something is at cause. This would prove to be the phenomenon of "observer and observed," that is, if the Nothing were a conscious entity.

One curious feature of this resulting expression is that it is symbolically equivalent with infinity. Okay, math purists will complain that this expression remains undefined, but in my symbolism, it represents infinity. After all, as the denominator approaches zero, the value of the expression approaches infinity. The intent here is to represent that the created something now has potentially infinite persistence. It now belongs to the time-stream of physical reality.

Applied mechanics would work like this. You get a mental image of the desired "something," then let that image go. Let me break that down for you. As in many a motivational seminar's goal setting sessions, you picture your goal as if it were already a done deal. Beyond that, the real trick is to let go of the idea with the conviction that it is as good as done. No worries. Conscious awareness turns to some other activity, while one's attention (sub-conscious) remains on the "something." Then, one observes the manifestation of the "something" in physical reality. Nothing could be simpler, right?

Wrong! As humans, we make it entirely complex. Humans are a mixed bag. They consist of a Homo sapiens body (that's the obvious part), but also an ego (too frequently obvious). Neither of these physical constructs can create. They are cogs in the machine. Only the Nothing can create. Could there be a bit of the Nothing inside us, occasionally waking up to create something.

Like the pesky, "intermittent bug" in software parlance, such apparent "magic" happens rarely enough and intermittently enough to cause some "believers" to ridicule the possibility of such things. Who are these "believers?" They are atheists and other skeptics who "believe" in the Nothing. And remember, "Nothing" created it all.

So You Believe in the Nothing

Welcome to the club. Most of the people on planet Earth also believe in the Nothing. Comforting thought, that.

Rod Martin, Jr. is a past Hollywood artist, software engineer and award-winning essayist from Texas, USA. Mr. Martin currently lives with his wife in Cebu, Philippines. He is also the author of the forthcoming book, The Bible's Hidden Wisdom, God's Reason for Noah's Flood.http://www.GenesisCode.Net.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      Hi Cromper. Write a hub? Why don't you.

    • profile image

      Cromper 6 years ago

      lonestar,

      Very intersting hub!

      I have also had 'extraordinary' 'miracles' happen to me. Perhaps I should write a hub?

      The 'miracles' I have experienced are on a par with your own. Of course, I call them 'coincidences'.

      My own experiences are not limited to one day but coincidences that span over a period of months and one that happens over the course of 2 weeks (but the story begins over 10 years prior to the event!).

      It's only natural that you would interpret such an extraordinary event as a divine intervention. I feel very guilty when I say that your experience is not exactly 'mind-blowing' because I don't want to dampen your spirit.

      Thanks for sharing anyway. If you would be interested in my own experiences I might be persuaded to write them down.

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Anatomy-o...

      That covers one and perhaps the most "remarkable" miracle.

      Cromper, how could I be mistaken? You've made your viewpoint very clear.

      Why should you buy the goods before you see them? Why indeed! Don't!

      Unreasonable? Absolutely! Faith is not something that a scientist is likely to use, partly because true faith is not an easy state to achieve and is so easily confused with "blind belief." And "skepticism," which includes the bias of doubt, is to faith and creation what water is to the study of flame; it dowses the flame with water and then there's nothing to study.

      Such blind belief (failed attempt at faith) in a laboratory could get you killed. But true faith could turn water into wine, aqua regia into orange sodapop, and allow one to walk on water or to part the sea. Faith is unreasonable by its very nature. Reason only gets in the way, because faith is not "effect," but "cause." Faith is infinitely far above reason. Faith is the source of those things about which we reason; faith is creation.

      One movie I saw when I was very young left a lasting impression on me -- "The Silver Chalice" (1954). In it, an evil guy, Simon the Magician (Jack Palance) thought he had purchased the secrets of the apostles and went about proving it to a crowd of onlookers. He walked to the top of a tower and "flew" to the ground, but not quite the way he had intended. He lacked "true faith." Heck, so do I most of the time. That requires utter humility, and I'm still fighting a bad case of ego.

      At my tender age, I wondered at Simon's foolishness. He could have proved his "faith" by merely flying from the ground to the top of the tower. That way, the only chance of going splat would be if his "faith" starts out working, but fails somewhere before his arrival. That seemed safer to me. But faith does not work like that. You cannot gain faith by seeing proof. That's why all this religion "mumbo-jumbo" seems so counterintuitive to someone who relies so much on reason.

      In software engineering, reason is essential. Faith would change the rules of the game, and reason and science don't like it when the rules change; they depend upon continuity.

      Proof is a physical universe artifact of continuity. Faith is discontinuous by its nature; and that's why reason does not work with faith. Reason is also continuity-based.

      Nothing new? Cromper, I've never seen this material that I've discovered anywhere else. If it is not "new" to you, then perhaps you're not looking closely enough. The mechanics of creation I stumbled upon nearly forty years ago I only recently discovered in Genesis. Surprising to find it in something I had read so many times. But perhaps equally surprising that no one else has yet discovered these things, at least to my knowledge.

    • profile image

      Cromper 6 years ago

      Ayup lonestar,

      I am intrigued to know more about your miracle experiences.

      And as for church last Saturday, please don't be mistaken. I was not sucking up to God (how can I sing and pray to something that doesn't exist?), I was merely going through the actions to appease the masses.

      "I understand what you say about wiping your slate clean and waiting for God, but He doesn't reveal himself to those who only wait. He reveals himself to those who purify themselves and anxiously expect Him."

      Again, this requires an acceptance of His existence before He appears and allays my doubts. I cannot follow this kind of belief system and never will.

      I respect your approach to religion, but you don't come to me with any refreshing philosophies or new ways of thinking.

      Believe now, ask questions later. In every other walk of life this approach would be unreasonable. You need to give a straight-forward reason why I should believe now without question.

      Why should I buy the goods before I see them?

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      Howdy Cromper.

      Your description of charisma is intriguing. Some people use such a talent for good, while some do not. Hitler had a certain charisma. Some evangelists have charisma, but also pride. It's hard to teach without any pride.

      And your "miracles" sound like the "ordinary" or "accidental" coincidence variety. Those are pretty common. But the "cause-and-effect" coincidence variety are decidedly far more rare. It's possible that you could be unrighteous and perform such acts of "magic," like the serpent priests of Egypt in the story of Moses and Aaron, but you'd be missing out on the real purpose of performing such miracles -- that of reawakening the true self and preparing for the end of days. Once the lights go out, it's too late to prepare. And it looks as though things are getting ready for the shakedown.

      I understand what you say about wiping your slate clean and waiting for God, but He doesn't reveal himself to those who only wait. He reveals himself to those who purify themselves and anxiously expect Him.

      There might have been a time when I would've considered being proud of you, but pride is unclean. It energizes the ego (the created pseudo-self and source of all evil). I still struggle with my own pride.

      Those who go to church to be seen as a church-goer are unclean, as well. It all has to do with selfishness. There are many levels of uncleanness. Hitler and Stalin may have been at one end. The little old granny who goes to church, but wouldn't be caught dead talking to an ex-convict or a prostitute, is at the other end of uncleanness. Her lack of compassion darkens her heart.

    • profile image

      Cromper 6 years ago

      Lonestar,

      I listen to a lot of sermons given by pastors in the US on digital radio Premier Christian, and a lot of the subjects include God's (or Jesus's) attempts to connect with us.

      In one particular speech I remember, the pastor (can't remember who but I think it was Chuck Swindoll) was repeatedly saying 'Jesus is knocking' whilst knocking on his podium. 'He's waiting for you to open the door'.

      It's a very persuasive way of getting a person to climb on board the train, even if that person is still confused, and it's a skill that a lot of these preachers possess; to bend the mind into convincing itself that it is missing something and to trust what the preacher is claiming.

      I too have witnessed many "miracles" throughout my life (although nowhere near any biblical scale), but it is usually just a matter of coincidence and luck rather than a divine intervention.

      As I said before, I emptied my mind of all previous religious knowledge in an attempt to let a god or creator in. That was back in the late 80's and I am still waiting.

      I have just returned from a long weekend with the girlfriend in which we went to a wedding at a church in a part of Nottingham called Arnold. We sang 4 hymns (2 of which I didn't even know) and said prayers. You would have been proud of me! Hee hee.

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      Cromper (continued...)

      14" !?? Wow! I have a refractor. It's not much -- about 3" aperture. I have long lusted after a 14" reflector Schmidt-Cassegrain configuration or similar. I've even looked at the 20" Meade and wondered what I'd do with my first bestseller (fiction or non-fiction). Would I be able to purchase such a beautiful scope. Where I live in the Philippines, the viewing is terrible most nights (too cloudy or hazy). But seeing Alpha Centauri was quite a thrill, even with my binoculars. I've entertained the fantasy of buying land in Chile or Peru, parking my superscope there and hiring someone to look after it, using electronic imaging, transmitted over the internet to keep track of my research into double star orbital parameters and spectroscopic analysis of individual stars. But I currently have other priorities. I sure hope I have another 60+ years at my disposal.

      Cromper, I like your analysis and your thought process. Keep searching for answers. I still am.

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      Cromper, I'm sorry for the delay in answering. It's been a long week.

      I understand what you say, and no apology necessary. You explained it beautifully. I appreciate it when someone helps me be aware of my own "over-the-top" approach. And I do sometimes do that. ;)

      I agree that in reading each others' minds we would find a lot of understanding and a lot to understand.

      Sounds like a beautiful journey you've been on. One of self-discovery and a quest for answers of some kind. I've had my own quest from a mixed family (grandfather was a Southern Baptist minister; father was a student of Eastern philosophy). I studied Christianity, Scientology, Buddhism, Judaism, Kabbalah, Taoism and then Christianity. I'm currently a member of a denomination of one.

      My current viewpoint is that God is a being of love. If indeed we were created in His image, then we are baby gods wrapped in Homo sapiens flesh. But we're sound asleep -- dead to the spiritual.

      Any parent would want their children back. Any good parent would go to great lengths to accomplish that. I suspect that the efforts to awaken us spiritually have been going on for millions of years -- at least ten million, if my analysis of Genesis is right.

      If God were a vengeful, spiteful ole cuss, I wouldn't want to be a part of that game, either. I would quietly live out my life, enjoying it to the max, and helping others as I can, just because it feels good; and then that would be it. But the miracles I've experienced are far too interesting, and the spiritual nature of myself that I've found evidence for just won't go away. Everything points to a loving God and all of the "hell fire and brimstone" my grandfather preached in his church is just so much bullstuff.

      But the "hell" that people get in such a fuss over I suspect is something as simple as a personal decision; not a spiritual parent's "wrath."

      Where some so-called Christian says "God will punish you in hell," I see merely the product of someone's decision. Like, if someone steps off a 20-story building, they go splat. That's "God punishing them." God created the physical laws (gravity, inertia, solidity, impact); the person created the decision to ignore them. Bam! Simple.

      If a person continually turns their back on spirituality, then they may eventually lose all chance at awakening. I don't know. I'm only guessing. But let's look at an analogy (imperfect, but what the heck).

      A parent finds out that their child has fallen into a well. They go to rescue them, but the child refuses to come out. When anyone goes down to get them, the child shouts, screams, kicks and lashes out to prevent their rescue. Then, during one rescue attempt, the child kills the rescuer. The insults of the child persist. The child has disowned their parent and wants nothing to do with them. They act as though the parent doesn't exist.

      Say the rescue attempts go on for decades, but the child, now full-grown, refuses to participate.

      Where would anyone in their right mind draw the line? I suspect that judgement day is a bit like the line beyond which all attempts at rescue will cease. Heck, it works in marketing. Buy now! For a limited time only! As crass as that sounds, it works. Sometimes we humans need a swift kick to get us moving.

      But say that in our analogy all attempts stop. The child may think. Great! Good riddence.

      From my own current understand, I doubt God would have any difficulty with the image you portrayed, but my own understanding is still quite limited. Even if God did have a disagreement, it would likely be the kind of disagreement of the parent trying to rescue their child out of the well. They would disagree with the attitude of the child and their insistence on ignoring their parent, but all the while the parent would love their child, unconditionally.

      Cromper, thanks for discussing this. It helps me get a better look at this. It helps me explore all of the issues from my current viewpoint. And I might have already indicated, my viewpoint keeps changing. The quest for answers is a long one, and with humility new clues make it easy to change my mind. Any good scientist does this.

    • profile image

      Cromper 6 years ago

      cont...

      My father is an amateur astronomer (I wasn't abused as a kid, by the way :)) so I was brought up with looking out into space. He currently has 2 reflectors (14" mirrors I think) and one refractor. I keep asking him for the refractor because he never uses it any more, but he is still protective over it, so I have no chance.

      My family are not religious at all (I went to church with my friends who lived next door) so I was a 'clean slate' I suppose. My mother didn't like me going to church but she never stopped me.

    • profile image

      Cromper 6 years ago

      Appologies if I came across as hostile. I was being 'firm'. While I was writing I was preempting your response.

      If I could see into your mind I would understand your view completely, and vice versa. I do understand why you believe in the spiritual world (I hope that term isn't insulting) as I used to believe there was a possibility that it existed. I attended church and Sunday school as a kid and later on in my late teens.

      I realised over time that I was trying to convince myself that God existed rather than actually believing, because the social benefits of attending church are very attractive and there was something in it for me but which had nothing to do with God.

      So, I began to play around with the idea that I should start again, clear my mind, and see if I could come up with a fresh idea of who or what a god is. I felt I owed it to myself to take a look from MY perspective. Rather than take already established ideas of what a god is, I let my own judgement 'evolve' a picture in my mind.

      Do you know what I came up with? Someone like myself! Someone who is happy with everyone doing their own thing, with respect for those who stand up for themselves, even for those who are mischieveous in a harmless way.

      I expect a god to do unto me as I would do unto others. If god does not agree with what I judge to be right and wrong, then I would rather not associate myself with him. And if that in turn means that I go to hell then I'm sure you will agree I was justified in my decision to not want to be a part of his family.

      Now, I know you understand what I'm saying, and I'm also sure you would not send me to hell if you had the power simply because I sincerely believe you to be a good person.

      So the question is; why does God have a difficulty with this?

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      Slarty, I appreciate the clarification on the Big Bang and energy. Nice stuff.

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      Hiccups, wow! Your comment gives me goosebumps. I seem to be getting a lot of them lately. Lovely stuff!

      Sounds downright Zen! And possibly far more accurate than any more concrete, human-language description.

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      Cromper, continued here...

      Dare to Accuse?

      You "dare" me to "accuse" you? Really? Is that what you want? Do I detect some more hostility? I think the conversation can be made without it. What do you say?

      As a matter of fact, your requests are quite "reasonable." But being reasonable is not always the best stance to take. Many an invention or goal was thought to be "unreasonable." But that didn't stop Edison or Einstein. But you have some fixed ideas that prevent you from seeing alternate meanings.

      God demands? Does He really?

      Wow, Cromper. You seem to have such resentment. I hope you can find someway out of that. You say that God demands worship? Hmmm-m-m, I wonder. Perhaps that's merely your misunderstanding. You seem to understand so much, but miss out on so much else. Holding onto a fixed idea will do that. It makes some things impossible to understand. The solution is to let go of the fixed ideas.

      Wouldn't any father love for their son to love them back and to show respect? Well, I know there are exceptions to this. But ideally? What's wrong with that? Did someone beat you when you were a child? I don't mean to get personal, and you don't have to answer that, but I detect some unreasonable hostility in what you say.

      Ah, What a Lovely Ego!

      You detect ego? I wonder if you really know what that is. What, for instance, is the difference between confidence and ego? Can they overlap? You gave a very poetic description of ego landing in my lap. I know too well that ego still runs through much of my work. I have not yet found my cure. Any discussion is in danger of eliciting ego. But there is great value in pointing out the dangers of ego. I've been as guilty as everyone else in this original sin. That you seem to direct all of the ego attention back to me is flattering, but inaccurate.

      You say, "As for religion; it's a case of 'believe now, ask questions later'. That is grossly unreasonable!"

      And I say, absolutely right! Being unreasonable is the best thing to be when it comes to ego and spirit. Try to understand that, then you too can pick yourself up by your own spiritual bootstraps (kind of like a computer reboot), and no longer remain trapped in the subroutines of the physical -- to rise up and become the "user" rather than the "program."

      Biblical proof? I said I'd come back to that. The timeline I discovered in Genesis is quite simple and intuitively related to the clues which led to its discovery. It puts earliest humanity (Adam) at 10,434,130 BC. Perhaps some day anthropologists, if they are true to science and not their fixed ideas, may discover Homo sapiens bones that old. That might be an interesting proof.

      The great Flood of Noah occurred 27,970 BC according to this same timeline. Will scientists find saltwater residue at this date in the GISP2 ice cores? That would be interesting proof, too. And the date is hauntingly similar to the death of one species -- a species that may well have been the "daughters" mentioned in Genesis 6. That species and their half-human offspring may have been the target of the flood, whatever it was in reality. But the purpose was not to wipe out humanity because of some ordinary wickedness or violence, but a very special wickedness which would have thwarted God's purpose and prevented the formation of civilization.

      And what would we do without civilization? Wailing and gnashing of teeth -- victim-perpetrator, blood feuds, and all kinds of "reason" to hold onto the sources of resentment. Not a pretty picture. Thank goodness for the Flood.

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      Hi Cromper. No problem omitting the 7's. When I created my first ID on another website, "LoneStar" was unavailable. I started to use LoneStar77, but then I ran into one website that already had a LoneStar77, so I switched to my current moniker.

      Computer Programming:

      Perl, wow! I learned a little of that on my last job, but didn't have time to use it. I had similar problems connecting to databases with PHP and Visual Basic. For my great love, astronomy, I created a 3D program called "Stars in the NeighborHood," and opted for flat files. It seemed faster than a database connection, but I never explored methods for optimization of that connection.

      Religion and Spirituality:

      Religious tongue? I suppose I am, but not any denomination I've ever heard of. As far as I know, my denomination has a population of one.

      Born into sin? I suppose one could say that. But what would you say to us being the original sinners; i.e. we are Adam and Eve -- the fallen angels of which Milton wrote?

      Contradiction?

      I can see how you would see it as such. From your viewpoint and opinion set (sub-routines), such an opinion is inevitable. But try to see it from a different point-of-view. God is not hiding, but merely waiting in plain sight (spiritual sight), waiting for us to make the first move.

      A parent can forcefully move the feet of their infant in a walking pattern, but that won't accomplish the infant learning to walk. If the infant moves their own feet, then they start to learn. Do you now see my distinction?

      Insults or Misunderstanding

      Disingenuous? Facetious? Perhaps what I said was too poor an attempt to explain. My apologies. Let me try again.

