I wish I knew who was talking to who on this last page of the thread, but it's all messed up for me. Anyone know how to fix that?
Yes, go to the top right of the page and make sure chronological is selected in the threaded options.
It's weird, I've done that. It keeps happening though, just in certain threads, and not all the time. I think it's a glitch, a couple other people said it's happening with them too.
Do you set your browser to brows privately? Because that will switch it from chronological.
When I see a post in the chronological mode that I want to tie into a Thread, how do I do that? The best I have managed is "Go to last post." Sometimes the threaded view is really useful, so can someone eplain?
If you want, I will instead provide the evidence from my point of view if you would prefer.
Last one for now.
"Kate is a writer, surfer and scientist—not necessarily in that order. Originally from Great Britain, she now lives in Sweden while she works towards her PhD in quantum physics."
http://www.united-academics.org/magazin … nics-news/
" the idea that quantum mechanics poses difficulties for scientists still seems to be true today. Two surveys from quantum mechanics conferences show that there are still many foundational issues over which scientists disagree"
"In one sense, quantum mechanics is an excellent theory; it has been tested extensively and makes very accurate predictions for all sorts of experiments. But there is still something troubling about it. No one really knows what’s really going on behind the equations.
Because of this, quantum mechanics has various interpretations. They encompass ideas about determinism, reality, non-locality, freewill, consciousness and many worlds. The problem is that experiments cannot tell which of these interpretations is correct. And then there is the opinion that quantum mechanics needs no interpretation at all.
With all these possibilities, it is difficult to know which ones most scientists believe."
Dr. Lamb, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?
That is a discussion for another forum. Try the sciences.
I'd say there's no such thing as sound, we just imagine what things sound like in our minds.....I know sound waves vibrate the hairs in our ears, but then what?.....Does another ear hear it?, & so on, & so on....Or do we just imagine the sound?, maybe we just imagine everything.
Interesting.....but if we imagine things, why do so many imagine the same things at the same time when they do? This makes me think we are not imagining the sounds. Our perception and our brains do allow for so much of course, and I am guessing this is the angle you are coming from.
You know, there are these things called sound waves. They are easily measured. In addition, considering Doctors can tell if a 2 day old baby can hear... while that baby is asleep, I think that's pretty observable too.
Edit: Replied to wrong post.
It's not that we imagine things it's that we interpret things. Sound is real, it's waves at specific frequencies. That's why we all hear and can play music together.
But some people don't hear exactly the same sound. Some are tone deaf. So they interpret sound differently.
If your equipment isn't working properly you will misinterpret the sound waves.
And sound travels in a medium like air or water. So in space you don't hear sounds even though otherwise space might be rather noisy.
But interpretation is always the problem, The facts remain the same but people interpret them and those interpretations are frequently wrong.
So it is always best to study the facts and leave the interpretations alone.
What about little animals in the forest?
What about the intelligence that allowed for ears, even when no one else is around? They probably sense it in some other crazy cosmic sense, lol. Just kidding, kind of.... Closing can of worms now....
Maybe "some" can hear it with ears and so much more.......
Actually, you don't even need ears to process sound. You can feel it too, if it's loud enough. lol...
Yes, more senses than hearing can be involved with such things as crashing trees.
Yes. I agree. Let me pose a question. So since we know with a huge level of certainty that the thing crashes loudly although we did not hear it; are we moving into a level of FAITH in the "rules" of noise when we say, "Hell yeah, it makes a sound???"
If I see a a tree falling on tv with the sound muted; I make up some sounds in my head to compensate for the deficit.
I always wondered long ago, "Why would a tree fall silently? What a silly question!" Come crashing down....silently?
Somebody was DEEP in thought... I cannnot imagine a silently crashing tree either.
Blame the philosophical.
Did you ask any of them if THEY heard the falling tree???
People do it with the sciences all the time. "Hey Honey, they just found potentially dangerous fillers in fast food!" And nobody goes to McDonald's with their own testing kit...
"We've carbon dated it using the latest equipment!" And nobody shows up at science headquarters with their own carbon dater thingy that everyone must have access to else it'd be called BLIND FAITH.
People do it with the sciences all the time. "Hey Honey, they just found potentially dangerous fillers in fast food!" And nobody goes to McDonald's with their own testing kit...
"We've carbon dated it using the latest equipment!" And nobody shows up at science headquarters with their own carbon dater thingy that everyone must have access to else it'd be called BLIND FAITH.
Cgenaea, you didn't lose your comment. The last page just won't show up for a while. It's been doing that lately, and it's really annoying.
"I'd say there's no such thing as sound, we just imagine what things sound like in our minds.....I know sound waves vibrate the hairs in our ears, but then what?.....Does another ear hear it?, & so on, & so on....Or do we just imagine the sound?, maybe we just imagine everything.