      You're asking for a clue or hint -- a sign that God exists, right? You said earlier that God is either incapable of interacting or doesn't want to interact. The clue or hint you seek is exactly what I was talking about. My dear Cromper, I was being entirely sincere. Any such hint would be an interference with our learning to walk on our own. I don't know how to say it any more plainly. Now, if you ponder this idea and what I've said, you may come to an understanding that does not seem disingenuous or facetious, but I'll have to let you do that work. I can't do it for you. (Hint, hint)

      You say that I "obviously have never considered." Wow, Cromper. Not very logical for someone who has worked as a programmer. You merely have not considered the possible realities that would allow me to have considered a way for God to show himself without giving away the secret to the magic. But that's not the point. God could display great miracles without revealing how it is done. The point is not that we might discover how to do it (and I already have). The point is that ego gets into the mix and messes up the spiritual awakening. Ego is the original sin. That is what you (Cromper) and I (LoneStar) decided when we turned away from spiritual awareness and decided to use physical awareness. That's my current hypothesis, based on a lot of magic and experience, plus extrapolating from what the Bible might possibly mean. And what other religious texts might mean, like the teachings of Buddha and Lao Tsu.

      Biblical verification? Interesting subject. I'll come back to that in a moment.

      Don't talk to you about prophecies?

      Wow, Cromper. Don't get rowdy, now. Or do you really want to end the conversation? ;)

      I can only find the letters "prophec-" in one location on this web page, and yours is it. I don't know where you get the idea that I was talking about biblical prophecy. (Did you dream it? Or was it in your tea?)

      Continued...

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image

      Ron Hooft 6 years ago from Ottawa

      A pleasure as always. :)

      What I meant was that theoretically in the singularity before the big bang all the energy that now exists in this universe was in an almost infinitely compressed state. In fact the singularity would have been that compressed energy. Only in expanding did it create space/time. Some like to say it was in the form of potential energy.

      Again, I am not saying a big bang happened as a known fact. Just that if it is true then energy seems to not be tied to time or space, but rather time and space is tied to energy.

      Thanks for another good discussion. You have a great day

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      Slarty, on the subject of spirit not possessing space-time, you responded, "I'm not sure that energy does either."

      Now that is an interesting idea. Something about it scratches an itch somewhere. I'll have to think more on it. But from my current understanding, energy persists, so it has the time dimension. But space? I don't know, yet. I know that light traveling at its gargantuan pace may not have time, because at the speed of light, per Einstein's relativity, time stands still. Perhaps energy has apparent persistence from the viewpoint of someone at sublight speed, but at "c" that dimension ceases to exist. Thanks, Slarty!

      I remember reading somewhere in some philophical text that light does not travel. This was written a couple of decades before Einstein published his most famous work. I believe that work also said that gravity comes before matter, not the other way around.

      The remainder of your points are beautifully delicious, too. Wonderful analysis and speculation.

      I hope we do more of it.

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      Thank you, Skye. Beautiful words. Thank you!

    • Hiccups profile image

      Hiccups 6 years ago from Boston

      Getting back to the article, i love the idea of nothing. I think the void is a beautiful concept for humans to even conceive of. Once you wade through must of the allegorical religious myths you come to some basic things that don't change, even throughout the many beliefs that different cultures develop through time. From what we came from to where we are going could be thought of as the void. However i believe that in absolute nothing lies the potential for all. We pull that potential out of the void and manifest it here, usually driven by need & desire. Powerful stuff when you step far enough back to see it clearly.

      nice post!

    • profile image

      Cromper 6 years ago

      Lonestar (I hope you don't mind me omitting the 7s),

      I'm afraid my programming knowledge is limited to Perl CGI and Actionscript for Flash (I used to design websites as you can probably tell). I've mastered Perl, but still have trouble connecting my scripts to SQL databases so I tended to take the lazy route and use the old flat-file method!

      Anyway, back to your reply;

      "Dazzling us with miracles and godly displays of His presence would actually defeat His purpose in having us awaken."

      You're talking with a religious tongue, but I know what you are implying; that we are born into sin and need to learn the error of our ways and prepare ourselves for heaven.

      I suggested to you that god is hiding from us and you firmly denied this. But the only way god can work his desire of our self-awakening, according to the above quotation, is to remain scarce, or out of sight. That is a contradiction.

      Also, the above quotation is disingenuous to the point of being almost facetious. I wasn't asking for god to show himself to me. I was asking for a mere clue, or hint. You obviously have never considered how god could prove his existence without giving away the secret to the magic. The Bible would be a start.

      There is nothing written in the Bible that could not have been written by anyone at that time in history. As the Bible is claimed to be the word of god, all it would take is a piece of information that could not possibly have been known 2000 years ago, but is verified later in time.

      Don't talk to me about the prophecies of the Old Testament, because this is a book, and the written word can be fabricated as easily as making a cup of tea (thinking of which...).

      How about references to DNA? Blue-shift and red-shift? How diseases can spread (now that WOULD be useful, and VERY god-like).

      I'm not asking for much here Lonestar. And I dare you to accuse me of being unreasonable in my requests!

      If I get sent to hell for my disbelief in god, then I will be smugly satisfied that at least I do not have to spend the rest of eternity with 'Him', who seems to demand worship

      You talk about 'ego' a lot. Yes, I am detecting a lot of ego here, and you seem to be passing it around the discussion like 'pass-the-parcel' but it always seems to end up in your lap.

      As for religion; it's a case of 'believe now, ask questions later'. That is grossly unreasonable!

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image

      Ron Hooft 6 years ago from Ottawa

      Sorry for not spell checking that last one. Hope it is not unreadable.

      >One thing I do have certainty on is that I am a spiritual being and not this Homo sapiens body. I also have certainty on the difference between belief and faith (100% >confidence). I'm talking the viewpoint needed to walk on >water. Belief won't cut it.

      Neither will confidence. You will attain that ability or you will not. Good luck with it. ;)

      >So, all your talk about belief is misguided. Belief only >leaves you in the realm of physical continuity.

      I advocate lack of belief so you are preaching to the converted. lol...

      >Excuses? Any analogy I can come up with in an attempt to explain my viewpoint can easily be taken apart and countered. If one chooses not to understand, then lack of understanding >will be the result. It's that simple. It's a matter of >decision.

      My decision is to lack belief that you are correct until I have evidence to show you are correct. Until then I store it away as interesting speculation.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image

      Ron Hooft 6 years ago from Ottawa

      >Heck, it's discussions like this that keep me discovering, because ALL of my ideas are

      >subject to change.

      Couldn't agree more.

      >As I said before, humility is one of key ingredients for spiritual awakening. If one is

      >humble in the search for answers in the Bible, then one is part-way there. Because of

      >this, I have no doubt that a great deal of complexity has been woven into the Bible for

      >this very reason.

      Humility is a very good practice. And part of the reason to have it is because things are

      so complex. But of course I don't think that is why the bible is contradictory and complex.

      >You say that it is contradictory. Of course it is, if you take it literally.

      If you do not then you interpret it and everyone and his grandmother has a novel

      interpretation every day, Thereason they have to interpret it is because it is

      contradictory and at times flys in the face of what people expect it to say.

      >Like my VCR example, the user can misinterpret one instruction and completely not

      >understand subsequent instructions because of it. Can't get it to work. Well, no wonder!

      >Just because you (Slarty) can't figure it out, you dismiss the whole thing. That's

      >understandable.

      But perhaps there is nothing to understand? That might be possible too, eh? Or perhaps I do

      understand it and you are reading into it what you want it to say, which is perfectly

      posssibvle because anyone can make it say what they like, which is why it is of little real

      value to me.

      Unlike a VCR which others do know how to program and all you need do is ask for help, no

      one can give you definitive answer when it comes to the bible. So you read it as it is or

      you make up stuff to suit what you want it to mean. Even the fundies do that. They are not

      reading it as it is contrary to what they may tell you.

      >So, Slarty, on the Bible, you're simply not trying hard enough. Not your bag? That's okay.

      >But your implication that it is valueless, other than as a window onto primitive thought,

      >may be wrong. Imagine that!

      I may be. But no one is ever going to actually find out one way or the other unless a god

      comes down and tells us about it. I can imagin it just fine. But is it true?

      >I'm not talking about Freudian "ego." I'm talking about Buddhist "ego." There is some

      overlap in meaning, but they are not exactly the same thing. This "ego" is the source of

      all selfishness and separateness from spiritual awareness. It is the source of that sense

      of entitlement in being right and frequently making others wrong. It is the attitude of the

      suicide perpetrator, but also of the Hitlers and Stalins of this world. It is the attitude

      of the banker who writes all the fine print so they can foreclose on more properties and

      resell them at an even greater profit. Every evil thing springs from this vulnerable,

      >pseudo-self.

      And yet you still fo not see that taking on a practice of lack of belief and lack of faith

      goes farther tward to that goal than believing in what you want to believe in because it is

      much nicer than what others believe it? Faith fosters this idea that I am right and you are

      wrong, and worse, it gives the faithful a false sense of certainty and conviction.

      >Because you have not found your "soul," giving up ego can seem a scary thing,

      No. When I did it as a youth I gave up ego to the point where I no longer recognized myself

      in a mirror and couldn't idenitfy with the image at all. I went farther than most are

      willing to go and found a whole lot of nothing. I am not alone. Others like U.G

      Krishnamirti experienced the same thing.

      I attained great states of non-thought, out of body experience, states of just knowing

      without judging. States of bliss. But Iwanted ego gon completely. When you attain that, as

      U.G says, everything man has said or known is stripped away and nothing is put in its

      place. Nothing.

      Perhaps I can be accused of having gone to far. But never of being scared of trying.

      > indeed. Ego pretends that it is the only source of consciousness, and if you believe

      that, then there truly is no way out. And saying that you do not "believe" anything does

      not change the fact that you do believe something, even if it's only about ego and your

      enigmatic "soul."

      The ID is the subconscious and it is awareness. Awareness is a form of consciousness.

      Consciousness itself is there to teach the awareness. Our responces are too slow if we

      think aboutthem so we have to educate the instinctive,

      >And Yehoshua of Nazareth gave up that false self, too. Told it to "get behind me." That's

      >how he was able to walk on water. Heck, he may even have created the storm before that

      >famous event.

      An event that islikely just myth. But who's to say. The point being that giving examples of

      things that may or may not have happened doesn't really tell us much.

      >I've experienced similar miracles. My hub, "Anatomy of a Miracle" discusses one. I

      wouldn't mind getting your feedback on that.

      I certainly will read it. I think I have but I'll take another look. I read a lot of your

      hubs and though I don't agree with some of what you say I enjoy them. I do not always

      comment because I don't want to impose my ideas on your hubs.

      .

      >On the AI example, you're assuming that such access to the user input is available. Not a

      >good assumption.

      The info is all there. It depends on how good the AI is at finding it.

      >Regarding your statement, "...real things interact with the world and leave a trail.

      U>nreal things do nothing," again you're assuming way too much.

      What am I assuming and can you give me an example of something we can both agree is real

      that we can not detect in some way? Or something not real that actually interact with the

      world? I don't mean an idea that you put in to effect by interacting with the world but

      rather something that does not exist that interacts with the world on it's own.

      >Could there be a reason why someone doesn't contact us? Doesn't show themselves? I can

      >think of a few. I've even mentioned one.

      It does not want to, it can't, or it does not exist.

      >If ego-selfishness is the reason our spiritual self is asleep, and if ego-selfishness

      >feeds on "proof," then giving proof would defeat the purpose of spiritual awakening.

      >Simple. It's that simple. So, keep on believing in the need for proof.

      This reminds me of the Emprors new clothes. The Emperor is naked but everyone is fed the

      line that if they can't see the magnificent cloth then they are stupid or blind or just

      plain ignorant. To me that's what one is aying when they say ego and selfishness is what

      demands proof. Proof is evil all of a sudden. Sorry. Doesn't wash. The Emporer is naked.

      >I understand your logic about "if a god... wanted us to know it exists," but you miss the

      bigger picture. Much more is at stake than a popularity contest or a "guess who's coming to

      dinner" quiz.

      I don't seriously think I'll change your mind. But I appreciate the discussion, because I

      >get a better look at these things from a new perspective. I thank you for that, Slarty.

      Nothing is at stake and it is not about a popularity contest. It is about a god that could make life simple by just being present without all these games. If he wants believers then he should show his face to us all and convince us, Simple. Everything else is theatrics, excuses and speculation.

      The main agrument of the christian is that god does not want robots. What a load of nonsense. How does nknowing a god exists turn you into a robot? No matter what the excuse for an absent god it is an excuse because if it does not show up no one knows. So until it does, I lack belief that it exists. Lack of belief is not belief of lack which just as untenable. To me a god is speculative and so ar souls. I hold no belief about them and accept the fact that they are speculation.

      Thank you for letting me get my two sents in and learing about your reasons for what you believe.

      >One thing I do have certainty on is that I am a spiritual being and not this Homo sapiens

      body. I also have certainty on the difference betwe

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image

      Ron Hooft 6 years ago from Ottawa

      >I'm not one of those who thinks spirit is energy. Energy and matter require space-time >continuity; spirit doesn't.

      I'm not sure that energy does either.

      >The problem with developing one's spiritual abilities is that evidence (continuity-based >reality) gets in the way if one relies on it for clues and cues. One needs to rely on >spirit (discontinuity). Like a baby learning to walk, one just does it. And if one falls, >one merely gets up again and keeps working at it.

      So I am told but I don't buy it.

      >The obvious danger to this is falling into delusion.

      My point entirely.

      >There is a big difference between spiritual bliss and delusion. Spiritual bliss is >grounded in reality, but not bound by it. That's the big distinction.

      When one experiences bliss, it is bliss. How can a feeling be delusion? Only your interpretation of why you experienced it can be wrong or delusional. That is where the distinction is. Your interpretation of an experience may be grounded in reality or delusion, but an experience is just an experience.

      >True "faith" is similarly grounded in reality, and again, not bound by it. Opinion? Very >possibly, but not entirely.

      If faith is not bound by reality then the alternative is that it is bound by imagination or delusion. What else is there? The opposite of reality is fiction.

      >This is based on a lifetime of experience and extrapolation from all inputs. Is my >certainty a delusion? Most assuredly, part of it is, but part of it isn't. I haven't >cracked the wall wide open, but I'd like to. And I am making progress. Will I make it all >the way through in time? I hope so.

      The part that is not at least, you should then have evidence for. Again. I never question experience, only the interpretation of it.

      >You can't pick up spirit like you can a hammer.

      I thought I had it whether I want it or not?

      > While it is interesting that you have searched for your true self (soul), but haven't >found it, that only means you haven't been looking the right way. Simple. Someone can try >to make a new DVD player work (program it to do all the fancy stuff), but end up throwing >the device away or selling it in a garage sale, because they didn't read the manual, or >misunderstood its details. Oh, well!

      With all respect you have no idea what I have tried or experienced. I reject this constant claim that if I can't find god I am not looking hard enough or if I can't find soul I haven't gone about it the right way. It seems like too convenient an out for the fact that I have experienced what many people would love to experience and didn't find the same things in it others have.

      >Asleep? If a computer AI program were running and had never met its user, it might never >know whether or not that user is asleep.

      It meets it's user every day through their interactions.

      >I'm interpreting biblical wisdom. I'm 100% certain that I don't have it all right. But I'm >also equally certain that no one else I've read has it right, either.

      I think the problem is you can read it any way you like and get out of it what you like.

      >I can understand your reticence in believing something speculative. If you've read >"Einstein's Dreams," though, I'm sure you can understand the value in exploring >possibilities -- holding a surrogate "belief" if only temporarily, while exploring the >possibilities.

      I love speculation. I just make sure not to assign it more meaning than it has. I also make sure not to see it as fact, which is what you are suggesting. I see no reason to have faith that a speculative idea of mine is reality even for a second. That is not required. All I have to do is wait and see. New information will come in eventually to either back the hypothesis or falsify it. That's what science does.

      >Not want to worship that kind of egomaniac? I understand completely. I read recently on >someone else's forum about a biblical passage that seems appropriate, here -- Matthew 18. >A master forgives his servant a gargantuan debt, but then later learns that the servant >sent an associate to jail for a much smaller debt. The master was outraged that the >servant he had forgiven could not also show some leniency. Talk about sticking your foot >in your mouth. The once humble servant became cocky and arrogant once his debt was >removed. But then he found that the debt returned. Oops! The point is that the decision is >ours, not the master's. The ego is with the servant who cannot be generous.

      Interesting story. But it is hardly relevant. In my story the master, if he exists the way some Christians see him, is an egomaniac that threatens hell to those that do not believe it exists. How is your story relevant? My not knowing it exists has nothing to do with my ego, it has to fo with it's absence. My belief that it exists or not is irrelevant.

      >Slarty, you said, "Your version of god is much nicer but equally just your belief and not >fact." Not fact? Prove it! ;)

      I should have been more specific. The fact that you have no evidence for it shows it to be speculative, so in that since not a "known" fact. Therefore telling me about it as if it is fact would not be true. It may be true, but that remains to be seen. It remains to be seen whether any god exists, your version or any one else’s.

      >My calculus professor in college made the subject challenging. It stretched the mind. If >he had made it easy, would I have learned nearly as much? Perhaps not.

      Taking that example, we are all different. One method may work for you but not for me. So why would a god choose just one knowing not everyone will respond to it the same way? And this is not calculus for goodness sake, it is simply a matter of making itself known to us. How hard can that be for a god? And it needs all these devices and theatrics? Again, to me these are just excuses for its absence.

      >If Edmund Halley had rigidly thought that the stars in the sky were fixed, as Ptolemy and >other ancients had claimed, he might never have published his findings that led to the >principle of "proper motion." Such arrogance would have blinded him. He would have been >stopped by a fixed idea -- a preconceived notion. Scientists still do this. It makes me >groan every time they do. Humility is a much better attitude in the search for scientific >as well as spiritual truth. Starting with "I don't know," and lightly holding onto the >things you think you know, you can make all kinds of discoveries.

      But you are making my point for me. I'm saying I do not if there if there is a god or a soul so I lack belief that there is. Just like he lacked belief that the stars were fixed.

    • profile image

      skye 6 years ago

      Brother Praise God I see now. OK needed a bit more clarity there is no doubt I was led this Glorious am to your comment back to me. I am touched and honored to know you. I keep seeking and long more for Christ each day. I am amazed at HIS POWER HE paid on the Cross so His Children could live in HIS BLESSING.

      Keep soaring on those wings of the eagle lone77star. Keep handing the fresh water of Jesus Christ. U will, me to!! Phil 4:13. You have an annointing on you to write as you do. Glory to God Brother. Love ya your sis in Christ. Jesus Come SOON. Hugs.

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      Slarty, I understand what you're saying, and I even think I understand where you're coming from.

      On the AI example, you're assuming that such access to the user input is available. Not a good assumption.

      Regarding your statement, "...real things interact with the world and leave a trail. Unreal things do nothing," again you're assuming way too much.

      Could there be a reason why someone doesn't contact us? Doesn't show themselves? I can think of a few. I've even mentioned one.

      If ego-selfishness is the reason our spiritual self is asleep, and if ego-selfishness feeds on "proof," then giving proof would defeat the purpose of spiritual awakening. Simple. It's that simple. So, keep on believing in the need for proof.

      If a "believer" was about to mix two chemicals on faith, I'd likely knock their block off and then attempt to find out what the chemicals were. My chemistry math is a bit rusty, but I'd brush up and figure out what the reaction should be -- endothermic or exothermic, poison gas or benign precipitate.

      I understand your logic about "if a god... wanted us to know it exists," but you miss the bigger picture. Much more is at stake than a popularity contest or a "guess who's coming to dinner" quiz.

      I don't seriously think I'll change your mind. But I appreciate the discussion, because I get a better look at these things from a new perspective. I thank you for that, Slarty.

      One thing I do have certainty on is that I am a spiritual being and not this Homo sapiens body. I also have certainty on the difference between belief and faith (100% confidence). I'm talking the viewpoint needed to walk on water. Belief won't cut it.

      So, all your talk about belief is misguided. Belief only leaves you in the realm of physical continuity. At ninety degrees from space-time, you have the realm of creation which is a discontinuity. (Did you ever study calculus? You'll know what I'm talking about.) This is the realm of faith (perfect confidence). Such confidence isn't the mortal, physical kind, because that is tainted with varying degrees of doubt. That's why scientists can never get such things as remote viewing to work. That is painfully, absurdly obvious to me. They're pissing on the fire they're attempting to study. Skepticism will do that. Not very bright, but scientists don't understand everything. And if they come to a field of study with the preconceived notion that it's all bogus, then they'll discover nothing! And that's an ironic joke.

      Excuses? Any analogy I can come up with in an attempt to explain my viewpoint can easily be taken apart and countered. If one chooses not to understand, then lack of understanding will be the result. It's that simple. It's a matter of decision.

      More later, guys. Now I've got to get some work done.

      Thanks!

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      Cromper, being a software engineer, I can appreciate your suggestion. I like what you're adding to the discussion.

      And I agree with your hypothesis about being able to communicate with those who are not extra-dimensional.

      Cruel test? I don't see it that way, but I had to laugh at the irony.

      The way I currently see it, God wants His children to awaken, but He can't do it for them. They are gods, too. After all, they were created in His image.

      Dazzling us with miracles and godly displays of His presence would actually defeat His purpose in having us awaken. You see, selfishness (Buddhist meaning of ego) gets in the way. For example, ego wants to take credit for the miracles I've created, but ego (being a physical universe construct) can't do squat in that arena.

      If someone is trapped in a deep mine shaft, and needs to reach up to grab the rope to get out, it's up to them to grab it. Putting on a light show would only distract from the rope.

      Your limited answers are just that: limited. You just haven't searched hard enough. Maybe next lifetime?

      And I can understand your aversion to biblical answers. I had the same feeling most of my life, because they were used without understanding. My Southern Baptist minister grandfather was no different; he lacked understanding and merely towed the ideological line. That's my opinion, anyway.

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      Slarty, continued...

      Heck, it's discussions like this that keep me discovering, because ALL of my ideas are subject to change.

      As I said before, humility is one of key ingredients for spiritual awakening. If one is humble in the search for answers in the Bible, then one is part-way there. Because of this, I have no doubt that a great deal of complexity has been woven into the Bible for this very reason.

      You say that it is contradictory. Of course it is, if you take it literally. Like my VCR example, the user can misinterpret one instruction and completely not understand subsequent instructions because of it. Can't get it to work. Well, no wonder! Just because you (Slarty) can't figure it out, you dismiss the whole thing. That's understandable.

      I've barely scratched the surface, but I've discovered some very interesting things. Like,

      * A biblical timeline compatible with those of science. Puts Young Earth Creationists to shame.

      * An undertanding of the seemingly outrageous longevity of the early patriarchs. The answer is so simple.

      * An understanding for why God would give such incredible protection to a liar and murderer (Cain). The answer to this led to the discovery of the Kabbalah's "Tree of Life" embedded in Genesis.

      * An understanding of the real reason behind Noah's Flood. The typical excuse doesn't cut it, because man has continued to be wicked and violent ever since the Flood. The Flood targeted one very specific activity and one very specific group. Clues come from the new biblical timeline, above, and from science.

      So, Slarty, on the Bible, you're simply not trying hard enough. Not your bag? That's okay. But your implication that it is valueless, other than as a window onto primitive thought, may be wrong. Imagine that!

      I'm not talking about Freudian "ego." I'm talking about Buddhist "ego." There is some overlap in meaning, but they are not exactly the same thing. This "ego" is the source of all selfishness and separateness from spiritual awareness. It is the source of that sense of entitlement in being right and frequently making others wrong. It is the attitude of the suicide perpetrator, but also of the Hitlers and Stalins of this world. It is the attitude of the banker who writes all the fine print so they can foreclose on more properties and resell them at an even greater profit. Every evil thing springs from this vulnerable, pseudo-self.

      Because you have not found your "soul," giving up ego can seem a scary thing, indeed. Ego pretends that it is the only source of consciousness, and if you believe that, then there truly is no way out. And saying that you do not "believe" anything does not change the fact that you do believe something, even if it's only about ego and your enigmatic "soul."

      Gautama Siddhartha gave up that false self and was able to communicate just fine -- from the spiritual self (fully-awakened spiritual consciousness). This is the whole meaning of the "everlasting life" of which the Nazarene teacher spoke. With spiritual awakening, the true self takes over the role as the seat of consciousness. And when the brain dies along with the rest of the body, consciousness continues, because of that reawakening. Without it, bodily death leaves the true spiritual self in limbo -- a perpetual nightmare that the Buddhists called the "bardo" (the between time).

      And Yehoshua of Nazareth gave up that false self, too. Told it to "get behind me." That's how he was able to walk on water. Heck, he may even have created the storm before that famous event.

      I've experienced similar miracles. My hub, "Anatomy of a Miracle" discusses one. I wouldn't mind getting your feedback on that.

      https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Anatomy-o...

      Quantum entanglement? That gives me some ideas for another science fiction story.

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      Slarty, I appreciate your input. What you say stretches the mind; makes it think. I like that.

      I don't doubt that all things are connected on many levels.

      I understand your encoding idea. I wrote a science fiction story awhile back using the term "trace" as an encoded message imprinted on a space.

      And yes, E=mc^2. I'm not one of those who thinks spirit is energy. Energy and matter require space-time continuity; spirit doesn't.

      And Slarty, you're right. I have no evidence whatsoever.

      The problem with developing one's spiritual abilities is that evidence (continuity-based reality) gets in the way if one relies on it for clues and cues. One needs to rely on spirit (discontinuity). Like a baby learning to walk, one just does it. And if one falls, one merely gets up again and keeps working at it.

      The obvious danger to this is falling into delusion. There is a big difference between spiritual bliss and delusion. Spiritual bliss is grounded in reality, but not bound by it. That's the big distinction. True "faith" is similarly grounded in reality, and again, not bound by it. Opinion? Very possibly, but not entirely. This is based on a lifetime of experience and extrapolation from all inputs. Is my certainty a delusion? Most assuredly, part of it is, but part of it isn't. I haven't cracked the wall wide open, but I'd like to. And I am making progress. Will I make it all the way through in time? I hope so.

      You can't pick up spirit like you can a hammer. While it is interesting that you have searched for your true self (soul), but haven't found it, that only means you haven't been looking the right way. Simple. Someone can try to make a new DVD player work (program it to do all the fancy stuff), but end up throwing the device away or selling it in a garage sale, because they didn't read the manual, or misunderstood its details. Oh, well!

      Asleep? If a computer AI program were running and had never met its user, it might never know whether or not that user is asleep.

      I'm interpreting biblical wisdom. I'm 100% certain that I don't have it all right. But I'm also equally certain that no one else I've read has it right, either.

      I can understand your reticence in believing something speculative. If you've read "Einstein's Dreams," though, I'm sure you can understand the value in exploring possibilities -- holding a surrogate "belief" if only temporarily, while exploring the possibilities.

      Not want to worship that kind of egomaniac? I understand completely. I read recently on someone else's forum about a biblical passage that seems appropriate, here -- Matthew 18. A master forgives his servant a gargantuan debt, but then later learns that the servant sent an associate to jail for a much smaller debt. The master was outraged that the servant he had forgiven could not also show some leniency. Talk about sticking your foot in your mouth. The once humble servant became cocky and arrogant once his debt was removed. But then he found that the debt returned. Oops! The point is that the decision is ours, not the master's. The ego is with the servant who cannot be generous.

      Slarty, you said, "Your version of god is much nicer but equally just your belief and not fact." Not fact? Prove it! ;)

      My point is that it is the best I can currently describe using our imperfect language, and my imperfect understanding.

      Why would the Bible be purposely difficult to understand? I thought I already covered that subject, but let me try again.

      My calculus professor in college made the subject challenging. It stretched the mind. If he had made it easy, would I have learned nearly as much? Perhaps not.

      If Edmund Halley had rigidly thought that the stars in the sky were fixed, as Ptolemy and other ancients had claimed, he might never have published his findings that led to the principle of "proper motion." Such arrogance would have blinded him. He would have been stopped by a fixed idea -- a preconceived notion. Scientists still do this. It makes me groan every time they do. Humility is a much better attitude in the search for scientific as well as spiritual truth. Starting with "I don't know," and lightly holding onto the things you think you know, you can make all kinds of discoveries.

      Continued...

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image

      Ron Hooft 6 years ago from Ottawa

      If the AI was really good it could figure out a lot about it's user by the input it provides, what it searches for, what the user makes it do. Heck if the user was on face book the program could know all about his family and maybe find out where it is and in what room of the house.

      The point being real things interact with the world and leave a trail. Unreal things do nothing.

      The reason for the christian god never showing up and seeming to hide is most probably due to it not existing. That's the reason so many excuses are made for it's absence or stringent conditions like belief to be sighted as a prerequisites for knowing it. That alone should give us a hint.

      If we can't know something about something with out believing in it, it is probably in our heads. Why else would we have to believe in it?

      If a god like the one the bible talks about wanted us to know it exists we would just know. It would be obvious. Whether we believed in it or not if it wanted to get through to us and say I'm here, surely it could do that in no uncertain terms? It could also counter any skepticism we have because it would know exactly how to prove to us individually that it exists.

      I can't see making excuses for a god makes much sense.

    • profile image

      Cromper 6 years ago

      No, but the user could tell the AI program and add code to prove the user exists.

      If God is extra-dimensional he would still be able to communicate with us in a 3D capacity. Just as we could interact with 2D beings if we created a 2D world (an AI program perhaps?).

      This is the problem I have with religion (not the belief in a creator, though). To ask us to find god is like a cruel test. He must be having a laugh! I cannot see how anyone could justify his demands considering he is all powerful and eternal.

      I have tried to answer the question myself in the past and the only possibilities are that god either does not have the capability to interact with us (meaning he has no control over his own creation), or he does not want to interact with us (meaning he is not really a loving god).

      Now, at this point in past debates I've had, theists have tended to become all philosophical and use the distraction technique of opening their Bible and reading out some chapters. The Bible means nothing to me.

      So any reasonable, down to earth explanation would be a good start.

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      Cromper, me too!

      Would a computer AI program necessarily know what its user was thinking?

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image

      Ron Hooft 6 years ago from Ottawa

      Remote Viewing

      I have a copy of the remote viewing course, actually. There are people still trying to do it and teach it. There were some reports that it did work.

      Again, in the quantum world there is such a thing as entanglement. It is what quantum computing is based on. So there are possibilities there if it is an actual phenomenon. Bell said, and tightly so, that if entanglement was proven then all things are intimately connected in way we could never imagine. It was proven, so that may tell us something.

      I can't say whether remote viewing is or is not real so it is speculation. I can also only speculate on how it might work if it is real.

      Reincarnation is easy to build a model of. We might be reincarnating every day. That is to say that atoms leave our body system constantly. We have to replace them so we have to eat, so we bring in atoms from all kinds of systems. If they are encoded with information about their previous existence as another system our brains may be able to read some of that information and throw it up at us as a memory. It would seem as though it was our memory and thus that we had actually lived those memories.

      There has been some suggestion that ghosts and hauntings are basically the same idea. Here a traumatic experience might actually be encoded in the material around an event. This is based on the same principal as a VCR or Audio tape. We encode sound and picture on ribbons of plastic with a metal flake coating and can play them back.

      If the brain can project extreme trauma and that trauma is encoded on rock or drywall or wood or what ever, which are all possible mediums for encoding sound and picture, then an other human brain might be able to play it back.

      Poltergeist type hauntings usually revolve around kids or teenagers who are troubled. I've had some experience with this phenomenon myself as I recount in one of my books.

      So that is one possible natural answer.

      You say that:"The problem with thinking that you're only a meat body is that you will never wake up with that attitude. The spirit will forever remain asleep despite the repeated incarnations."

      I have an issue with the idea of being just a meat body in that matter and energy are the same thing in different form. The spiritualists often used to say that energy was spirit and material was just base and lifeless. But that's not the case at all. Really, all there is. is energy in different forms.

      I'm not sure what evidence you might have for the belief that my soul or spirit is asleep. I would like to see your evidence that says I have a soul. So your entire view is speculative in that regard and anything you say about it is opinion.

      I may well have a soul. But I have searched for it for years and never found evidence of it. So now I treat it as speculation until I get new information. No use believing something speculative.

      So what you say might be true, but unless you show me why and how it is true I can only take it as being your opinion. Which is fine and interesting but doesn't really tell me much more than a thousand other models that say variations on the same thing.

      As for eternal torture, I am only reporting what so many others believe, including obviously Sky2day. His or her words were: "I can only pray the non believer come to truth before the day of judgement. May God help them before that time."

      This mythical day of judgement implies a day god will come and judge us and send some to heaven and some to hell for eternal punishment. I didn't make it up. It is not something I believe. I have no beliefs about it at all except that were it true the way they tell it I would probably not want to worship that kind of egomaniac.

      Your version of god is much nicer but equally just your belief and not fact.

      But you say that the bible is not meant to be easy to understand. Why not? If it was inspired by a real god I'm sure it have made it very easy to understand indeed.

      However, it is very obvious why the bible is not easy to understand. It was written by a variety of primitive people over a long span of time and was influenced by politics more than a god. It is contradictory and can be used by anyone to make their particular point. Which is why it is really useless except as a way to look in to minds of the primitive people who were our ancestors.

      For that it is invaluable.

      "Arrogance closes the door to spiritual awakening. I still have far too much of this ego stuff, but I'm making progress against it."

      There are many ways to get rid of ego. But you don't want to get rid of it all. Freud coined the idea of ego as consciousness, not as you mean it: the egotistic or selfish self that may think itself better than others.

      You do want to get rid of that and one way to start is to not believe anything. Don't assume anything and don't don't believe speculative ideas. You have to be able to discern between speculation and fact. You can accept facts but believing them is redundant. So no need to believe anything or put faith in anything. In fact it leads you to sown the wrong path,

      I cover this all in my "The Road To Becoming A Warrior" series of hubs.

      But you don't want to get rid of ego or in it's true meaning consciousness. Because beyond that is nothing. Without ego ID which is the subconscious, can not be educated. So you end up this aware being, but without the ability to communicate. As far as I can tell no master has given up ego completely.

    • profile image

      Cromper 6 years ago

      I have never consciously hidden from god. How do you explain otherwise? Does god want me to contact him?

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      @Skye2day, thanks for your wonderful input.

      I love James "Deep Dude" Watkins, though I think he lets his ego get the best of him, at times. I understand his passion, but we should not use the tools of evil to combat evil.

      Oh yes, Skye. My hub is 100% about belief in our Father. It is a play on words, yes, but it is meant to shake the cozy tree of the physicalist by making a pun which makes it look like they believe in God, too -- the Great Nothing. God is not Homo sapiens. He is not physical matter, for that can be destroyed. God doesn't even possess space and time, for these can be uncreated. Indeed, our loving Father is no thing.

      And Skye, there is great beauty in the Bang, just as there is in mathematics, logic and all other forms of reason. But any tool used for ego (selfishness) takes on an evil intent. The tool is not evil, but the purpose behind it can sometimes be full of ego -- the master of this world.

      One can easily explain the miracles in life. That in itself is a beautiful miracle, though an ordinary (physical) miracle. But one can also explain the extraordinary miracles -- walking on water, feeding the multitudes, parting the sea and wrestling with an angel. These can be explained, not by science, but by the mechanics of creation by which only God and his spiritual children can operate.

      Remain humble, my dear Skye. Keep searching for Truth. Never sit by and think that you have made it, lest the Lord find you sleeping. I hunger for it more than the breath of life, but even I may not make it. I am still not worthy.

      May God be with you always.

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      Slarty, welcome and thanks for your equally delightful discussion.

      Remote Viewing

      Now, I have a question for you both. How could someone read the material in a closed room in which they had never physically visited? I met a fellow who had done this during spiritual research during the mid-1950's. Out of that research, the CIA later tried to make remote viewing work. With a bunch of skeptical scientists around, I'm not surprised that it didn't. Skepticism is the water which puts out the fire they were attempting to study.

      Let's say his remote viewing story is true. How would you explain such a phenomenon? How would an organized field of electrons develop the ability to see colors, details and to read and transmit data back to the host body through solid walls? Like the Ptolemaic deferent, equant and epicycles, that's a lot of added complexity that seems entirely unnecessary, and likely utterly false.

      Reincarnation

      Or how would you explain the phenomenon of reincarnation as documented by Dr. Ian Stevenson -- http://www.ancientsuns.com/fwd/tlog/reincarnation-... ? One of his most interesting cases involved a woman who remembered hundreds of details from her prior life despite the former family members repeated attempts to trick her -- remembering pet names, and other details.

      A Version of Hell?

      The problem with thinking that you're only a meat body is that you will never wake up with that attitude. The spirit will forever remain asleep despite the repeated incarnations. And when the cavalry has gone, all that's left is the wailing and gnashing of the action-reaction lives of blood feuds, violence and brutality. I doubt seriously that civilization would persist under the weight of such selfishness -- such ego -- and without the guidance of our spiritual brethren. Perhaps that's one version of hell. You're welcome to it. I hope like heck I'm not around to experience it. I don't have it solved yet on that topic; still working on it.