Our ears receive the vibration, and our brains interpret it. So I guess, yes, there probably is no real thing as sound, except in our minds.
lol, but I think Jane is a "believer" in her mind..... she was on that side of that I believe. I could be wrong though.
Hopefully the entity that is going to break this thread...
Edit... Misread your question.
What is God? When Janesix and I were talking about believing in God, you don't know what we mean? Or are you going in a different direction there?
In this case I mean it, God is an uncaused cause, with intelligence and personality that can create. To me, the best explanation for all that is, over anything else. Everything else offered up that I have seen as being able to cause what we see, either isn't capable, (whether lack of agency or capability, etc.) or is much less reasonable of an option.
Wow, for once I am talking about this subject.... Normally I am trying to veer things away from God (with Radman mostly or Dr. Lamb) and back to the subjects at hand.
Interesting… the best explanation for our universe for you is to invent something that can cause the universe but has no cause itself even though you have no evidence for any such thing. You are under the assumption that the universe needs a cause. In one of Hawking's books he outline why the universe doesn't need a cause and why no God could have created it. Your way of thinking came about when someone thought the universe was like a well run clock and since every clock has a maker the universe must have a maker. It turns out the universe is nothing like a clock, time is not constant, it just appears that way for us. It's in no way perfect and made to contain life. On the subatomic level particles pop into and out of existence all the time. No cause.
I could be mistaken, but "part" of the clock analogy was supposed to be something having to do with being "wound up", and the subsequent winding down. We assume stuff about the universe that we would never assume about even man made things, because we know better.
As for an uncaused cause, that is a necessity, not a preference of mine. It is logical, what would have had to have been for reasons that we have discussed in detail here in the past. Its a lot of steps to get there, but this is not being made up or anything. As for having no evidence for such a thing, that is part of what is up for debate. If we are just at this point offering up our beliefs and opinions, then i have mine and you have yours. We are "even" in that regard. As for what would have to be due to reality and science as we know it, that is an issue that has to be dealt with by all. The issue isn't with me, but with reality and truth and "origins", not me.
No assumptions are being made.
Also, it is logical for there to be causes for effects we see. This is nothing new, and very scientific, until some deem that it isn't when it must not be the case because worldviews must be maintained and esteemed that don't merit it. Without seeing more details, I can only speculate at this point, but that is what it usually amounts to. When something can't be verified 100%, I tend to go with a more reasonable answer, over a lesser reasonable answer.
Too many people pick and choose what is reasonable, by letting their worldviews take over their thinking for them. The frustrating part for me with that is that people assume just Christians do it (here anyway), and that they could NEVER do it, even when its pointed out point blank to them. The severe blinders, denial is incredibly strong and observable when it happens. I mean actually happens, not just assuming a group of people must be doing it. Just wanted you to know, no assumptions here. This stuff is too important to just assume about it, and uphold personally held belief for some other reason.
Invent? You're speaking as if God is something new. Something designed to fit between the lines only after we learned where the lines are. Far from. There is a particular God, who no one of this age made up, who is just as relevant today in light of modern knowledge as described 3000+ years ago.
You realize our whole concept of things needing to have a cause or a beginning is because of the place we live in and it consisting of time, right? We don't know that that's the case beyond this universe. We don't even know if some form of time exists beyond this universe. But the way it was described, long before we even knew much of anything about the natural world, actually makes more sense now than then. And they had no idea.
It's not that we invented God. It's that the God that the ancients said interacted with them is still relevant. Nothing we've learned about the natural world has removed this God from the equation. It's only removed old ideas about this God from the equation. It's made things more clear.
That does sound like a good start for a new thread as this one is having issues at times, lol. It goes silent and then posts several posts from days before all at once. Then we rush the board and it seems to set it over the edge. Isn't this a longer than normal threat with over 6K posts?
That is not true, there are options that are far more reasonable than an invisible creator, however you are just not aware of them or understand them. More likely, you will deny or reject them in favor of your religious beliefs. To say otherwise is disingenuous and you know it.
What is your BEST other option that could account for this universe as we know it? It started with a big bang. What accounts for that? It might be true that I am unaware of the options or don't understand them. We have to find that out. Give me your best bet/option/choice, and show how it works better than an intelligence with agency? We can leave god out, or keep him in this. Don't assume I will reject it or believe blindly in the face of other reasonable options. I promise you, I am a very fair person and take this stuff very seriously.
It's the same question with God though. Who or what created or caused God to happen?
Either way, NOTHING makes sense.
Nothing "should" exist. Something, somewhere, sometime, had to pop out of nothingness.
That's only true here, from our perspective, because we exist within time. Within time things begin and things end. But beyond this universe and outside of time there's no need for a cause for something to be. Much like the God of the bible is described, God is eternal, no beginning, no end. We have only ever existed within time, so the very concept is barely fathomable.
Well, I agree with that, as I'm a believer. But it still isn't logical to me.
Oops...I responded not in response to your not finding logic. I didn't know. I feel I really must start reading ahead; but it just seems easier to start at the beginning of where I left off.