      And Slarty, the "torture" for eternity "drum" that you like to beat is a gross misunderstanding of God's intent. God is only love, and if you read the Bible with that as rule-of-thumb, then understanding the apparent contradictions take on an entirely new meaning.

      So Many Interpretations

      Not only do you have it messed up, but so do a whole truck-load of Christian fundamentalists, including my late, Southern Baptist minister grandfather. I know I don't have it all figured out, but I'm making progress. Understanding the Bible was never meant to be easy, though some lazy fundamentalists get off by thinking they already have it all figured out. That's arrogance. The goal of the Bible is humility (the complete opposite); a difficult-to-interpret Bible is entirely compatible with eliciting humility from those who are truly searching. Arrogance closes the door to spiritual awakening. I still have far too much of this ego stuff, but I'm making progress against it.

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      Cromper, wow. What a delightful discussion.

      I wish I knew more about the relationship between spirit and body and the mechanics of spiritual perception while so deeply attached to a physical body. Indeed, something like that could become confusing if one is drifting back and forth between the spiritual viewpoint and the bodily viewpoint.

      Two Souls?

      Two souls? Very funny. The fact that your body continued to be aware and perceptive of its surroundings merely means that it was awake. That's physical perception. The body is not a soul or spirit. That viewpoint outside of your body might have been hallucination or your true self (soul).

      The idea that the out-of-body viewpoint is a product of electrical impulses is interesting, but then it would seem that such an electrical field would be measurable. I know of no reports of scientists finding a disembodied electrical field that is projected from a Homo sapiens body.

      God Hiding?

      God hiding from you? That's also pretty funny. By your own decision, you are hiding from Him, not the other way around. Going to heaven or even living in heaven in the present is all a matter of decision. I have not yet found the ability to make that decision, but I suspect it requires letting go of a lot of attachments.

      And your question, "How did the creator get here," is simple, really. He was always here. But then you have to realize that "always" (a human, physical universe term) is inadequate, because God is outside of space-time, so terms like "before," "after" and "always" are inapplicable. When you have an artist painting paintings, you can ask who painted the painting, but not who painted the artist. The artist is source and not made of paint. God is source and not made of physicality (space, time, energy and matter).

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image

      Ron Hooft 6 years ago from Ottawa

      Cromper

      It is common to see and feel the tie to your body. I always saw it as pastel colored energy or light. I've read others see it differently. But there is definately a connection maintained even in all the literature.

      When I say astral travel I mean OBE.I'm not suggesting as some have that you visit other planets. lol... I find that idea strange considering my experiences. But I have moved around in a park for quit a while, while my body was sitting on a bench, for example.

      But I tended not to get to far before I was snapped back, which always happened as soon as I started to have conscious thoughts. I've written a series of hubs about it all.

      Anyway, the word Astral Travel was being used when I was young. But the new phrase is out of body experience these days.

      If we are just energy/mass as the sciences tell us then one can imagine that at the atomic level there is little or no difference between the human and the outside, with atoms coming and going and interacting. Who knows what supposed supernatural phenomenon are linked to that level of our existence? There is still so much to figure out about the quantum and it's relation with the brain.

      But if nothing else, OBEs can be fun, even if they are all just in the head. ;)

    • profile image

      Cromper 6 years ago

      Hi Slarty,

      I have always been interested in Astral Travel but never took the time to take any practical steps. I never realised I'd had an OoBE until I was about 14 when I read about it in a magazine.

      I agree with you, I think the mind can work beyond the body (it is all electrical impulses, is it not?) although not too far from the body. Does that make sense?I'm not sure if 'mind radiation' could ever be a possibility, but it would be interesting to discover that brainwaves do 'radiate'.

      One thing that bugs me; I was only an innocent kid when I had my OoBE, so why didn't I see 'The Light' and pay a brief visit to heaven?

      Maybe God just does not want me in heaven. Can't figure out why though. I don't have a criminal record and have lots of friends. I've never hurt anyone (intentionally) so why is God hiding from me?

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image

      Ron Hooft 6 years ago from Ottawa

      Well the big bang is just a model. But if true I would find it infinitely more interesting and beautiful than a god. Particularly one you have to believe in or it tortures you for eternity. Not my kind of benevolence, mate. ;)

    • skye2day profile image

      skye2day 6 years ago from Rocky Mountains

      I agree with James Deep Dude. I am not for certain in your hub if you believe. I am inclined to say yes you do per a comment on my hub. This is my story and I am sitcking to it God is was and always will be. How can one rationalize the beauty to a bang theory. I think NOT How can one expain miracles in life. I suppose a scientist could explain his way out of a box not to be. God can use science and Believers in awesome ways. I can only pray the non believer come to truth before the day of judgement. May God help them before that time. Yes we do go back to the Father when we pass to one side of paradis or the other. I will stay on the light side, Thank You Lord God. God Bless you and keep you and lead you to truth always in Him.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image

      Ron Hooft 6 years ago from Ottawa

      Cromper

      I agree with your entire argument and have made it a few times myself. I've also "Astral Traveled" many times in my life through meditation and shamanistic methods. I have come to the conclusion that it is all in the head.

      Well sort of anyway. That is to say I think there is a way we can get out of our bodies. But we are always tied to them. It is perhaps more of an expansion of the mind than really a leaving of the body. There are some medical phenomenon that seem to support that, as well as the EM and tectonic stress work of Doctor Persinger

      But in any case I do not think it is evidence of a soul.

      Near death experience is another example. It seems that what you see is dependent on what you believe. There are similarities but this can be explained perhaps by the similarities of the human brain.

      In any case it seems to be the last attempt of the brain to create an escape rout for us. Or for itself to beat death. But I think when you actually die, it's lights out and good night Mary Anne. ;)

    • profile image

      Cromper 6 years ago

      'So if there was no source to the universe (no creator), then how did it get here?'

      The same question can be asked about a creator. How did the creator get here?

      I suppose I should have said there is no 'requirement' for a creator. I would entertain the notion that there has to be a 'cause', but not a creation, because that in itself needs a whole load of evidence to show that it is a possibility.

      As for my OoBE (I use that term because in Britain OBEs are medals dished out by the Royal Family), whilst the experience started off crystal clear with a definite feeling I was outside my body, the journey became more surreal and gradually ended up more like an hallucination. For me, that casts doubts about whether I really was outside my body.

      I also had another experience when I was about six years old in which I had a near serious accident involving a car. I remember the feeling of the car brushing against me and pushing me to one side. I was fine, but the woman driver scolded me severely for running out into the road. The strange thing about this is that I remember the incident from two points of view. From my own body, and from that of an onlooker on the opposite side of the road. There was no one on the other side of the road, but I can take you to the exact spot where I see myself almost get run over.

      Does this mean I have two souls?

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      Hi, Cromper. Thanks for the interesting input.

      You state that there is no reason for either God or a creator. A bold claim, but not backed up with reasoning. Do you find this viewpoint on "faith" alone?

      So if there was no source to the universe (no creator), then how did it get here? Hawking's rather lame statement that gravity and the laws of physical reality were all that were needed misses a great deal of logic. Where did gravity come from? Where did physical law come from? And where did space and time come from? His pronouncements on this are weak, at best.

      "With all due respect?" A somewhat suspect phrase, that.

      So, you had an OBE. So, are you your Homo sapiens body, or something else? And if you read my hub on Anatomy of a Miracle, you'll get an inkling of where I'm coming from. Only a spiritual being can observe the universe from a non-physical viewpoint (non-Homo sapiens eyeballs). Only a spiritual being can bend, break or otherwise circumvent the laws of physical reality.

      And bravo, Chomper. I don't stop investigating, either. That's part of the humility of an investigator. I don't pretend to understand all about spirit or God, but I think you presume to know too much when you make claims about "rewinding." And yet, a little "child-like" awe and wonder are good for everyone, including a scientist. Einstein swore by it.

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      Thanks, Jack.

    • profile image

      Cromper 6 years ago

      lone77star,

      Excellent hub and some fine comments to boot! (I skipped over the latest ones, please forgive me)

      I come from the school of the finite universe, but for very different reasons to yours. I'm not sure how you can come to any kind of conclusion regarding a god or creator when there is no need for either.

      With all due respect, I think your knowledge is as powerful as your need for a god/creator. It's quite surreal to read your detailed and articulate rational comments accompanied by your positive assertion that there is a creator or god.

      I have also had an out of body experience (see my hub) and understand how real the experience is. But I don't rewind my thought processes back to a childlike state and start believing in a supernatural force (or whatever) that needs no explanation.

      I have had many unexplained experiences in my life and, the more I live, the more I understand them. I do not stop investigating all the possiblities until I'm satified that I have come to a conclusion.

    • Apostle Jack profile image

      Apostle Jack 6 years ago from Atlanta Ga

      You said it well.

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      Another Rene Descartes statement: "Dieu en moi" (God in me). Also brilliant.

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      Gotta love that Rene Descartes. Brilliant.

    • qwark profile image

      qwark 6 years ago

      Lone77star:

      You have offered "NOTHING" here to consider, that I haven't already studied, considered and conceptualized.

      There is "nothing" yet to "BELIEVE" in but: "Cogito Ergo Sum :)

      Finis.

      Qwark

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      Qwark ... Oh! And one other thing. Check out my "Numbers are Beautiful." I talk about zero a great deal, there.

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      Hi Qwark,

      Some lovely stuff in your last comment, but heavily tainted by pessimism.

      I've been in the zone I described very rarely, but it feels quite different from the non-zone. Also, it seems to manifest itself as things falling into place, so that the feeling and circumstances all seem to be in harmony.

      It's sort of like the Summer Olympics I saw a decade or two ago. One highly-favored East European gymnast fell from the parallel bars and blew everyone's cool, except for one humble, quiet American. Everyone after the fall suddenly had the jitters and couldn't get high marks for anything. Yet, the one American did not let the "air of failure" bother her. I seem to remember she got a perfect ten. She was in the zone; the others were not.

      The lengthy harangue, as you call it, was part response to your previous comment and part musing about the subjects in general. And yes, Desiderata is quite eloquent throughout.

      My expression was not purely mathematical. I stated that in the article. Your forcing it to be mathematical proves nothing. Yes, I understand that zero times anything is zero. So, you miss my point, big time. And it takes some work on your part to get it, but only if you're willing to invest time in that quest.

      Yes, our beliefs are temporary. We can change our minds. We can learn. I see things from a more optimistic viewpoint and it seems to bear empirical fruit. Like the old saying, "you get what you put your attention on." Or, some people see lemons (disaster), while others make lemonade (success).

      And scientists with "seems to be?" There doesn't seem to be anything imaginary about an atom bomb. Stand too close to that and empirically you're less than toast. The products of science are very real. Their understanding is close enough to make work the technology we use.

      You say you believe in nothing, but it seems you believe in tomorrow being a "hope," not an absolute. Do you always contradict yourself? (I know, that's a loaded question, and I feel the mirror begging for my attention.)

      Qwark, I've discovered something wonderful. I still don't have it all figured out, but my harangue was an attempt to explain where I'm coming from — my methods, my worldview, etc. It takes a certain viewpoint to see the landscape that I see. From where you're standing, now, you'll never see it. If you don't want to budge, that's your choice.

      Sounds stubborn and grumpy, to me. My wife sometimes describes me that way, too.

      Some people call my expression an "equation." It's not. There's no equals sign. Duh!

      Some people try to make it into purely mathematical, and it isn't. Read the article again, and you'll see. It's symbols to describe some of the aspects of creational mechanics. Some of those aspects are like our ordinary mathematics, and some are not.

      The value zero of (0/n) is not purely the mathematical zero. It indicates in the numerator zero duration. A more mathematical representation might be (0/n)*t, where "t" is time in whatever units. But that would not be strictly accurate, because the expression represents not only lack of persistence, but lack of manifestation in 3D space and sometimes in physical form.

      The -1 (minus one) exponent acts very similarly to that of the mathematical counterpart in that it yields the reciprocal (n/0), but the added meaning is that this represents a removal of spiritual awareness and a change of assignment in the cause-and-effect status. Unlike the mathematical counterpart, (n/0) is not undefined, but potentially infinite duration, and complete solidity in physical reality.

      Perhaps I could have used other symbols to represent this so that you and others would not be so inclined to think of it in purely mathematical terms. But this symbology helped me understand more clearly what I experienced 34 years ago.

      It also puts my experience into perspective with the findings of science (in its study of the realm of continuity) and into perspective with some philosophical or religious statements made by someone who apparently had a good handle on bending or breaking the laws of physical reality. The idea that knowing the truth would set one free, is simple when you realize that spiritual awareness of a creation removes the persistence (space-time dimension) from it. It is reduced to an instantaneity — zero persistence — and returns to the original, inner expression of (0/n). One moment, the problem exists, the next moment one is free of it. Scientology counseling works this way by as-ising the source of a problem (what the Buddhists called "as-it-isness") -- the "truth" of the problem. If the problem persists, then empirically you have not yet discovered its "truth."

      You can deny the existence of something all you want, Qwark. It won't make it go away. You can grumble about someone else being delusional because they think they can do something you cannot, but that's your decision.

      You once jumped to the erroneous conclusion that I'm just another Christian fundamentalist crackpot (or something similar to that), and refused to continue the dialog. That was your choice, but based on what? A keyword or two, taken out of context? For someone with a superior IQ, it shows poor use of that intellect to judge so brashly without really understanding. But I should talk! I've done it, too. It seems to come from blindness and arrogance (both self-imposed).

      My harangue may have not been interesting to you. My apologies. I'm happy to talk about something else. But don't dismiss a subject so quickly. There might be a goldmine staring at you. Too many times others have dismissed something only to find out that it was exactly that for which they were looking. One NASA father did not fall into that trap when he listened to his son solve a problem the engineers had struggled with for weeks. Humility goes a long way in this world. All too often, I forget to use it. My lovely wife helps me remember.

      And perhaps not surprisingly, ego (the antithesis of humility) cannot exist in the zone (not the one you described). If someone is a grumpy old fart all their life, they would never discover the zone, and in fact, might suspect that it doesn't exist — that all those athletes who talk about it must be smoking some pretty heavy drug.

      So, hold onto your fixed viewpoint, if you so desire. Does it really help you discover new things? For me and my experience, I think not.

    • qwark profile image

      qwark 6 years ago

      Lone77star:

      If your are convinced that you are are in your "zone," (whatever you "imagine" it to be) by golly that "preconcieved" decision is, definitively, yours to hold and embrace!

      Now, what in the world does that lengthy harangue have to do with the title of this thread: "So you Believe in Nothing?"

      (0/n)2=0, it's as simple as that.

      It is, as it is so eloquently expressed in "Desiderata, "No doubt the universe is unfolding as it should."

      Hawking, Einstein? Both highly imaginative men, who have been gifted with an aptitude for being able to visually express their impression of that which "SEEMS TO BE," in the form of math.

      If we humans manage to exist and progress for another millenia, future man will study our history and will consider us to have been as naive and primitively ignorant as we consider our stone age ancestors to have been.

      When our infant fingers reach the first rung of the evolutionary ladder and we manage to grip it tightly, the possibility that we MAY ascend to a position upon that first "rung" will exist.

      At the moment, I, pessimistically, doubt that that possibility exists.

      I "BELIEVE" in nothing because tomorrow is but a "hope," not an absolute.

      We all create our "zone."

      The "intelligent" amongst us will develop maleability of mind as the need to adjust that "zone," becomes a necessity to survive for as long as our genetic programming will allow!

      Our beliefs are temporary!

      Qwark

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      Qwark, I appreciate your participation in our long-distance, lively conversation. For such a young fart, you have a pretty astute mind. ;)

      Yep, perhaps it was just imagination. I don't think it was a bit of undigested meat or the residual effect of all those psychedelic drugs I didn't take during the '60's. But I move between certainty and humility (restraint,... even skepticism), ever exploring the possibilities and meaning.

      As far as religion, most people's take is a crock, in my book. Been there, done that! My grandfather was a Southern Baptist minister and missionary to Africa. I've moved far beyond that (at least in my own mind). Some will say that I've lost my way. In all humility, I hope so! Ego needs to die on this journey, if I am to survive.

      Einstein valued imagination more than knowledge, and I can see why. Knowledge will only take you to known locations. Imagination will take you everywhere, including some very real places never explored before. That's how our dear Albert found Relativity. The dangerous zone is determining what's real and what's fantasy. This is not for the timid. It requires confidence, but also humility.

      The first glimpse always remains highly colored with past experience and limited world view. Frequently, the first glimpse of a new discovery is a misperception, distorted by prejudices (sometimes unrealized). Humility is the only way to dispel such preconceptions and fixed ideas. I've offloaded hundreds of such dead weight. And yet it seems I've only scratched the surface.

      Self-awareness has been key in my quest. It's a constant challenge. The mind doesn't always have the continuity of physical reality. Things placed there don't always remain in one place. And the mechanics are somewhat counterintuitive. Push harder on a car and it might actually move. Push harder on a memory and it more stubbornly resists being found. Sometimes, in order to remember where you left your book or car keys, you need to relax. You need to move toward more effortlessness. This is what my semi-mathematical expression is about in communicating the effects of creation. Could this describe what happened when Peter the fisherman stepped out of his storm-tossed boat to walk a moment on the sea with his master? Perfect confidence, utter humility, completely stripped of reason and ego.

      Some people call such creation, "prayer." Are they asking a bearded old guy on cloud 9 (or Mt. Olympus)? Hardly. Are they asking the true inner self who has always had the ability of infinite creation? Perhaps.

      Most people, though, get such prayer all wrong. When they say, "Please save us from the bank foreclosure officer," but their mind is picturing the fear of being kicked out of their home. So, what they are asking for is "fear" and "being kicked out of their home." Sad, but the lack of self-awareness has made their prayers seem futile. They say one thing, but "ask" for another. In reality, they always (always!) get what they "ask" for. Awareness is key.

      How can one be so confident and avoid the devil named "arrogance?" That question has bedeviled me for years. It comes, it seems, with relaxing and being humble. This puts ego to sleep. It allows the true self to stir from its slumber. This is the "window" of opportunity for inspiration, when things seem magically to click into place, effortlessly. Top athletes call this the "zone."

      What I enjoy most about discussing these things, my dear Qwark, is that I frequently re-discover these things, but from a slightly different point-of-view. It's fresh, slightly cleaner of past preconceptions. Sometimes, my "new" truth is discarded for something even better. This is when I find myself in the "zone."

      (And yes, I did have a good night's sleep. Thanks!)

    • qwark profile image

      qwark 6 years ago

      Lone77star:

      That was a "gentlemanly" response...much appreciated!

      I'm sure that if we met we'd have some lively conversations.

      "This lifetime has been a good one. Better than most I've had. Though one about 11,600 years ago seems pretty vivid, still."

      You have quite an imagination. :)

      Differences in understanding "reality" are as diverse as there are people who try to understand it.

      Have a good night.

      Just tell your wife that you retired early. It was the immortal you who had to reply to me. :)

      Qwark

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      @Quark, I have met a few such derelicts, too. And my ship has run aground on numerous occasions.

      Yes, IQ is an inadequate measure, but it has its use. And I agree that it fluctuates. Some days, I don't feel smart at all. And all three of my younger brothers have long tested far above with IQ's of 169, 189, and 200+ (untestable). Having a conversation with my youngest brother has frequently gone way over my head -- like when we talked about adiabatic lapse rates and pressure gradients in an atmosphere. Whew!

      I know what I saw. I know what I did, but I don't always have the ready ability to do it... or that's where I've put myself by my own "creation." Miracles? You bet!

      And I prefer a good belly laugh to too much seriousness. Laughter is such good medicine.

      Arrogance? I know it too well. That's the real killer, and ego is at the heart of it. Most of us are left with an active ego, thrashing about for attention, while the real us (the immortal) sleeps within the Homo sapiens shell.

      At 61, I still seem to be holding my own. Co-author of my novel, John Dalmas, at mid-80's isn't doing so well, anymore, physically. His mind isn't as sharp any more through a form of dementia, but there are windows of lucidity, and delightful moments of levity.

      This lifetime has been a good one. Better than most I've had. Though one about 11,600 years ago seems pretty vivid, still.

      If we let go of our arrogance, we can see so much. Am I suspect? You bet I am. And I wouldn't have it any other way. I'm enjoying every minute of it.

      Almost 3am, here, and my wife would be unhappy if she knew I stayed up late chatting with you. But I've enjoyed it. Thanks, Qwark.

    • qwark profile image

      qwark 6 years ago

      ...in my life, I have met many "educated" derelicts.

      When I read such as this:

      "I have a marginally genius IQ (consistently tested at 139-140), I've had training in science, logic and mathematics, and I've graduated the university summa cum laude."

      The 'proclaimer" becomes immediately suspect in my mind.

      "IQ" is but a "facet" of the measure of "intelligence."

      It only measures "aptitude" i.e. Adaptability to a new environment or to changes in the current environment;

      Capacity for knowledge and the ability to acquire it;

      Capacity for reason and abstract thought

      and can be reduced by time and apathy or increased by time, study and understanding.

      I graduated "magna-cum-laude" as a college undergrad with a consistently recorded IQ of 165!

      I am now almost 70 and my IQ, measured at the University of Oregon, 5 yrs ago, indicated my IQ had dropped to 145!

      Egads! How many "standard deviations did I drop? I'm only a "borderline genius!" lololol.

      Sillyness can only be measured by the magnitude of the "belly laugh!"

      Miracles exist only in the evolving minds of an infant species: Homo/sapiens,sapiens.

      We are such an arrogant form of insipient, cosmic life!

      Qwark

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      @AntonOfTheNorth, thank you for your delightful insights.

      I love your "ant" analogy. While we are only Homo sapiens bodies, we cannot truly experience ("know") the spiritual.

      But I have been something other than the physical "ant." I have glimpsed the highway and its purpose. But like the Indian tale of the six blind men and the elephant, I may only have glimpsed the tail, the tusk, or the trunk.

      That makes my experiences no less valuable. Combined with the experiences of others, it creates a tapestry of knowledge in a region for which the vocabulary is likely sorely inadequate.

      For example, I read a hub by a Hindu, a few months ago, and had a major epiphany. For a brief while, the perfect state of "faith" (100% confidence + 100% humility) returned to me and a miracle occurred. It was yet another glimpse of the big "road" and what it all means.

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      @Quark (from 3 weeks ago), it's always a delight to hear from you. Your comments are always refreshing, irreverent, and stimulating.

      You once said that I was just another ordinary believer. I expected much better from you, because I'm not and I work hard at making that point strongly.

      I refrain from jumping into the belief "mold" of the masses, because I don't buy their interpretation. You want to cast me in their mold? Go ahead and try, but it's not a good fit.

      Don't be so quick to judge when I write to one audience of which you are not a member. I try to speak many "languages." If you judge all of what I say, but one of those languages, then you deny yourself a real treat.

      Most of the hub is a big "pun." I state that in another of my comments, above. Some people seem to lose their senses of humor when it comes to atheism and religion. Oh, well...

      The formula, though, is directly from my own research into miracles.

      I am inherently a spiritual being -- timeless and a source of creation (baby god, if you will). Miracles by me or anyone else would otherwise be impossible. I've done them, ergo I am a creator. I have walked the strands of space far from my own body and seen without mortal eyes, therefore I am non-physical -- "no thing!" Get the pun, now?

      Are there any bodies born without a spirit attached? There might be. Could one of those bodies be yours? I hope not.

      "Fundie?" Quark, I'm seriously starting to doubt your intelligence. I say enough things in my hubs to turn true "fundies" absolutely green with illness. The only thing I have in common with "fundies" is that we both have Homo sapiens bodies and you happen to apply the same label to both of us. Come on, Qwark. That's not very bright. Wouldn't you agree?

      And regarding your comment from 22 hours ago:

      I agree and I apologize for not getting back to you, sooner. Work has been a real bear, plus my family wants some of my time, and I love giving them what they need.

      But I also have fun debating with you and others. So, here I am.

      Thanks for stopping by.

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      To Slarty (from 3 weeks ago).

      Slarty, you make some good points, as always.

      On the subject of conservation of energy and matter, I agree. Within a closed system, conservation makes sense. But what put the system there? What put the continuity of time there? What allowed into existence the points of view which we call space? That's part of the enigma which keeps the subject interesting, at least.

      I have a marginally genius IQ (consistently tested at 139-140), I've had training in science, logic and mathematics, and I've graduated the university summa cum laude. I know there are quite a number of brighter bulbs than mine, but I'm no slouch when it comes to observation and analysis. Developing software for the marketplace demands keen analytical skills.

      So, am I sure that my analysis is correct? You bet I am, at least on the big points. Miracle? Yes. And I'm not talking small, ordinary, everyday "miracle" stuff. I'm talking breaking the laws of physical reality. Like what the carpenter was supposed to have done on the Sea of Galilee.

      I can understand that such things are rare. I've seen what it takes to achieve such a miracle. And I see that I still have imperfections which make achieving that state regularly very difficult.

      I've also had many extraordinary experiences which were not "miracles." Telling the difference is crucial, certainly. If you care to, check out my "Analysis of a Miracle" hub. There, I attempted to address some of the details of observation and analysis.

    • qwark profile image

      qwark 6 years ago

      ...a "confrontational" chat about "nothing" can only result in "nothing," ergo (0/n)2 can only = nothing.

      Oh well...? :)

      Qwark

    • profile image

      AntonOfTheNorth 6 years ago

      Well since everyone else is in . . . :)

      "The idea that something is impossible to know has always disconcerted me. I figured that with sufficient study and logic, one could devise a way to know just about anything."

      What are the odds that an ant will ever figure out what a highway is for?

      I submit 0. It is beyond the capability of an ant to determine its intended use, even as the ant uses it for the same thing we do (to move easier and faster). And some species of ant are pretty decent instinctive engineers.

      Reality is not beyond our ability to speculate, but it is not unreasonable to assert that it is beyond our ability to know, at least while our existence is defined, contained or connected to our corporeal nature.

      I think the debate is unnecessarily coloured by the notion that 'rational' equals 'good' and 'irrational' equals 'bad'

      a faith position requires non-rational processes.

      Using science to argue a faith position (even as a joke) is using water to burn a pile of firewood.

      Using faith to argue a science position is exactly the same.

      But saying the argument is not rational is just that. It isn't rational. Doesn't mean the argument cannot be correct or persuasive. Just means it is not rationally derived. It is emotionally derived.

      We evolved with both rational and non rational processes as integral in our decision making.

      Most times we just argue about which part we are using at any one time.

      Accept that, and accept that no one knows the answer, and the debate becomes exploratory, not confrontational

      the possibility of discovery increases the more people agree on what is trying to be discovered.

      I submit that the goal of determining the nature and purpose of reality (or lack thereof) is more important than determining who is arguing more effectively.

      cheers

    • qwark profile image

      qwark 6 years ago

      Lonestar:

      (0/n)2

      0 = nothing

      N = anything

      Nothing divided by anything = nothing.

      Nothing squared = nothing.

      ????

      There are no atheists.

      "Atheism" defined is simply a disbelief or a denial of the existence of god/s.

      "God/s" is but a concept which has no basis in fact. It is but a subject of metaphysics.

      Since god/s is naught but a concept created by the fertile imagination of an evolving species of life, there is "nothing to deny but the concept.

      Literally, that would mean that there are only "aconceptthiests."

      I am an "ignostic."

      When I considered myself to be a "strong atheist," I never once imagined that "...there was no source to the universe."

      Of course there was a "...source to the universe."

      Where did you come up with the idea that alledged atheists thought/think that?

      We (all of us) can only make an educated "guess" at what it was.

      At this point in human evolution, we, in fact, exist as babes-in-the-crib in ref to knowledge of all that exists within and without the essence of existence.

      Skepticism (Pyrrhonism) is basic to learning and to an understanding that all knowledge can and should be questioned.

      Skepticism of this sort can only lead to greater understanding and, hopefully, progress.

      I am trying to figure out the point of this hub.

      It seems to me, that is has a strong hint of theistic purpose.

      Perhaps an under-the-table attempt, by a "fundie" theist, to "tout" his belief in the myth of god/s?

      Hmmmm?

      Qwark

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image

      Ron Hooft 6 years ago from Ottawa

      "if nature is eternal..." Is it?

      What I mean is, if the process of existence is eternal. Energy can not be created or destroyed as per the laws of conservation. Neither can mass. Every scenario in science which would bring about this universe starts with compressed or potential energy. Quantum fluctuation, for instance. So without a god,energy/mass would be the candidate for something that is eternal.

      I know you experienced something. But can you be sure you are interpreting it correctly?

      In any case, I have had many extraordinary experience which I recount in one of my hubs. But I still have no reason to think they were supernatural.

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      Slarty, this is some delightful reasoning, and fun to think about.

      You base some of your reasoning on a conditional: "if nature is eternal..." Is it? I guess we would have to wait forever to know for sure.

      Nature has a perfectly balanced structure. The mass of electrons compared to that of neutrons and protons. The strength of the various forces--nuclear weak force, gravity, electromagnetic, etc. Then we have covalent bonds in chemistry, plus fusion down to iron and fusion up from this element powering the universe on a physical level. Did such structure and balance merely happen? I can see how life can come from "accidents" of nature, but nature itself?

      And then we have miracles, where conscious thought leads to very specific effects, instantaneously. Pretty cool stuff. And seeing without mortal eyes--that blew me away for weeks! These prove to me a very spiritual (non-physical) component to what I refer to as "me." These give me a substantial reason to think that something "created" the universe. That "something" may be unlike anything we mortals can describe in our many languages.... I don't know.

      Does a conscious "God" exist? I'm convinced of it, but I do not yet know the exact nature of it. Perhaps the words "love," "humility," and "confidence" come closest.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image

      Ron Hooft 6 years ago from Ottawa

      Hi lone77star

      Great hub and great discussions. I think it all boils down to this. We pretty much all agree that something can not come from nothing. So something has to have produced all this.

      I didn't say 'created' on purpose, because that is not a given.

      If you define god as that which produced us, and we all agree that something produced us, then there is most definitely a god.

      But the discussion then turns to the gods state of mind. Does it have one?

      In other words: the question we must ask next is, is god conscious in some way, or is it a process?

      Something must have always existed for anything to exist now. That's why theists say god is eternal.

      So now we have something eternal, which must have been creative if we are to exist, and of course we know we do.

      But there is no reason that 'something' has to be a conscious being. None what so ever. If nature is eternal, and by nature I mean the process of existence, then all requirements are filled (even those of Thomas Aquinas)without the need for an outside conscious beings.

      In light of the fact that we know the process of existence, exists, (the constant creative transformations of energy/matter)and we do not know that it is conscious in any way in and of itself, there is no need to believe a conscious god exists, unless and until there is substantial reason to think so.

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      Thanks, Mr. Villarasa, for the astute observation and analysis. Some choose blindness because it suits them.

      And there is a level at which interpretation becomes creation -- cause instead of effect. That's a pretty blissful state, and all too rare in our lives.

    • A.Villarasa profile image

      Alexander A. Villarasa 6 years ago from Palm Springs

      Hello Mr. Martin:

      Fatfist's statement "What does the opinion of a human observer have anything to do with reality" reveals him to be a follower of Objectivism. Objectivism would deny man's ability to interpret material reality that is based on his inate need to apply meaning and purpose to that material reality. At the same time, Objectivism would deny man his ability to perceive reality beyond its immediate physical form... in the objectivist's world, material reality does not have any kind of spiritual connotation, and any attempts to interpret reality in anything aside from the material is illogical and irrational.

      From my perspective, what is irrational is for reality to exist without someone knowing that it exist.... and that it could be interpreted in so many different ways depending upon who is beholding it.

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      @FatFist, thanks for your comments and feedback. More than once you told me what my views were, but got them wrong. Not a good sign. Plus, you make several unsupported claims. For instance, you said in your first post, "Not a single human in history has been able to explain whether creation is even a possibility." To which I asked, "Have you interviewed every human in history?"

      And then you replied, "Huh? What does the opinion of a human observer have to do with reality? You didn’t answer this question I asked you before. Besides, if any human in history has rationally 'explained' creation, then the explanation should be documented, right?" But your original statement said nothing about documentation. Could someone have offered a verbal explanation? And not all written works of the past still exist. You said, "never" and then balked at proving your statement. What does the opinion of a human observer have to do with reality? Well, you made the claim. I'm just showing you the holes.

      My article explains how creation is possible. In fact, it gives a step-by-step procedure for it. Plus it gives a real-world example of its use.

      You said, "Most people who claim creation will also assert that it is 100% certainty. But after several days of exchanges with them they end up confessing that they only have 'faith' in creation."

      And what if "faith" were defined as "100% certainty?" Then there would be no "confession"—merely a repeated statement of fact. If you really read my article, you would see that I define faith this way. You will also see that I say that 99.999999% confidence is not faith. You seem to imply that there is a contradiction between faith and 100% confidence, but they are the same.

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      @AKA Winston, thanks for taking the time to explain your viewpoint.

      I guess the area of "belief evidence" is the critical point here, for you. I made certain observations, but you do not feel they were objective observations. But I disagree with your implied definition of "objective."

      One online definition states, "'subjective' meaning within the mind and 'objective' which has actual material existence in the real world."

      The cars on Wilshire Boulevard were real. Wilshire Boulevard was real. The positions of those cars relative to each other were real. And the movements of those cars (or lack thereof) were real-world and objective.

      I can understand interpretation being suspect. I can also understand the veracity of my observation being at question.

      And I seem to see in your argument a willingness to accept a miracle has happened if it is videotaped for the evening news. Which reminds me of the age-old question, "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?" Of course it does.

      And just because I don't have videotape of the event doesn't change the way it happened.

      Does the very idea of nature change because there is videotape to record the change? Or can such a change exist without videotape?

      At the very least, you have a strange notion of "objective," and by your implied definition, it seems that nothing could ever be "objective," because it is all observer dependent. Even the videotape is something observed and seems "subjective" by your view.

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      @Pjcrow, you mention some very nice sentiments, but I wonder if they may be misdirected. Is it the harm that religion sometimes does that is the objection? Does science sometimes perpetrate harm? Of course it does, but that does not mean we should be rid of science. I had a first grade teacher who spanked me for being creative by telling science fiction stories on the playground during recess. I wouldn't rid the planet of first grade teachers because of that unwarranted violence.

      Some may flock to religion out of a fear of death. But that is a rather shallow view of religion. Others may seek guidance on their way to spiritual awakening—things far more important than the temporary, physical body. Just because a group is formed to collect the wisdoms which will help an individual on that journey does not make that group evil, bad or unworthy of support.

      The real evil in this world is ego, and each of us carries a portion of this. This is the source of selfishness, insensitivity, arrogance and more. Religions have used ego, but so has every other organization on the planet. Be careful what you condemn. You might inadvertently point at yourself.

    • fatfist profile image

      fatfist 6 years ago

      Well, fatfist.com is up for grabs, James. Go for it :-)

    • James A Watkins profile image

      James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago

      I do kind of like the name "fatfist" though.

    • fatfist profile image

      fatfist 6 years ago

      lone77star,

      "Try http://hubpages.com/hub/Anatomy-of-a-Miracle. If you don't understand the answer here"

      Interesting article you wrote. I've read similar articles before as there are many of them on the net.

      But it doesn't explain whether the claim of an alleged creation of space & matter is even a remote possibility. If you care to do some research, you will find that nobody in the history of humanity has been able rationally support the claim of creation.

      "then I can't help you."

      Thank you for being honest with me. I appreciate it. Most people who claim creation will also assert that it is 100% certainty. But after several days of exchanges with them they end up confessing that they only have "faith" in creation.

      Thanks for your reply. I can see this hub is keeping you very busy answering questions. I won't take up your time any further.

    • pjcrow profile image

      pjcrow 6 years ago

      There is nothing wrong with speculation of an afterlife or higher meaning or anything of that like. But when these harmless thoughts or desires metamorphosis into a religion, something with clear, written objectives and rules, that is when it becomes a problem. A religion is a tool for which mankind has no problem with exploiting to the fullest of its potential. I wish not to undo the ploy of men seeking answers to their fear of death, but i wish to extinguish that flame every time it sparks a religion.

    • profile image

      AKA Winston 6 years ago

      (Why would you, @AKA Winston, ever reject the idea that any ordinary event in your life was not a hallucination? How could you be so sure?)

      lone77star,

      It's late and I am tired and your responses combined were too lengthy for me to reply to all, so I'll simply answer the above as you indicated this particular question had highest import.

      It seems a strange question - why would I reject that when I tied my shoes it was a hallucination? I don't reject that possibility - but it is unimportant whether it is or is not. It would become important if I thought that while tying my shoes I could also create out of thin air a checking account for myself that held $1,000,000 and then wrote a check for a new Ferrari on that account.

      You say in essence you are claiming you parted the red sea. But the sea doesn't stay parted, does it? You have no "film at eleven" of this event. So I say, I don't care if you believe you parted the red sea. Your "belief" evidence is subjective, regardless of how much you want ot make it sound objective. Even if it happened, the event only happened because it was observed to occur - and then an opinion was formed as to what the event meant. That makes it all subjective - observer dependent.

      My life is no different regardless of the reality or delusional nature of this Wilshire event. However, if you do something concrete and permanent - regrow the arm of an amputee - well, now my life is different. It means that the very idea of nature has been changed.