But, as Headly said, God would not be fathomable because time didn't really start until the garden (metaphor?). It makes sense that it would not be logical to man for God to have always been. We have no idea what exists outside of clocks.
The explanation sounded logical. Not no time-span/infinity. I have asked how can it be that God always was without also having had an entry point. That explanation jolted my spirit.
We hear believers using that tired old fallacy time and again. Saying something is beyond time and beyond our universe is as meaningless as the gods they believe exist. They probably think it makes them sound smart.
And yet you claim before time something must have had to cause the universe while you admit to know nothing about what's possible before time. If you admit that we know nothing of beyond time why imagine we need something to have caused the universe? Why complicate it by imagining something else that needs no cause.
I'm not complicating it with something. This particular concept of a God has been around for thousands of years and is said to have at one time actually interacted with humans. Modern human civilization sprang up from the same region, in the same age, that these stories say this interaction happened. I'm simply considering the most likely explanation in light of modern knowledge and understanding.
Given how this God is described, He's consistent with what we know. If we are dealing with something that's said to have 'caused' the universe, this God would exist apart from the universe. So being beyond the scope of the material world, thus beyond the reach of science, is consistent with what should be expected.
Yes, you're right, either way you have the same problem considering what's beyond this universe. There's no objective certainty, there's no confirming through scientific investigation. It's simply beyond the knowable. But given what is observable, this one universe as is, and given the evidence that shows a dramatic shift in human behavior and human society that correlates with those ancient texts that speak of a particular God interacting and influencing humans, I'd say this is a strong possibility.
Can you show us the calculations you have used to determine the possibility please. I think your assumptions are horribly wrong because you seem to be confusing "difficult to grasp," with "beyond teh knowable." I understand that many believers have trouble reconciling scientific facts with their beliefs but pretending this means "unknowable" except top believers as you are doing is false logic. It is wither "unknowable" or the "dramatic shift in human behavior," when we developed agriculture was "goddunit." You assume it was "goddunit," with no evidence and - of course - adding a Super Being that exists outside of reality does indeed complicate things enormously.
So what? People were once convinced the earth was flat and everything in the universe revolved around it. For thousand of years peoples have believed in all kinds of Gods, doesn't make real. How long has Hinduism been around?
That's right they invented another God that is undetectable so it can't be verified. Does that make it real? Although it does say that mountains can be moved with prayer, but that simple isn't true is it? God should be detected using the statistics of prayer, we should even be able to detect which version of God works best.
Here is what we know, we are on the inner edge of the sweet spot of a medium sized record or third generation star that has a relatively short life span and is gradually heating up so that we will eventually no longer be in that sweet spot. Smaller stars with bigger planets in the sweet spot have a far greater chance of containing life because they have a far longer time for life to start and evolve. Given the billions of stars in our galaxy alone that fit that description, it seems to me that a God with us in mind is not the best explanation.
"That's right they invented another God that is undetectable so it can't be verified."
They wrote about this God long before it was known what could or could not be detected in this modern age. Besides, it just makes sense. Even if we were able to actually 'detect' some sort of immortal being out there in the cosmos somewhere this would not be the creator because we can only 'detect' what is within the causal chain, and it wouldn't make sense for the maker of that chain to be a detectable link within it.
This may seem convenient to you, but it's a simple matter of fact. If the universe does in fact have a beginning, if space-time and matter-energy, and even the fundamental laws themselves, all originate with that same beginning, then whatever the responsible 'cause' is behind this 'effect', it is beyond our ability to detect/observe it.
"God should be detected using the statistics of prayer, we should even be able to detect which version of God works best."
There are simply too many unknowns for this to be adequately testable. For one thing, from my own experience, prayers aren't answered in any kind of predictably timely manner that would lend itself to statistical testability. And the responses aren't anything specific that you could predict and therefore test for. I know prayer works as I've experienced it myself, but it's rarely immediate, and the 'answer' is not generally something I could have anticipated in any way, yet it being 'the answer' is undeniable when it happens. Plus, most times when prayers are answered, again in my own experience, they came in particular times of need when my prayers felt most sincere. Again, something that doesn't lend well to testability.
"Given the billions of stars in our galaxy alone that fit that description, it seems to me that a God with us in mind is not the best explanation."
For one thing, much in the same way Darwin compared us humans attempting to contemplate God's mind to a dog trying to contemplate Newton's mind, what does or doesn't make sense to you as far as God's motivations are concerned is irrelevant. Just because the size of the universe or the number of galaxies make it 'seem' to you as if this explanation isn't right, while that's perfectly fine for your own assessment, means nothing as far as whether or not it's actually true. Besides, from God's perspective, like time, space is irrelevant. All the space there seems to be between us and all those other galaxies is really just an illusion we're under, being that we exist within the dimension of space-time. From God's perspective there's only what exists and what doesn't. Time and space are irrelevant.
But aside from all of that, there's nothing that says we are the only ones or that we even have to be. The bible only really explains what's relevant to us here. Other planets with other intelligent life forms could very well be out there somewhere as well. That would in no way conflict.
"So what? People were once convinced the earth was flat and everything in the universe revolved around it. For thousand of years peoples have believed in all kinds of Gods, doesn't make real. How long has Hinduism been around?"
Despite what you might think, I am simply considering these ancient texts are something more than just the earliest forms of fiction or propaganda. These people wrote these for a reason, so I'm considering them in light of modern knowledge without any pre-conceived ideas (mine or anyone elses') coloring what the texts are saying. I'm attempting to point out that these ancient documents that describe this God actually interacting with humanity in a specific timeframe and region describe a God that is still very much relevant in light of modern knowledge, and I'm attempting to show that the events and history of that region in that timeframe could very well be the results of these stories actually happening. The impact these events had can be seen in the dramatic change in human behavior and lifestyle that can be seen starting in that region and spreading.
If there's even a percentage of truth to this then this is relevant information in regards to our human history. These are the events that shaped modern humanity. Whether you're a believer or not, this information is relevant. These texts are clearly much more on point historically than they're often given credit for. Dismissing the possibility without due consideration, but merely based on personally held opinions and biases about religious ideas and other man-made things formed around these texts (and not the texts themselves) is illogical. If truth is the goal, then we cannot let personal hangups, or what we would prefer to be the truth, to get in the way of that pursuit.
It seems rather easy to say God is undetectable in any way, but they did screw up when they said prayers can move mountains. They had no idea we would one day be able to study prayer using statistics. Numerous experiments have been done and even the ones done by the religious turn up negative. The fact of the matter we should be able to detect him using the statistics of prayer, but we can't and the excuse is always the same "he doesn't work that way" even after being told that's how it works.
More excuses, We can't use logic to find him either I guess. Genesis clearly describes everything being made for us. The stars are only there to guide us at night. So the fact that he could have put us on a planet 10 billion years earlier, on a planet that would still be inhabitable after earth is no longer inhabitable doesn't seem odd to you because you are simply following the evidence? Earth is by far not the best place for life to have spawned and yet here we are.
Personal hangups? I for one do know that those texts are historically important. I agree with that, but what we have learned is that many groups and tribes have invented Gods to control their people. If the people thought the information was just laws created by slave owners they may revolt. The same scripture was used by slave owners in the US south not long ago. Didn't you watch 12 years a slave? Genesis has the time and order wrong (you have to be dishonest with yourself a lot to think it's accurate) It's not ethical to keep and beat slaves, and a global flood didn't happen a few thousand years ago that lasted a year and a local flood is non sensical. Follow the evidence.
Prayer is a very personal thing. It's an individual connection with you and God. And prayers aren't answered in any way that lends itself to statistical analysis. Not all prayers are answered, or else we'd have way more control over who dies or gets sick and who doesn't, which would completely change the dynamic of life and free will. And even when prayers are answered they often are not answered right away, or in any way you're expecting. It may be weeks or even months later, but when it happens there's no denying it. Everyone other than you could simply dismiss it as coincidence, but the way it happens, at least in my experience, makes it certain that this is what I prayed for.
Example, a few years back I was working on putting together a studio to work in, to do my research, my writing, my artistic endeavors, to make my music. But I felt I was being selfish. So I prayed about it. On one side I felt this is what I'm compelled to do, to follow these aspirations, but actually doing so felt selfish with every dollar I invested. Later that same week I found a drafting table sitting by my front door. A drafting table was what I was currently pricing as the next thing to go into the studio. The people across the breezeway were moving, and didn't have room for it, so they left it by my door. I drug it inside because it was made of wood and it was raining out, and I left a note that I had it inside so it wouldn't get damaged. The next day the guy came by to say he didn't have room for it, and that if I kept it I'd be doing him a favor. So, how exactly do you statistically analyze something like that? I had no way of knowing that's how it would be answered. No way of knowing when, or if it would be answered at all.
Yes, you can use logic. But if that logic entails you, as a human who only showed up 13.7 billion years into the story, trying to use your recently evolved brain to contemplate the logic behind 'why' God did this or that, then there's really no getting at anything solid. But you can use logic to determine when/where/how.
The stars, it says, were part of the 'heavens' and they were created 'in the beginning'. The portion where it says the sun/moon/stars were positioned in the sky for signs and track seasons, in light of the current scientific model, is actually referring to our atmosphere changing from translucent to transparent, which actually made the sun/moon/stars visible in the sky. And given this happens just before animal life on land, it's clear that this is for all life on earth, not just humans. But this doesn't mean all the stars were created specifically for us. It just means our atmosphere was made clear for a reason.
"Earth is by far not the best place for life to have spawned and yet here we are."