      I assure you we will make no further headway in this discussion. Thanks for your time and input. I really didn't mean to drag it out this long.

      Adieu.

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      @pjcrow (from 3 hours ago), thanks for the delightful dissertation. Made me smile. And I'm glad you enjoyed the thought-provoking article. That was its real intent—to provoke thought and to cause exploration. Proving anything was entirely secondary.

      And I find it interesting that you admit the possibility of some higher, possibly unknowable, power which may have been the conscious source of all we perceive.

      I understand the reticence you have in giving any credence to the theists' arguments. Frequently they are pompous and illogical. They are confusing real "faith" with "delusion." Regrettably, that is too frequently the malady which cripples religions on this world.

      Each of us have a body, a mind and an ego. And also, each of us has within us a sleeping immortal with the power of creation. I don't know the exact nature of that possible deity—that source of all reality—but it could be the aggregate of all of us immortals.

      Many of us mortals (the Homo sapiens side) think we will die and that's all she wrote. Done! End of story! Are my memories of other times a delusion? Is my one incident of remote viewing while my body was wide awake all a figment of my imagination? And was my Miracle on Wilshire Boulevard (Anatomy of a Miracle) a hallucination? I don't think so. And that's why I continue to think there is more to this universe than the physical.

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      [Part 2 of 2]

      @AKA Wilson, you really don't know which "camp" I'm in. Missed it by several parsecs. My battlefield example had more to do with unreasonableness, not miracles, though the two can be related. In a scientific lab, the reasonable fellow might say why something "could not be invented." During World War II, there was a fellow who had an idea for a weapon that the reasonable blokes said couldn't be done. He proved them wrong. He was unreasonable. He was a winner and a doer. He got things done, while others stood around and whimpered about how impossible it was, and how Hitler was going to whip their butts because there was nothing they could do. In a war, such winners make the difference between winning and losing the war. Such attitudes rise above the "impossible" and make it happen.

      @AKA, if you were in a battlefield, some of your buddies were lying in pieces all around you, part of one's intestines draped over your shoulder, part of a skull chip lodged in your teeth and brain mush pasted all over your face, bullets whizzing past your head, would you feel a little fear? Even just a little?

      The faith to do miracles is entirely fearless. Perfectly fearless. That's how hard it is to achieve that state. How easily could you, @AKA, become entirely fearless in the middle of a battlefield's mayhem? It's not easy, so long as you are attached to your body and your ego. Can I perfectly let go of my ego? Don't I wish. Could I be entirely fearless in battle? Not on your life! Does that make my Wilshire Boulevard miracle any less significant? Give me a break!

      If a baby takes a few, first steps, do you demand they flap their arms and fly? Of course not. That would be stupid. So is asking them to run the 100 meter dash. Well, duh! You performed one miracle, you should be able to perform them all. See how delightfully unreasonable you're being? But paradoxically, there is also some truth there. Faith is effortless. Yes, I should be able to do all miracles, but I've found only a few narrow areas of existence for which I could muster the perfect confidence. Only a few things seemed safe to my meager spiritual certainty. Yet we seem only able to struggle to let go of our attachments to ego and our possessions. That's where the real difficulty lies.

      One of the youngest men to serve in World War II, Audie Murphy, was also the most decorated. He showed uncommon fearlessness in the face of enemy fire. He seemed to lead a charmed life. He had an uncommon UNreasonableness that people around him admired. This is the unreasonableness I'm talking about.

      On one television program of strange phenomena, they showed the picture of a young man who liked to sky dive. One of his attempts resulted in chute failure. He plummeted toward the ground facing certain death. In the few moments he had left, he asked God to take him. Whether or not there is a God, is not the point here. He became humble, and humility is the antidote to ego. Only when ego is gone, can the true, immortal self stir from its slumber. Only then can miracles happen. The fact that he walked away with only a few scratches is a very objective, real, and tangible miracle. There are many "scientific" attempts to try to explain how such a thing was possible, but for a moment, he was in that fearless state (what he called "giving it up to God") and gained his "bulletproof vest." Regrettably, he became egotistical (something I have risked by sharing my Wilshire story). He felt invulnerable. He jumped out of an airplane a few weeks later, but this time without a parachute, certain that his charmed life would save him. Ego, being a physical universe construct, can never be the source of miracles, just as a rock cannot perform miracles. More ego, means a deeper sleep for the powerful immortal within. This time, the ground took him with a vengeance.

      @AKA Wilson, my Wilshire event really happened. No lie, no misinterpretation and no other miss. The details of the event show it to have been an objective, tangible, real-world miracle, rather than something purely subjective. I understand that you can persist in disbelief. That's your business. And, from my perspective, that's your delusion.

      From an objective, third-person omniscient point-of-view, if miracles are possible and past miracles were real, then you are missing out on one of the biggest breakthroughs in human history. That's what my "non-equation," symbolic expression is all about. This is the essence of creation—the foundation of physical reality. It explains how space-time, energy-matter, quanta, inertia and everything else of physical reality are possible. It explains how "the truth will set you free"—because anything from which you can be free, is a creation which persists. Spotting the truth of something is the act of the immortal self bringing the persistent object back to the instantaneity of creation. In other words, it ceases to have persistence in the time stream. And it doesn't take a genius to figure out what that means when all of us move into the next moment of time, and the non-persistent former creation is left behind.

      Now, I feel better, and not just from stroking my own ego. Thanks for reading. I look forward to your response.

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      [Part 1 of 2]

      @AKA Winston, let me start off, first, by apologizing. You were gracious enough to take the time to explain your viewpoint in detail. Very well thought out, and very thoughtful. I was letting ego get the upper hand, and I didn't like it. I didn't end the discussion so much as take a breather to clean off a heavy accumulation of ego (my own). I had posted 500 words, but didn't like the direction it was going, so I deleted it and replaced it with 10 words. The erroneous conclusion you derived from this action is also interesting.

      I also have to apologize, because my reply today is still not entirely without ego on my part. Pesky, tenacious little devil. So, I hope you'll bear with me.

      Yes, subjective demonstrations of miracles can seem quite real, but so can objective ones. You've tirelessly given me your detailed viewpoint. Bravo! I get it. There is a great deal of logic there. Again, bravo! But it's incomplete. You still haven't manned up to discuss the details of the event as I witnessed it.

      Your dream example of supernatural delusion is well taken, but the circumstances in traffic are quite different than that of sleeping at night. Lucid dreams can seem very real. Been there, done that. Is it a fair comparison to relate your dream delusion to my waking event?

      @AKA Wilson, have you acknowledged to yourself that your entire life may not have occurred at all as you remember it? That you may really be in a padded cell someplace merely dreaming all this technology stuff of internet and hub pages? Or stuck in a "copper-top" situation dreaming away your life in the Matrix? Or do you take your perceptions as largely valid, especially the waking ones?

      When you get in your car and drive, are you aware of other cars around you? Isn't that an objective observation? And if, in the middle of rush hour traffic, the center lane opens up for two miles with roughly 2000 cars holding that pattern of openness for four minutes, could that be an objective observation?

      What's at stake in your worldview, if my miracle happened exactly as I say it did?

      Have I ever considered that I could have been seriously hallucinating? Yes, the thought did cross my mind. Why would you, @AKA Winston, ever reject the idea that any ordinary event in your life was not a hallucination? How could you be so sure? Please answer this question, if nothing else. This is a critical point of understanding.

      I understand what you're suggesting. And it doesn't take a genius IQ like mine to appreciate what that means. Okay. You made your point. Can we move on to my topic, now?

      How objective is 2000 cars? That's pretty solid. That's as solid as an amputee's regrown limb. Are you one of those who will disbelieve even the regrown limb? Say for a moment, you're shown pictures of before and after. You get the doctors' reports, but still disbelieve? If a dozen of those 2000 drivers some day read one of my online articles and respond with a note that they were there and witnessed the event, would that convince you of the objectivity of my observation? Or would you disbelieve just because you hold that miracles are impossible?

      Two thousand years ago, so the story goes, there were dozens of miracles by one man and several of is followers. All of them were objective, touchy-feely, observable, tangible events. The teacher was asked to prove himself in front of the skeptics, but he denied them. Supposedly, he had the power of the universe and was far more expert at miracles than I, and yet he refused to demonstrate to them. There are several reasons why he would not put on a magic show for them. Can you, in your lofty intellect and capacious imagination conjure even one of those reasons? And the reasons have to do with the very mechanics of creation being discussed.

      If you go into a laboratory and see some guy about to perform some experiment on flame, and you start squirting water all over the place, dousing the entire room, that makes it a bit difficult to start the flame or to strike the now soggy matches. Flame represents the faith to do miracles; water represents the doubt inherent in skepticism and the need for proof before the flame (miracle). But, my dear @AKA Wilson, in the realm of creation, things don't work that way. You got the cart before the horse, if you require proof before you will have faith.

      The purpose of our sibling teacher's visit to this planet was not to dazzle us with miracles and make us believe. Not even close. The purpose was to awaken the sleeping immortal within. This can only be done with humility—an complete lack of ego. Us performing miracles only exercises this ego-less state. Requiring proof only feeds ego. If there were another way around this, I'm sure the "God" group (the ones already awake) would have thought of it by now.

      Take the mind, for instance. It is a bit counterintuitive compared to physical reality. If you push against a physical object it might move. The harder you push, the more or faster it moves. In the mind, if you push, you get more resistance. Only by letting go do you get anywhere. Forget where you left your car keys? Put your mind on something else for a few moments. The memory will come back to you. Try to push for it, though, and frequently the memory eludes you. Unlike physical reality, the harder you push in the mind, the more it resists the effort. Creation is a bit like that, only it is absolute. Effort in even the slightest and you fail. Relax completely and you get it all.

      [continued in Part 2]

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      Okay, @Fatfist, you're welcome for the reply.

      Try http://hubpages.com/hub/Anatomy-of-a-Miracle. If you don't understand the answer here, then I can't help you.

    • pjcrow profile image

      pjcrow 6 years ago

      i enjoyed reading this. It was thought provoking and i appreciate that. I am an atheist, so i suppose one could say i "believe" in nothing, but i claim atheism not to say what i believe in, but to say what i don't believe in, and that is every religious or spiritual concept i have yet heard.Of course no one can know beyond doubt, so maybe i should call myself an agnostic, but i hate the idea of having to give a theist the credit of having answers that could potentially be right, because I'm sure if some spiritual, deity controlled realm that spawned us all exists, then it is most certainly nothing similar to anything we humble humans have yet contrived. And so i am an atheist.

    • profile image

      AKA Winston 6 years ago

      (@AKA Winston, thanks for a most enlightening and entertaining debate.)

      lone77star,

      You are welcome. And thanks for being gracious enough to allow me to explain a contradictory side. I do agree that subjective demonstrations can seem quite real. I notice, though, that you end the discussion once I request an objective test for miracle abilities.

      Why is that always the case in matters of belief?

      I do want to address one misunderstanding you hold as to something I said - I am not calling you a liar, as I do not know you or your motivations. You may well believe totally in what you claim. At the same time, you may be a charlatan. I only pointed out possibilities and wondered if you had acknowledged to yourself that your miracle may have not occured at all.

      I say this because when I was in my early twenties, asleep one night, I had a dream that an eerie ghostlike apparation was coming toward my bed, and it was terrifying. Somehow, though, I realized or knew instinctively that I was asleep and came to the conclusion that if I opened my eyes and woke up the illusion would disappear - I opened my eyes and the vision remained. Panicked, I thought that if I turned on the light that surely this thing would disappear. I turned on the bedside lamp and she/it was still there - for a bit and then it was all over. No message, threat, damage. Just an odd event in my life that only brought momentary fear.

      Do I consider that proof of anything? No. It has never happened again. Most likely it won't. What caused it? I really don't care - although it seemed a long time it was in reality just a few seconds of a continuous dreamstate, no doubt. It is not even worth repeating as a story except as example of weird.

      All I am asking is that if you have considered that what happened to you couldn't have been the same type thing - something like a powerful daydream-like state. I'm simply suggesting that what you truly believe to have been a miracle was nothing more than your mind's self-creation of a believable miraculous illusion so real-appearing that it fooled even your conscious self.

      But then, that is the problem with all proclaimed miracles - they never leave around objective data that can be analyzed - they are always based on subjective claims.

      When you decide to regrow an amputee's limb, give me a buzz. I would love to be there.

      Edit: I just noticed this response - hadn't read it that closely before.

      (In a life-and-death challenge I want someone who can rise above reasonableness and above the idea that "it can't be done." In that situation, if it "can't be done," you're dead. So much for reason and shallow thinking.)

      Thank you for clarifying into which camp you fit - squarely into the middle of the William Craig Lane fantastico's camp who when faced with a dichotomy between reality and faith are taught that faith is the superior position. Well, all I can say is then the real bullets start flying, I am betting your Wilshire Miracle abilities cannot create an objective bulletproof vest.

      Ciao.

    • fatfist profile image

      fatfist 6 years ago

      Hi lone77star,

      "Your comment sounds a bit like a blatant advertisement for your own hubs."

      Not at all. Only people who posit wild "creation" claims and are scared to post a refutation in my hubs make such remarks. I was merely trying to get you to understand the rational explanations backing up my statements. Maybe you confused me with an atheist troll, but I assure you that is not the case. I don't subscribe to the clubs of atheism, theism, or agnosticism, or any other club.

      “Yes, I can rationally explain the possibility of creation happening.”

      Great. Then you would be the very first human in history who can do this. Here you go, let's follow the Scientific Method....

      lone77star Hypothesis:

      At some instant in the past, there was no matter (atoms) and no space (nothing).

      lone77star Theory:

      I will now rationally explain how space was created as follows _______________.

      I will now rationally explain how matter was created as follows _________________.

      Please fill in the blanks, lone77star. I am looking forward to finally understanding how your claim for such an alleged consummated event can be explained. I am eagerly awaiting your rational response.

      “Boy, I'd like to see you prove that one.”

      What you consider as ‘proof’, 77, is a LIE to everyone else. Proof is naught but opinion and its only purpose is to persuade. If you disagree......and I hope you do......then please objectively define this formidable term (proof) which makes or breaks your argument. How does one go about objectively ‘proving’ something in reality without injecting their subjective bias/opinion into the conclusion?

      In science we don’t prove. In science we only explain, and we do rationally. That’s what a “theory” does.

      “Have you interviewed every human in history?”

      Huh? What does the opinion of a human observer have to do with reality? You didn’t answer this question I asked you before. Besides, if any human in history has rationally "explained" creation, then the explanation should be documented, right?

      Thanks for your reply.

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      @James Watkins (from 12 hours ago)

      Whew! Thanks for stopping by. I needed a boost. I was beginning to feel like Conan the Barbarian—knee deep in blood and guts and more ghoulies on the way. All in a night's work, though.

      Deep? The "atheist believing in nothing" bit was supposed to be an elaborate pun, but no one seemed to get it. It seemed the atheists became defensive and forgot to bring their senses of humor. But it's all fun and games.

      The symbolic expression for creation? Now that is a true work of art. I suppose, with so many calling it an equation, I should upgrade it to one. E = (0/n)^-1 perhaps, where "E" represents any "effect."

      About the forces of darkness, they are only as powerful as we allow them to be. I deleted one of my own replies, because I had fallen into the spell of that evil and started to speak through ego rather than through the spirit. That was painful.

      I agree, James, you can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear. That's one miracle no one can perform, because the pig's ear has free will and doesn't want to be a silk purse. Perhaps I needed to learn that first hand. And I thought I could learn something about the atheists' points-of-view. That much, at least, was easy.

      Thanks for the admiration, but after this hub, I may need a vacation to clean the bits of ego stuck to my carcass. Slaughtering ghoulies isn't easy.

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      @nightwork4 (from 20 hours ago). Thanks for stopping by. And it looks as though no one got the pun. I'm gonna have to work on my comedy routine.

      So you understand that the universe was somehow created, but that it wasn't a god or the God. Hmmm-m-m! How about the Tooth Fairy? Does that work for you? Or maybe the Easter Bunny? Can't be Santa Clause, because he's already busy managing toy building and that one whirlwind night of deliveries; he's gotta have a break sometime. Or, wait. Oh! I got it… It was one of those rocks flying around in space that created the universe. But, well, so,… do rocks think?

      And, here's a simple question: Can an equation exist without an equals sign? You seemed to think I was using some kind of mathematical equation. Can you tell me what it looks like? And if you see a symbolic expression that you don't understand, do you always call it "nothing new?"

      Now, enlighten me, if you will. What is this "something" that created the universe, but is not a god? I really would like to know.

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      @Qwark (from 22 hours ago), you seem to know me so well. Adios, my friend.

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      @AKA Winston, thanks for a most enlightening and entertaining debate.

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      @Fatfist, thanks for stopping by. Your comment sounds a bit like a blatant advertisement for your own hubs. Okay, fair enough. I can understand you wanting others to stop by and get the whole message. I feel the same way about my hubs.

      You make some good points about truth being truth no matter what we believe it to be. Bravo! I have made similar arguments elsewhere. Science works hard to discover what those truths are. As @Titen-Sxull point out so well, scientific method is the best tool for doing this (at least in the physical realm).

      I'm not claiming anything about the finiteness of the universe. For all I know, it could be temporally infinite. So, no! Your statement is not "my" theory. I said no such thing as my theory.

      Yes, I can rationally explain the possibility of creation happening. And you make an entirely brash claim that, "Not a single human in history has been able to explain whether creation is even a possibility." Boy, I'd like to see you prove that one. Have you interviewed every human in history? I'd like to know how you did that.

      @Fatfist, if you had not made such a brash claim, I might be inclined to visit your hubs and give my reasoned response, but life is short and right now I'm enjoying a conversation with @AKA Winston and @Titen-Sxull.

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      @AKA Winston (replying to your first comment 3 days ago):

      "Not me?" you said. Really? Then why did you include the Thomas Paine quote in response to my talk of miracles? I applaud you for your cordial approach to implying that I am a liar. Heck, for all you know, I could be a liar. Or I could be some frail flower of a guy who is so bowled over by the beliefs of others that I cannot help myself but be taken in my their delusions. Ohhh-h-h-hhh! The thought of it makes me wilt. (LOL!)

      Okay, you'll have to bear with me. I'm not taking anything seriously today. I'm in that rare mood of impatience.

      How convenient of you to make such a brash statement that, "In all of recorded history, though, there has yet to be a single case where the natural law of gravity failed to operate." And then to turn around to any such reports in recorded history and call them "frailty," "misstatements," "mis-observations," "misunderstandings," or "misinterpretations." Wow! That's very biased of you.

      Have all of the "misses" happened in the past? Certainly. Have there been exceptions to your "rule?" That's the sticky point.