Based on what? Life is literally in every nook and cranny of this planet. In even the most desolate and seemingly uninhabitable places you'll find not just one living thing, but usually one living thing as the prey of another living thing that also lives there. The circle of life is seemingly unstoppable here. The conditions, it would seem, are exactly right.
"The same scripture was used by slave owners in the US south not long ago."
The son of Sam said a dog told him to do what he did. Does that mean the dog was wrong? Read outside of the proper context, the stories about slavery in the bible can make it seem as if this was God's idea of an ideal life. When, in actuality, the whole story is describing what happened when free will was introduced into the world. As we know from history, immediately following the dramatic change in human behavior, came both land ownership as well as slavery. As did organized warfare and organized militaries and governments with written laws. This behavior change coaxed all these other things out of humans. They behaved differently, treating the people and things around them differently, and from that came many new things, including the concept of owning land and other people. A change not just documented in Genesis, but written about by many of the civilizations of that age.
This was not the ideal lifestyle of the old testament. This was the only way to survive. In that age, during the 4th millennium BC when the first civilizations were coming about, before laws and governments policed the land and drew borders, you were either the group in power through sheer might, or you were enslaved by those in power. If you weren't one of those groups you did not make it. You are no longer represented in today's population. To make a living in that age, in the human world that free will created, you had to take and hold land by force. To maintain a population in the hundreds of thousands you had to have slave labor. There wasn't an economy then. There was no place for these people to go if they were not enslaved. Being enslaved then meant protection, and it meant you didn't have to be responsible for your own protection.
"a global flood didn't happen a few thousand years ago that lasted a year and a local flood is non sensical."
A local flood isn't only not non-sensical, we know they really happened. Including one that really did appear to play a significant role in ending a 1500 year old culture. These are the facts. 'Why', as I said before, can be much more difficult. But how/when/where? We know it happened.
12 years a slave??? You mean the theatrical rendition of events?
I think one of the main aspects of Christianity is that one believes its messages or they don't. We have more than enough info to make a decision on that.
Well, something either had to pop out of nothingness, OR there had to be an uncaused cause. When we put those ideas to task, the first one drops out of the running due to laws of logic. It is illogical for there to be an infinite number of causes one after another. Or, another way of putting it an infinite regress of causes, literally doesn't work.
So we have the appearance of what you describe, and what science shows us through astronomy especially the Hubble Telescope and what it has shown us. Things appear one way. When I ask for what could account for it, there literally aren't too many options. So what is a good explanation for this effect, aka the universe and all in it?
I think some things DO make more sense than other things. Whatever it is though, HAS to be capable of causing the effect we see. Certain things can be ruled out but we want to use fair reasoning when doing so.
No, not necessarily at all.
It is very reasonable though, to ask what could have done it. Being reasonable people (hopefully so anyway) we are able to look over possibilities no matter the repurcusions of them might be. Its best to not even let your mind go there. Just stick with what is known for sure, and that is all I ask in these kinds of settings/discussions. That is more than fair I think. Would you agree?
Yeah, you're right. Things DO exist. So there has to be a reason. Sorry, my mind is muddled today.
Not according to science. At the subatomic level thing pop in and out of existence without reason. Why imagine something that can cause the universe to exist with something without cause?
I'm taking a break from physics for the time being. Too confusing for me. I'm sure I'll regain interest at some point. Just can't seem to wrap my mind around things that I can't picture in my mind.
The faith of Dr Lamb seems something more. Subatomic particles popping in and out is unfathomable to ME... so I gues the spirit of science was NOT given to me. I'm ok with that.
To each his own.
The spirit of God is MUCH more precious to me.
I think Dr. Lamb is much more knowlegable in the areas of science and logic than I am. I more often just get frustrated with things because I can't seem to grasp them. It's simply possible, in my mind, that he DOES understand it. I don't .
I'm heading in a different direction spiritually at the moment anyway. It's more inner work the past few days.
Yes. I really get frustrated with physics and sciences of a differed sort. But it really is not important to my world. Gravity occurs whether I think about how or not. Same with the spiritual realm.
We are only going to see what we put our efforts toward seeing; distorted or no. The mind is quite capable. But mine puts no effort into something as unimportant to me as that.
We choose, right???
I don't think science is important in spirituality (I used to think it was). It was important for me(and I know it is for other people, but not most) I think the main reason God used science and numbers with me, was just to get me to notice in the first place. I don't take much stock in words and phrases. They are too arbitrary for me. Too many possible interpretations and meanings. My intuitions came in numbers almost exclusively at first. I think it's because it was something that was concrete enough for me to believe. God wanted me to believe. I'm sure of it. Then came the direct experiences with God. The past couple of weeks, numbers haven't been too important. It's been a lot of inner work. Especially the last couple of days. Now that I completely trust God, the intuitions are more direct and personal to me.
Like the last two days or so, God has been holding up a (metaphorical) mirror to make me face certain specific faults that I have been too stubborn and reluctant to even acknowlege they exist in me. Now, I accept it,and God is working with me to help me change them.