      I've yet to find anyone who is skeptical of miracles being brave enough to discuss my one most startling miracle on its details. @Qwark turned tail and ran, but not before thumbing his nose at it. Reminds me of a picture of African primitives hesitantly rushing forward to swat the front of a jeep, before vanishing into the anonymity of the crowd. They were not willing to accept the metal monster standing right in front of them, so they swatted at it and ran away, hoping that the impossible jeep would somehow disappear. How thoroughly primitive.

      Will someone—anyone—discuss the miracle? Someone who is critical of it? I've been longing for that ever since I put it up. I want someone to tear it apart logically (not egotistically). I make it a dare! I dare you to do it, and call you "chicken" if you don't. Not just you, AKA Winston, but anyone who has the brash arrogance to diss it then run away before discussing its merits—the details of the event. No one can seem to sit still long enough to do that. They're all primitive natives taking their turns at the swat.

      @AKA Winston, you disappoint me. First of all, you won't discuss the details of a very real miracle with not only a witness of the event, but the creator of the event. And you have the gall to imply that I am a liar. Calling me a liar (or even implying it by including Paine's quote) is fair enough, but ignoring the real enchilada when you have an example of a miracle, is downright pretentious. It sounds like a story my brother Terry told me about Carl Sagan. One of his books critical of "pseudo-scientists" included a chapter he later withdrew, because someone found it obvious that Sagan had never read the man's work. Sagan was being fraudulent. Maybe he had a tight schedule and had to rush the book to market. That's still no excuse for not reading the material he was critiquing.

      "Chicken!" There, I said it. It makes my ego feel good to say that, but I'm disgusted in myself that I have to stoop this low to provoke a meaningful response.

      All of your theorizing about miracles is a bunch of horse dung, if you can't man up and face an apparent story of a real miracle. Say for a moment that my observational skills are better than average and that I am not lying about the incident. Say that it wasn't a mis-observation or a misinterpretation or any other miss.

      You and @Titen-Sxull have me challenged. I like it. You're both helping to keep these 60-year-old gray cells alive with interest. That's delightful. I'm hungry for more.

      But I'm not going to let you off the hook for making illogical statements. When you said, "In all of recorded history, though, there has yet to be a single case where the natural law of gravity failed to operate," you were ignoring all of the reported incidents of this happening. Duh!

      Yes, if a scientist ignores all evidence contrary to his hypothesis and reports only those which agree with his hypothesis, he is guilty of scientific fraud. Welcome to that fraudulent club, AKA.

      If Jesus existed, and there is a great deal of evidence that he did, and if he walked on water (and there is some evidence that he did), then he confounded gravity. If Marco Polo in his delirium in recovering from his avalanche in the Hindu Kush actually saw a Tibetan Buddhist monk levitate, then here is another example of gravity being confounded. If Moses actually parted the sea, then gravity was being thwarted there, too.

      For those incidents, we weren't there. Fair enough. They could be complete fabrications. But you have on the other side of this dialog someone who claims with a most certain conviction to have performed a so-called miracle. What about the incident is non-miraculous? I'd like to know. How is it not a miracle? Can you tell me that?

      @AKA Winston, you seem to understand statistical probability, to a degree. But do you realize that such probability is based on the "continuity" of physical reality. Without such continuity, nothing is predictable, and statistics become an impossibility. Science studies this continuity-bound realm and does a damn good job of it, despite the human frailties of scientists. But creation is superior to continuity, so cannot be touched by statistical probabilities. In this regard, miracles are unreasonable.

      If I were in a battle, I would take a troop of unreasonable bastards to a sniveling group of reasonable retards any day. In a life-and-death challenge I want someone who can rise above reasonableness and above the idea that "it can't be done." In that situation, if it "can't be done," you're dead. So much for reason and shallow thinking.

      But we're talking far beyond this. We're talking of a realm outside space-time—one steeped in discontinuity—the kind where walking on water is possible.

      So @AKA, are you brave enough to take the challenge? Are you brave enough to discuss the details of a real miracle?

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      @Qwark (from 2 days ago)

      Wow! Qwark, what a delightful display of ego, emotion and illogic.

      You know, you speak very good "erudite." I was starting to learn from you. I can speak "pedantic." I also speak "obfuscation" on occasion, though I prefer not to. I also speak over twenty programming languages, plus a healthy smattering of Spanish, a touch of Russian, German and Basque, and am now learning Cebuano. But when you balk at my "religious" speak, I'm flabbergasted. You think that is the whole me? Also, I'm flabbergasted that you associate my "religious" speak with that spoken by every other "follower." I speak an entirely different dialect, and your feeble ear could not tell the difference? That's what ego and arrogance will do to a fellow. It blinds one to the ability to tell differences and similarities. For them, they're all equal. How shallow of you. And, like you, no insult intended. Fare well, my friend. Don't let the door to eternity slap you on the backside.

      The "followers" you are used to, also condemn my "drivel." So, you're in good company. You have something in common with the ones you loathe. You are… (dare I say it)… just like them! Ohhhh-h-h-h! That hurt… so good! Thanks for the laughs, Q.

      I will miss your quirky lessons. I always enjoy learning new things from widely different points-of-view. Unlike you.

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      [Part 2 of 2]

      @Titen-Sxull, is the power of the universe (creation) worthless? If you feel this, then the products of creation (everything in your life—your body, your thoughts, your education, your mind) are worthless. I don't think this. "Complete and absolute certainty" are impossible with "doubt." Creating miracles are impossible with doubt. Just ask Peter, the fisherman, after he stepped out of his boat to walk on the storm-tossed waters of Galilee. Doubt found him sinking after his first few steps. Did that really happen? I don't rightly know. I wasn't there. But it's a beautiful story. It is an inspiring story. I choose to believe that it actually happened. The only evidence for this event are the words in the Bible. And yet the Bible is not to be taken literally in all its words. So, I choose to believe, but I don't know.

      What I do know, is that I am an immortal spiritual being inhabiting this temporary body known as Rodney Carl Martin, Jr. I have been outside of it and seen the world without physical eyeballs. How is such a thing possible? There are many stories of others doing similar. Frequently, they have suffered trauma or had drugs or both (like during surgery). I had neither of these—merely a spiritual epiphany.

      Also, I have performed miracles which were only possible because I had "complete and absolute certainty." So, careful, my friend, what you call "worthless." You might be missing out on the greatest discovery of the universe.

      You said, "I'm being called arrogant by a guy who thinks he's invented an equation bigger than Einstein's. Yeah..." @Titen-Sxull, you really are loose with your accusations and your logic. Show me (prior to your earlier comment) where I "called" you arrogant. Please! Perhaps you are being arrogant, but I don't recall ever calling you by that label (at least before your earlier comment). Could it be instead your strong ego attachment to science and my referring to some scientists being arrogant?

      But think about your assertion concerning the equation. First of all, my expression is not an "equation." It is an "expression." You need an equals sign ("=") to have an equation. If Einstein's E=mc^2 is about conservation of energy and matter within the universe, but my expression is about the creation of all energy and matter as well as all other aspects of the universe, including space-time, then I'd say that my expression covers more territory. If it is an accurate expression for the process of creation, then I see no arrogance in that assessment, just a simple statement of fact. My ego wants to take credit for that expression, but ego had no part in its discovery. Do you understand what I'm saying about ego? Ego can never reach "complete and absolute certainty." Such certainty can only exist in a discontinuous realm—that of creation. Ego is full of space-time (full of the continuity studied by science), and can never enter the realm of timelessness. It won't fit. It's too fat with time and space.

      I appreciate the apology concerning my "equation" (expression). I sincerely hope you one day understand it the way I intended it. As I stated in my article, it is not entirely mathematical. It is certainly symbolic and shares some traits with a mathematical expression.

      And if you don't already understand why I choose to describe skepticism and doubt as biased, then read on concerning your "moon hoax" example.

      Well, duh! After arguing valiantly against the idea that doubt is biased, you say, "Doubt and skepticism can be biased to either belief or non-belief." Yikes! It looks like you just shot your earlier argument in the foot. @Titen-Sxull, don't let your ego force you to protect the wrong thing. You already have high regard for what is good about science. Bravo! Don't ruin it by making up "shit" about science. And I wish you hadn't been so arrogant as to bring up that scatological word. Now, my ego is all over it and I'm starting to feel arrogant. My bad!

      Doubt is negatively biased against a proposition. If you doubt that the sun will rise tomorrow, that is a negative bias against the sun rising. If you doubt the doubter, then you are negatively biased against their belief. Yes, this makes you positively biased about the sun rising, but the doubt of the second person was not aimed at the sun rising, but at the first doubter. Understand? Doubt is negative in both cases.

      In your moon hoax example, say Johnny doubts the moon landing ever happened. That's a negative bias against the moon landing ever happening. Say Billy doubts that the moon landing was a hoax. That's a negative bias against the hoax. He has no doubt against the validity of the moon landing story. Billy only doubts the hoax. See? Billy's doubt is not "positive" toward the moon landing story. He has NO doubt about that story. So his doubt is not "positive" toward anything. The result of his doubt (negative) toward the hoax, is a belief (positive) in the validity of the moon landing story. Certainly, there is a positive to be found in Billy, but it is not directly associated with his doubt. Got it? I hope so. I think I used up all my tokens on explaining this.

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      [Part 1 of 2]

      @Titen-Sxull (replying to your post of 3 days ago, part 2), you argue passionately and sometimes quite well for what is right and good about science. I'm not arguing against science or its accomplishments. I'm arguing against stubbornness and attachment to something (skepticism) which, though it has served science well, is still less perfect than "restraint" or "humility."

      First you argue that skepticism is not biased, then you argue that the skepticism of scientists is okay to be biased. You can't have it both ways. And I hope I've made my point that there is real-world bias in skepticism. Why should a scientist laugh (disdain, ridicule) at something that does not match their worldview? The higher path for a scientist would be to "restrain" themselves (and their egos!) from prejudging. They should listen to the facts and pass judgment on the facts. Just because they are so-called experts does not make them omniscient. You make it sound as though, because they are experts, then it is okay to make fun of someone else's "discoveries." That's arrogance, pure and simple. That's thinking you know better. That's an attitude of "I'm better than you." Again, that's arrogance. Try being humble in the situations you hypothesize. If you really can be humble there, then you will see just how arrogant is the stance you portray for your scientists. My scientists would not do that, if I were to hire any in my laboratory. They would remain humble, always. They would value the mutterings of a child, for in those innocent questions or misconceptions might be the next big breakthrough. Humility allows that. Arrogance does not. Do you see the value in this topic? This is earthshaking!

      When a scientist can stand on a street corner looking at street lights changing colors and invent the laser, when a scientist can dream of monkeys dancing in a circle and solve the enigma of benzene, we need to realize the value of all things around us. Humility allows this. Arrogance does not. Thinking you are an expert is the first pitfall. That's ego talking. That's pride. That's blindness.

      If Einstein had not valued imagination, he would never have discovered Relativity. He valued imagination more than knowledge.

      I stated earlier, "How do you 'know' with a 100% certainty that all of any religion is simply and only 'made up?'" And you replied, "Did I ever claim 100% certainty on any subject?" Ahh, but you implied it. You said in your first comment, "However science is trying to discover what we don't know rather than making shit up the way religion does."

      It sounds as though you are 100% certain by the way you state such generalities. The phrase "the way religion does" seems to imply "all religion" and "all the time." You state it with such certainty and without equivocation. Science is good, maybe not perfect, but religion is entirely bad because it makes "shit" up. Gotcha! Caught you in the act, @Titen-Sxull. Fess up! Don't let ego stand in the way of our dialog. Don't protect ego by lying about or ignoring what you said previously. I've been wrong and you've been wrong. Lying will only make it worse. Ego wins and we both lose.

      You speak so often in absolutes. I know, because I sometimes do that, too, for effect. Do you mean to be so inaccurate in your statements? Are you attempting, instead, to create an effect? Or are you merely oblivious to what you're creating with your inaccuracies? Our dialog is opening up an entirely new area of awareness for me. For that, I thank you my friend, @Titen-Sxull. Very nice. I can only hope my own writing will improve and become more accurate as a result. I wish the same for you. Shining a light of awareness on such inaccuracies (both yours and mine) can only help us improve if we pay attention.

      And you do it again by saying, "Religion makes shit up to explain what we don't know (Zeus - Lightning) but science actually tries to discover what we don't know." You make religion out to be the bad guy, here. Religion as a whole is not perfect. Some religions or religious individuals have made "shit" up, but you still do not equivocate your statement.

      If you had said that "some religions make some stuff up," then you would have sounded less biased. Your use of the word "shit" is a bias. This scatological term used in this manner refers to something which is worthless. That's a bias. Have you studied all religions? If not, then your statement is the essence of arrogance and ignorance.

      You said, "Complete and absolute certainty are worthless." Is this the conclusion of your PhD thesis? Did you do a thorough study of this subject? Or did you just make this "shit" up? @Titen-Sxull, I'm going to rake you over the coals on this one point, but for effect. I'm just letting you know this in advance. Why would I do such a thing? To make a point (that's obvious!), but also because you are dead wrong in this one seemingly innocent statement.

      When scientists use the tried and true method of smoothing out their graphs of data gathered during experimentation, they are attempting to see the cause-and-effect relationship between the inputs. They are attempting to derive a formula. But in getting rid of the messiness around the edges, they missed out on an entirely new field of science described as chaos theory. This relatively new science is a very elegant theory for describing why greater noise is sometimes experienced in electronic communication lines, or why biological population values follow paths known as bifurcations.

      If a scientist believes that "complete and absolute certainty are worthless," then they will never investigate the possibility of and effects associated with "absolute certainty." What an entirely arrogant bias. An entire field ignored because of this blindness. Let us look at what this means. And let us define our terms.

      I propose to define "complete and absolute certainty" as "100% confidence." This is my most important definition of "faith." And no, you won't find this definition in the dictionary. But this is the definition which applies to miracles. If miracles are possible (and I've done a few), then they would need some method not yet understood by science-at-large.

      One atheist quipped that the 9-11 terrorists were "100% certain" of their mission. If this meant that the terrorists were certain of the rightness of their mission and of their resulting place in heaven, then I disagree. Their "certainty" was not perfect (100%), but was instead a delusion. That's the critical difference. One ignores reality (delusion), and the other takes all things into consideration (both physical and spiritual) and performs miracles. One hundred percent certainty is "walking on water" or "healing a crippled body" or "gaining sight in eyes which had never known such."

      [continued in Part 2…]

    • James A Watkins profile image

      James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago

      You are one deep dude. That's for sure. I appreciate you taking such a bold stand against the forces of darkness. But I am sure you know they are also very powerful. And that they might not ever—no matter what the evidence—agree with you. Still, you've got guts. And I admire you.

    • nightwork4 profile image

      nightwork4 6 years ago from ontario. canada

      you state that to an athiest there is no sourse to the universe. where did you come up with that idea? an athiest as i see it is someone who doesn't believe in god.as an athiest i understand that the universe was somehow created but i disagree that a "god" made it or made us not that there is no sourse to the universe. you later state that a more inteligent point of view is " i don't know" as an agnostic.this doesn't show more inteligence, it shows that the person is perhaps more open minded. this attempt to use mathematical equations that few understand and science as a debate is clever but it's nothing new. i don't believe in god in any form. that's a simple, easy way to put it. we could debate this till the cows come home but your education would be used in defense of statements that would baffle me so i'll just say that believers are the ones who believe in nothing because god is just faith, a myth created by man for man. a belief in nothing if you must.

    • qwark profile image

      qwark 6 years ago

      77:

      Yep I left at 'light speed."

      I've chatted with the likes of you, some are friends, who have nothing of credible import to offer but are convinced they do.

      Enjoy life. There will be no "miracle" at the end. :)

      Qwark

    • profile image

      AKA Winston 6 years ago

      lone77star,

      Have you ever asked yourself why it is that miracles never leave behind evidence of accomplishment? From the healings in the New Testament to the Traffic Sea Parting on Wilshire Blvd, all we have are claims of accomplishment, never ojbective data that establishes the claim or that can be scientifically studied. Curious, isn't it?

      I would ask you to challenge your own belief systems in this regard - either magical events can really occur or your Wilshire Blvd experience was a delution brought about by high emotional stress and belief in the delusion's possibility. But as Scrooge suggested in A Christmas Carol, a bit of undigested meat is a more likely cause of magic than a reality change.

      Unlike the fictional accounts, Scrooge was right. We know that miracle angels do not appear to tell stories of a lost Iraelite tribe who lived in America - we know because there is no evidence of these millions of Jews and their cities and wars ever found in America. We also know that after years speaking with an angel, a man did not then mount a horse and fly to heaven and back - we know because evidence shows us that horses cannot fly, and there is nothing above us but sky and then space.

      To help you solve this enigma of delusion/reality for yourself, I have this suggestion.

      If you are able to perform Wilshire Blvd Traffic Parting Miracles at will, why don't you grab the local Channel 2 news crew to film you at the local VA hospital performing a miracle - help one of the poor guys or gals there who lost a limb regrow that limb.

      That's all you need to do. We even know it is not out of the realm of nature, as a salamander can regenerate its own limb without prayer.

      If you cannot do this, then I'm afraid your claim of magically parting traffic should be placed in the same category as Scrooge and his bit of undigested meat, right beside Joe Smith's magical visits from Moroni and Mohammed's magical flight to heaven on the back of a horse.

      Without evidence, your are simply claiming your particular brand of magic is real.

      But here is the eerie part. There a millions of people who sincerely believe the Joseph Smith story is true - they are Mormons.

      There are a billion plus people who believe the flying horse story about Mohammed - they are Muslims.

      Now, the odd part is that the Mormons can readily see the delusions of the Muslims; the Muslims can readily see the delusions of the Mormons. Neither can see their own delutions.

      The mind is indeed a powerful weapon and easily fools and misleeds. But like the Mormons and Muslims above, from inside a delusional bubble it is necessary to rationalize inconsistencies with reality in order to maintain belief - looking from the outside, it is easy to spot delusions.

      So, I wonder if you have ever considered this: either your experience on Wilshire Blvd was genuine magic or you experienced a delusion.

      To prove to yourself that you are not in a delusional bubble, that you really can accomplish miracles, why not regrow an amputee's limb on camera so virtually everyone worldwide can be witness through the non-delusional magic of t.v. that miracles are a reality?

      If you cannot do this, you may want to ask yourself why it is you can part traffic with no other witnesses to record the event but you cannot regrow a limb for the 6 o'clock news - could the reason be that you are deluding yourself about miracles and thus your mind established a very real-looking event to rationalize your belief?

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      [Part 3 of 3]

      My first wife tended to see only problems. She cried a lot. She would look in her environment and miss the obvious solutions only inches away from the source of her despair.