I get that and understand that, but at the same time do you understand that it may not be the same for others? While I respect and understand that you need faith above all else, do you respect and understand that I don't?
No, and it is rather strange that you feel you don't need faith for your science.
Fyi...some sort of faith is present at the start of every experiment. If I do A, then B, C, and/or D is MORE LIKELY THAN NOT to occur. More often than not...
What do you think faith is? It is belief without FIRST seeing.
And here I thought it was obvious that I was referring to the other meaning for faith.
Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
So I'll reword…
I get that and understand that, but at the same time do you understand that it may not be the same for others? While I respect and understand that you need to have a strong belief in God above all else, do you respect and understand that I don't?
Doesn't matter the definition chosen. Faith is faith. I know that certain people like to distance themselves from the word faith totally; so narrowing the scope to separate belief in God without seeing from belief in scientific experiments without seeing is CLEVER! But did you notice how belief without first seeing can be used for both kinds of faith??? I am really not THAT slow...
I sorry you are unable to understand the difference between believing that the sun will come up based on observations by all and believing that your God loves you despite your issues based on your needs to want him to.
There is no such thing as "observed by all" in debunking. Those experiments are very elusive. Does it take some kind of majick to understand the many formulas? Because, when I read any explanations of subatomic black matter that solitarily fusions a burst of flavors on fabrics; I am NO good.
It's just different "majick" for me; and I am sure that I am not alone in this.
Scientists are really faithful people. They will seek and seek and search and search and ponder and study and trial and error without flinching. Me too...
That's not belief, that's opinion based on the facts at hand. It is inductive reasoning, in fact. That's what science does. No faith required.
Don't take this the wrong way, because I usually agree with your assessment of things, as explained in your posts. But, this is where I find it hard to understand why it would be assumed we can definitively argue some points.
The term universe is not synonymous with the term observable universe; yet we seem to use it as if it were. Within the reality we can observe we have determined that approximately 96% of it is unobservable. Until we understand what it is we aren't looking at, we are, effectively, in the dark.
I'm not implying 'god done it'. I'm simply asking how intelligent people can agree on facts we don't yet have, but argue as if we do?
One other question. We consistently argue on the impossibility of anything existing outside of reality, or outside of time, or outside of the universe. Our reality, itself, appears to be outside of the greater reality within the limited portion of universe we are aware of 4% of all we think exists is all we know. Everything we have built on in order to create a cosmic model hinges on our observations of energy and matter. Observable energy and matter.
Maybe we are the ones outside of reality. When you think about it, we could be pioneers in the truest sense. We are in a position to observe what 96% of rest of the observable universe isn't in a position to observe.
It sounds crazy. I've got the Star Trek theme whistling in my head at the moment. But, life boils down to a voyage of discovery of a small portion of the smaller portion of what we blithely label the universe.
Way deep Emile, I'm impressed. I'd just like to add that we have detected the other 96% (I'll take your word that that percentage is correct). I has been measure and predicted as 96% of the universe and understood to be dark matter and dark energy. So we can observe it as it's been measured.
Without "known" reason. Quantum fluctuation seems to be energy actuated from potential energy. That would match up with Einstein's idea of a "fabric" of space which holds that potential. Quantum loop gravity seems to be an interesting possibility for a "reason" or method for this to be happening. But it's early days yet and there are other hypothesis.
Start with this.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … t-off.html
Earth, as it turns out is a rather poor example of a perfect place for life for a number of reason. 1. Our sun has a relatively short life span, there are smaller stars that can last ten times longer. So what you may ask, well a planet in it's system will have 10 times the time to develop life. 2. Earth is very close to the sweet spot for life to exist in it's solar system. So what you ask? Because the sun heats up as it ages eventually Earth will no longer be in it's sweet spot, shortening it's change to contain life. A few more million years is a reasonable estimate. 3. A larger planet in the sweet spot will have a much better changes of containing life as it's own core promotes a better atmosphere.
So we have 100 billion stars in just our galaxy. 1 in 10 have planets. 10 billion stars with planets. Half of the stars are better suited to contain life and they survive 10 times longer than our does. 5 billion stars with planets better suited to contain life than ours in one of billions of galaxies. Still think all this was made for us?
This wasn't all made for us, but you say that people like me think that.
It was made for God's purposes, not for us. (If sticking with that view for the moment.)
As for you agreeing with Stephen Hawking, you would be using a form of circular reasoning to make the case that God would need physical time as we know it, to create anything. One would be presuming your worldview to make the case you seem to be making. You get time when things are happening one after another.
Are you saying your god made the universe for purely selfish reasons?
“Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.”
Some versions say, and for his pleasure, they are created, this version I think is most accurate overall based on most current translations, etc. It was his will, yes. BUT, we don't have to know his actual motive to know it isn't all about us necessarily. It is his deal. We are just the super lucky recipients of getting to ever live and exist and breathe and experience, imo.
Of course none of can really know, but I like how you put it. I think it's "God's deal" too, and we are just little pieces of his being or soul, getting this chance to experience this life as you and me, or a cat or a bee. But it's all really just God.
"You get time when things are happening one after another."
Which is why things can not happen one after an other if there is no time. Stephan is thinking and doing a lot of things I don't agree with these days but circular logic isn't something I would accuse him of.
That's one thing theists who believe god lives out of time never think about. Things can't happen one after another without time, and if they do, then god lives in time of some sort. You have those two choices and no others. Which do you choose?
I do think about it, don't assume I or other theists don't when they do. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said, "then god lives in time of some sort." I think that is the case.
When you have a frame of reference because things are happening one after another, and this one thing happens and then the next, it is time.
Please explain how Steven Hawking is using circular logic? It may help you if you look at facts and reason rather than attempting to make your worldview valid if you at all interested in the truth as you suggest.
Not in reference to Jane. She's carving a space in my heart (the one without the blood vessels).
The conversation was so long wrestling with mind/no mind because it's intangible; unseen; and uncolorful; just thought I'd throw in a funny.
Are you asking what my version of what I think the mind is?
Just an idea, but should we start a new thread, as this one seems broken so much of the time lately? It has gotten off topic from the OP some time ago, and I don't mind that one bit. Just wondering about this "not working" stuff. Maybe someone else here has more experience with massive sized forums than me, lol. Thing is, so many good discussions have been had here, so it would be hard to look back as needed.
One like me, may look at whatever you got. But it is just not necessary. I truly feel that God exists with all my fibers. I'll just treat your "evidence" as you treat mine. When you yell fact; I will yell you're crazy to believe such fictitious nonsense without backing it up with your own SEEN and approved experiments. And we will laugh and talk about it again...until...
Yes, for me; no proof of the nonexistence of God exists. For me, God is as real as I am. ALL OPTIONS THAT DO NOT INCLUDE GOD ARE ADAMANTLY REJECTED. Thanks for noticing.
Dont feel bad ED; LOTS of. People believe as you do; I agree with your assessment though I wouldn't call you desperate. Just determined to see things your way. And please dont let it be your LAST stand. Fight for what you believe in. I can handle it. thanks anyway...
Why did you specify believers? Stephen Hawking speaks of the same kinds of things. So do more and more physicists within the community. They speak of what occurred beyond this one universe, which includes space-time.
I'm sorry you're tired of hearing it, but that makes it no less true. As far as we can tell, space-time only exists from the big bang forward because it too is a product of it. Which means time, at least as we perceive it, does not exist beyond it. So, whatever does exist beyond it, if anything, is not affected by time as we are and would be exactly the same at the beginning of the universe as they were at the end of it.
Speaking of Steven Hawking, he also said that no God could have created the universe because he would have needed time where none existed.
Steven should have read someone's bible. The Lord began time when he divided the light from the darkness. The light, he called day; and the darkness he called night.
Run tell dat...
Why yes...! The bible says that God and the "word" spoke, cut on the lights and then made the world.
He can do all that and yet can't make be believe he exists. Pathetic.
I think you might be right CG. I think it is our biological imperative to eventually return to God. Maybe not in this lifetime, but somewhere down the line.
It is also written. "Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is Lord." I believe that.
Yeah, that's more of a problem from a material/causal aspect than it is from a God aspect because you do indeed need time for a singularity to change states in a material/physical way. If time didn't begin until the inflation, then how does that singularity first change states from being a singularity to being an inflating universe?
No, I meant what I said.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZFEayYl … WtpJ1HEL4v - "Boundaries of the Knowable(Cosmology) by Prof Russell Stannard
Recognizing what's beyond this universe as 'unknowable' is not false logic. It is logic, based on facts and evidence. If all that is measurable/detectable/quantifiable/etc is a product of the big bang, if time and space themselves are a product of the big bang, then what could we possibly observe to understand what's beyond it? Sure, we can follow the math, maybe see the mathematical possibilities, but no way to confirm which is right. It's simply unknowable in any material/objectively verifiable way. It's beyond our scope.
So, I'm looking to figure out what's what with what is observable. There is an observable 'effect' that matches up with the 'causes' described in Genesis. And these 'effects' happen to be the key events that set the modern human world in motion. I'm just following the evidence.
The irrational assumption that there is something beyond reality is the problem. The only reason you make this false assumption is to make the claim that there is something "unknowable," and therefore goddunit. After all - Invisible Pink Unicorns and the Loch Ness Monster are "unknowable" in the same way.
Tell us the one about the majick boat again. I like that one best. Although apparently - the film gets it wrong.
The idea that there's 'something beyond reality' is not an 'irrational assumption', and it's not something I alone am considering. In fact, it's the most likely explanation, given the evidence....