      When a scientist judges (condemns) an idea without due diligence (investigation), they are doing a disservice to science and humanity. Have you ever heard of "Clovis first?" North American anthropology suffered under that poison yoke for decades. Scientists were afraid to dig below the Clovis horizon for fear it would jeopardize their careers or their funding. This is the real-world use of "doubt" I am condemning. How can a scientist ever find evidence for pre-Clovis, if they never look? They were too afraid to look. It took a few cocky rogues to break through that unscientific nonsense. For decades, those in power in North American anthropology ridiculed the possibility that anything came before Clovis. That's real-world "skepticism" at its worst. Now do you understand?

      I applaud your logic, @Titen-Sxull. You've got a good head on your shoulders, and though you occasionally jump to unfounded conclusions and speak unfounded generalities (like my poor understanding of science), your heart is largely in the right place, though perhaps a little naïve. Not saying that to be unkind. Heck, I've been there, too. In some respects, I may still be a bit naïve. But your willingness to admit mistakes is so important to growing beyond that. That's the true heart of a scientist. You've already shown me that. Again, bravo!

      Scientists are afraid to look sometimes because they've invested their lives in their careers and they could lose their entire investment if they say the wrong thing. There is a little island in the Bahamas which has several possible archaeological sites surrounding it. Amateurs have taken photos which, though not entirely convincing, are at least promising as possible man-made sites, now under water. Professional archaeologists won't go there. Why? Because one scientist lied and because some amateurs associated the island with "Atlantis." As far as scandals go, this is a bit more insidious than Piltdown man. But the evil is the same—ego-led greed and pride. I think the scientist started out as a bachelor in biology, but worked for the USGS. After his second article, which re-wrote the data and its conclusions, he became a celebrity and an adopted son of geologists. After that, he wrote sufficient number of geological articles, over a few decades, to earn an honorary PhD in geology. How shameful. All based on falsified data. And now, when anyone points to Bimini Island, geologists and archaeologists will shake their heads in ridicule, pointing to "Doctor" Shinn's later articles, "proving" the beach rock was "entirely" natural. False, false, false, false, false! A betrayal of trust, all to garner ego's reward—fame, acclaim, and a doctorate.

      Was Atlantis a real place? I don't rightly know. Talk about it to "real" scientists and you're talking "blasphemy." Try it some time. Watch the glazed eyes and the ridicule.

      And yet, I've found in my own research of the literature, three items of proof that an Atlantis-like event occurred right when Plato said the fabled island supposedly sank. Earth-shaking? Perhaps. But will scientists look? Not on their careers, they won't. Not until someone proves Atlantis to be real. But gotcha! No one is looking, so proof may never be found. Scientists had similar attitudes about Troy, but it took an amateur to break that log jam. And until American scientist, Jeanne Kimball-Davis, and Russian scientist, Leonid Yablonsky, found women warriors buried with their weapons and armor, while the men were buried separately with the children, many scientists had scoffed at the possibility that the Amazon myth had any basis in fact. That's real-world skepticism. That's real-world "doubt." That's idée fix and real-world blindness.

      Where does this abnormality come from? Simple answer: ego. You got it, I got it and most of us humans got one. Most, but not necessarily all. I've met some Buddhist monks who seemed to be close to offloading that dead weight. I've also seen some so-called "christians" who cling to theirs as if it were a shield and armor. How thoroughly un-Christian! When you've been to where I've been, then such things become pretty tangible. You can feel ego like a shroud. I see ego in my one-year-old nephew, Harvey, when he can't get his way and shrieks and cries as if he had been stung by a bee. One look from me, and it all stops dead in its tracks. Shrieks turn to silence, and he looks back at me with that "oops" look on his face. "I've been found out."

      Some scientists are being just as childish. Thankfully, most are not, or we would not make much progress at all, despite the lofty ideals of "scientific method."

      [@Titen-Sxull, this is in reply to your Part 1, from 2 days ago. Your Part 2 I will answer later. Gotta go to work. Caio!]

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      [Part 2 of 3]

      Why would you "make fun of" anyone? If someone believes in Zeus, a little interest might be in order. Why is it such a big deal to you to judge others for believing in anything? You don't know where they are on the road to enlightenment. They might be behind you, or they might be far ahead of you. Why judge? Why not ask about their belief in Zeus? And if you are not interested in asking, then why be interested in diss'ing them or their belief. That shows a clearly negative attitude, besides being simply rude and perhaps even arrogant. I try not to judge, but find it almost impossible not to judge those who judge. Sound like a paradox? I'm only prejudiced against those who hold a prejudice—so deep down, there is a bit of self-loathing, I suppose. I hope I grow out of it.

      You might find out by asking, that your "stupid" friend has become best buddies with an alien who has crashed their spaceship, and that the alien's name is "Zehyouse." What you heard was "Zeus," and you automatically thought, "loony tunes!" Or say they really are loony, so what! Can't you show a little compassion. Behind those dull eyes of theirs might lie the intellect of an Einstein or the heart of a Picasso longing to break free. Or perhaps the person is merely suffering the karma from a past life full of arrogance and belittling others. The old wise saying goes, don't judge or you will be judged. Call someone else stupid, and next lifetime, guess what? You find yourself in a stupid body where the brain synapses don't fire properly. And you were such a giant of an intellect only a few decades earlier. Pity.

      My example of planetary scientists "entirely invalid?" Wow, what a generalization! No validity whatsoever? Don't scientists have confidence in their own intellects? Don't scientists have confidence in scientific method, peer review, and the published accumulation of prior knowledge? Just because I used the word "faith," suddenly all this logic becomes supernatural? If faith means confidence—and the definition I use means this—then we have no disagreement except on your claim that my example is "entirely invalid."

      You said of Hawking that he felt, "the Universe came into existence as the inevitable result of pre-existing conditions within it." That's clearly gobbledygook and perhaps you misquoted it. Looking at the phrase under the lens of logic, you have something that exists before it exists! What? That doesn't make sense. A piece of the universe yields the universe? I agree—"whatever that means." Listening to and reading Hawking stretches the mind. That's pretty cool stuff. Attempting to understand his great intellect is a brain boost all by itself. But a scientific explanation for an end-cause does not seem likely. Science studies the realm of continuity. If our "X" is not part of space-time, but the source of that construct, then it is, it seems, discontinuous in nature—and alien to the tools of science.

      All of this may sound purely academic and theoretical, but with my experience with miracles and out-of-body excursions, I can only deduce that such things are possible only because of the interfacing of the discontinuous with the continuous. They are only possible because the "X" is superior to and cause of the effect—physical reality. Try as I may, I cannot figure out a physical (science) solution to this equation. Am I not smart enough? Heck, that's possible. It could be that I don't yet have sufficient imagination. But then, I look at a miracle on Wilshire Boulevard, disbelieved by so many, and ridiculed ad nauseum, and think—boy, if I could figure out how to do that, I must not be "entirely invalid."

      @Titen-Sxull, you have argued quite well about your views on "doubt." If you re-read my argument, you will see that two of the definitions of "doubt" I used were neutral. Fair enough. We are in partial agreement. But your argument ignores the other two definitions of doubt. And this is where my point is made. This is where science dwells in muddy waters, because scientists do not always think through clearly their use of doubt. They don't live in the "ivory tower" you portray for them. Too much ego gets in the way. And fess up, we both still have egos, right? I know I do, despite trying to assassinate mine. Pesky little bugger persists.

      The key to my argument is how "doubt" is used in defining skepticism and how it is used in the real world. I think we can both agree that "I don't know" is a completely neutral stance. But perhaps like the word "God" is an imperfect word for our "X," "doubt" is an imperfect word for the decidedly more neutral "restraint." Your definitions and arguments show a keen respect for what is good and right about science. Bravo! I have no arguments with that. But how is skepticism used in the real world? Even you had the gall to condemn your friend for saying he had "Nessie" in his bathtub, or to condemn another associate for believing in Zeus. In the realm of common human interaction, such things are just plain rude, but from a logical standpoint, you're overstepping your bounds by assuming too much. You're assuming that the person is beneath your lofty intellect—so laughter and ridicule are in order? If you assume such things, you miss out on other possibilities. Like asking questions to find out that your friend merely got a new turtle and called it Nessie. Or that your associate really is mentally disturbed and needs your compassion. Don't fall for the easy ego trip—I'm right and you're wrong. You won't learn nearly as much.

      When I studied electronic engineering back in the mid-70's, I read about something called a "tank circuit." I had also been an avid astronomer for twenty years, so I knew something about emission and absorption spectra. The tank circuit is merely a tuning circuit for radio broadcasts. Suddenly, I realized that I was surrounded by trillions of tank circuits. One atheist on a different website thought he was being smart in disagreeing with me. Because I believed in God, I must be wrong in anything dealing with science, so he said that atoms are not tank circuits, because they can't be varied like a tank circuit. How terribly unintelligent of him. He was trying to sound intelligent, but his approach was more one of arrogance, not only trying to show me wrong, but show me to be absolutely and completely wrong. Electrons do not exist at permanently fixed energy levels. Did he think of this? Apparently not. If you've ever seen a Balmer series, you know what I mean. There are many different possible energy levels into which a hydrogen atom can tune in.

      The point of my last paragraph is that there is opportunity all around us—opportunity to learn—opportunity for wisdom in the simple mutterings of the mentally challenged. If you judge in advance, you miss those opportunities.

      continued in Part 3…

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      [Part 1 of 3]

      @Titen-Sxull (from 2 days ago, your Part 1), I want to thank you for this delightful debate. I see that we agree on quite a number of things. And some things we don't agree on. That makes for a lively discussion, so long as neither one of us remains too attached to our ideas and can enjoy exploring things logically and with reason. I admit I'm learning some things from your input. Clearly, I see some bias on both sides, but I'm hoping most, if not all, of it dissipates with further discussion. Selfishly, I want all of it to dissipate on my end. I'm on a mission to learn more, so I can't hold onto any one idea too tightly. Out of kindness, I wish that for you, too, if you are so inclined. And you seem to be that kind of brave individual.

      Even scientists have their beliefs. One will believe in one hypothesis and will spend a lifetime pursuing data to prove it. Some (hopefully most) will dump their pursuit if they find data to the contrary. Some, however, will fudge the data to keep from losing precious tenure and/or funding. I agree that scientific method is the best method for discovery in the physical realm, but have you ever looked up the definition? It talks about remaining objective and eschewing bias. The broad range that is "skepticism" does not do this—not in the real world. Even at its most benign, there is a hint of bias. More on that in a moment.

      "God of the gap." Wow, that's really interesting. So, if a scientist comes up with a hypothesis to explain an anomalous spur of the Milky Way galaxy, his would be a "spur of the gap?" I hope you see how pretentious and biased that is.

      So Hawking comes up with a thoughtful and interesting possible precursor to the Big Bang. That's interesting, and that may even prove to be true. But the action-reaction mechanism anyone might propose still fails as an "end-cause" of it all. One could just as easily ask, "what caused this new source?" What was behind that? And on and on and on, ad infinitum. That's a dog chasing its tail. It never can quite catch up. There never is a satisfactory explanation that I can see or imagine, and my imagination is not too shabby. Any physical, inert force, field, object, etc. remains an unsatisfactory source to all that we behold. There is always the question, what put "that" in place?

      Looking at it from strictly a logical standpoint, anything that is made up of space-time is a product of something else. Let's call it "X." And let us say that "X" results in space-time. This would imply that "X" does not inherently possess any space or time. And, of course, energy and matter cannot exist without space-time, and might be products or higher dimensionality than space or time. Just as time is a higher dimension than space—n^4 rather than n^3—energy might be the integration of time into an even higher dimension—n^5? If we are looking for an end-cause which cannot be accused of being the effect of some other cause, what would that end-cause look like? So far, we have that it is timeless and spaceless. It has no energy or mass and thus may not adhere to the laws of action-reaction. Visibility requires space, time and electromagnetic energy. Clearly "X" is invisible.

      If you've ever done any programming or developed any algorithms, you will understand the simplicity of its basis in continuity. The results of computations rely entirely on the inputs and the "black box" which operates on them. None of those lines of code can claim to be an end-cause in the realm of software. The virtual reality possible with such code is nothing short of startling. In the universe of the software, the programmer is god. The programmer herself is likely Homo sapiens, possibly even cute (all cute chicks are not necessarily dumb). But that body of hers is not part of the software universe. Rocks colliding in the real world will not cause a computer to be built and will not result in the software running on it. It takes conscious thought and creativity to result in something so ordered—so creative. Of course, chemistry is a different matter. A meteor carrying complex chemicals on it, colliding with Earth, will yield chemicals with greater complexity. That is so cool. This may even have resulted in life. I'm not talking about this. I'm talking about the impossibility of colliding rocks directly resulting in a computer with software running on it.

      So, until I see a better hypothesis come along, my vote is on our "X" being conscious and intending space-time—building the foundation of our physical realm. I can buy a discontinuous consciousness giving birth to all, but not a continuity-bound artifact doing the same. Why do I lean in this direction? Well, I suppose empirical evidence of my own spirituality—my own "nothingness." Empirical evidence of me creating miracles. Ask more than two thousand others who were on Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, that day when rush hour traffic opened up like Moses parting the sea. Why sound so biblical? I know it pisses off those who want to ridicule believers. It certainly sent @Qwark into escape velocity. (Sorry @Qwark! Don't leave the party yet, it's just getting interesting.)

      Call "X" the "tooth fairy," call it "axolotyl" (Central American mud puppy), call it whatever. The word "God" has so many "wrong" definitions because there are so many who are attached to shallow beliefs. They don't understand the big picture. I understand their picture, and I have moved on far beyond their worldview. I also understand science. Want to talk physics, space science, archaeology, geology, or chemistry? Yum!

      continued in Part 2...

    • qwark profile image

      qwark 6 years ago

      77:

      Ya had me interested and about to sit down to generate a serious and response to your reply...until I got to this paragraph:

      "Extraordinary miracles are like Jesus and Peter walking on water, the healing of the man born blind, Moses parting the sea, and thick, rush hour traffic parting on Wilshire Boulevard for a distance of two miles and remaining parted for four minutes. Some have tried to explain away such miracles--Jesus walked on ice. With the waves tossing from a storm? Get real! If Jesus walked on water, it wasn't from balancing on a slippery, ice surfboard. And what, did he bring along a second ice surfboard just in case one of his disciples needed one? If the incident happened at all, it was based on the creation of the immortal child of God within, not on any physical effect or mechanical contrivance."

      I was hoping for an interesting and erudite response.

      Instead, to my astonishment and disappointment, I am reading trite religious "drivel" referring to subject matter which has its foundation based upon nothing but conjecture and opinion and is presumed, by you, to be "miraculous!"

      I cursorily, perused your "hub" and was shaking my head in disbelief at the level of "religious" pre-indoctrination that was necessary, in your formative years, for you to believe in what you have determined to be "miracles."

      No insult intended 77, but I view you now as just another simple, easily led "follower."

      I'll end my response here and wish you a wonderful life and a very happy new year.

      Qwark

    • lone77star profile image
      Author

      Rod Martin Jr 6 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      @Qwark (from 33 hours ago). My goodness! Thank you for elaborating on why atheists are not who they say they are. I have not yet grokked what you've written, but it's starting to sink in.

      Can you elaborate on your flagship statement, "WE KNOW NOTHING YET TO BELIEVE IN!"

      You treat humanity as if it were only a species (Homo sapiens). Well, of course, that's the obvious part. But if you had experienced remote viewing (being outside of your body as a spiritual being), you'd know that the body isn't everything by a long shot.

      If you read my Anatomy of a Miracle, you'd understand my take on "ordinary" and "extraordinary" miracles. Briefly, though, "ordinary" miracles are those derived from continuity-based reality. You know what I mean? Space is continuous (no gaps). So is time. So are inertia and momentum. Any "miracle" based on these physical reality constructs is an "ordinary" miracle. The birth of a baby, the beauty of a flower, Man landing on the Moon, laser communications, and desktop computers.

      Extraordinary miracles are those which confound, bend or break physical law. Such is what happened on Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, in 1977. I give all the juicy details in another hub. I agree with your analysis of miracles, for the most part, but you seem to be talking about the "ordinary" variety, especially if you imply that understanding will come through science. Science is perfect for every "ordinary" miracle of physical reality.

      Extraordinary miracles are like Jesus and Peter walking on water, the healing of the man born blind, Moses parting the sea, and thick, rush hour traffic parting on Wilshire Boulevard for a distance of two miles and remaining parted for four minutes. Some have tried to explain away such miracles--Jesus walked on ice. With the waves tossing from a storm? Get real! If Jesus walked on water, it wasn't from balancing on a slippery, ice surfboard. And what, did he bring along a second ice surfboard just in case one of his disciples needed one? If the incident happened at all, it was based on the creation of the immortal child of God within, not on any physical effect or mechanical contrivance.

    • profile image

      AKA Winston 6 years ago

      ("We caught a paranormalist cheating with magician's tricks, so all paranormalists are cheaters." Does this sound logical? It isn't, but there are some atheists (and non-atheists, too) who use this kind of illogic. AKA Winston implied this with their Uri Geller example. Don't agree that this is illogical? Then let us substitute "scientist" for "paranormalist." There have been many documented cases of scientists cheating, but that doesn't make all scientists cheaters. Does it?)

      lone77star,

      You are smart and you are tricky. I am having difficulty deciding into which camp you fit, though, the William Craig Lane camp of smart but dumb concerning faith or the George Carlin camp of smart and able to ridicule faith with faith itself.

      You are certainly aware that your example above is a case of inductive reasoning, and thus case #1 of one paranormal sharlatan providing evidence of all being sharlatans is logical and a much stronger argument than one bad scientist apple spoiling the bunch - and the reason the argument is stronger is due to the nature of the types verifications each category requires.

      If we can show the trick Uri Geller used to bend spoons it is quite likely the next guy who bends spoons is using the same trick, not his mental prowess.

      If we find a scientist who has lied about his statistics, we still have mountains of evidence of scientists who do not lie about statistics.

      In case one, it is logical to assume that a magic trick is the product of magic or an illusion, not paranormal wizardry.

      Likewise, in case two it is logical to assume that the lying scientist is the one bad apple in the barrel and the majority of scientists do not lie.

      Of course, this is the problem with inductive reasoning - it is comparative by its nature and can only discuss potentials or probabilities.

      But to compare the two statements as equally illogical is...well....tricky.

      Reality is that if 1,000,000 times an apples is dropped from the tower of Pisa and 999,999,999 times it falls to the ground but the last time some guy named Uri dropped it and it didn't fall, it would be not only illogical but naive and borderline stupid to think a miracle had occured rather than an illusion.