"Modern equations seem to capture reality with breathtaking accuracy, correctly predicting the values of many constants of nature and the existence of particles like the Higgs. Yet a few constants — including the mass of the Higgs boson — are exponentially different from what these trusted laws indicate they should be, in ways that would rule out any chance of life, unless the universe is shaped by inexplicable fine-tunings and cancellations.
In peril is the notion of “naturalness,” Albert Einstein’s dream that the laws of nature are sublimely beautiful, inevitable and self-contained. Without it, physicists face the harsh prospect that those laws are just an arbitrary, messy outcome of random fluctuations in the fabric of space and time." - https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta … unnatural/
There's a reason why physicists like Hawking and others are moving over to multiverse concepts. Because this one universe on its own doesn't seem to work, unless, as it says above, "the universe is shaped by inexplicable fine-tunings and cancellations". But that would suggest intelligence, and we all know that's completely out of the question. So the next best explanation is that there must be millions of universes, each with slightly differing values, and we just happen to be in one that allows for life. Which, of course, is also suggesting there's "something beyond reality".
The presuming his worldview is true, and then counting on that to make the points he makes. The essence of the argument as he seems to be making it, is depending on his personal beliefs to be true, only. It makes it easy then to make the points he is making, like God couldn't have existed or do anything because there is no time to do it in.
Presuming your worldview is true, you imagine a God that could make the universe and then imagine a way he does't need a cause and a way he can't be detected.
What you are not getting is that others are in search for the truth regardless of how that truth makes them feel.
I can see the saying that believers just want to presume their own set of things. However I think some truly care about truth and this would include the possibility of atheists maybe being RIGHT about them, and wanting to test their beliefs the hardest to see if that is the case. If it isn't the case, then atheists need to be willing to accept the possible truths also.
The thing is in this case (also), this is about necessity and science here, what could sufficiently explain what we observe. Hawking may be right, but possibly putting some self limiting constraints on what could be/ by saying there can only be the physical time as we know it can exist, might be just that. Self limiting constraints. The thing is, reality is what it is, no matter how we mildly manipulate it. I do get what he is saying and why I think, but I also get that it is convenient also while lining up with a worldview that allows for things to a point. This "thing" we are speaking of seems to extend beyond material and physical including physical time and may include a kind of metaphysical time. It actually would make sense and would actually be a sufficient cause for the effect. It isn't about what makes us feel better or not or imagining things or not.
On the imagining note, it has been said that if man were to make up a god, it wouldn't be made up to look like this one. (If it were just about making it up.) A much more convenient or easy would be have been a better choice, with no rules perhaps or tough to accept parts to it, lol.
Also, as for feelings, one could make the case for those that reject god, to say its about feeling better. The "relief" some say they feel, like how Dawkins talks about it, makes sense if god is real too. Shedding that need to answer to anything bigger than oneself, could be a mighty nice feeling for many people. It could be very attractive to convince oneself its just a lie, and that those other people are crazy. Not saying it isn't true if it isn't or when it isn't. Just observing there could be definite motive.
Metaphor, metaphor; what is it with all this metaphor? Ay...
"Metaphor, metaphor; what is it with all this metaphor? Ay...
Because it's just how I see the Bible. I've studied the religions and mythology of the world. There are certain commonalities. I think these commonalities are divinely inspired truths. Just get interpreted differently by different people. I've experienced some of these commonalities in my own way.
You ever watch the Lion King? It's the same thing. Osiris and horus. Same thing. It's a biological/spiritual process of "death" and "rebirth", and fighting the "evil" that is within ourselves, to become better people.
Right Jane. It seems that those who study the religionS generally do form some rather blanketed ideas.
What I know about other religions has somewhat had a different affect. I generally compare to what i know about the bible. No other holds the same weight. Indoctrinated??? Thank God...
"Right Jane. It seems that those who study the religionS generally do form some rather blanketed ideas.
What I know about other religions has somewhat had a different affect. I generally compare to what i know about the bible. No other holds the same weight. Indoctrinated??? Thank God... smile"
Sorry, the thread seems to be glitch, I can't seem to answer your post directly.
Anyway. You might be indoctrinated, but in at least your case, I feel you actually DO have spiritual insight. That's why I don't tend to argue religion with you anymore. I don't agree with you on a lot of stuff. To me, I see a person on the spiritual path, working things out from the inside. You might be a bit preachy, but so am I, and so is everyone else. I totally don't expect you to agree with my ideas:) I don't expect anyone to.
I see the glitch. I often have the same issue.
I have but one voice. And if I had 10,000 tongues, I could not thank him enough. My life has been lived in such a manner that has led to God. It was my destiny to be here. My upbringing was full of spiritual people. My brain was hungry.
I expect many will agree with my ideas.They are from the bible.
Yeah, the Bible is one way to God. As long as you don't take it too literally:)
So - the irrational assumption that there is a majikal Super Being that exists outside of reality, that you have faith exists is the same thing as hypothetical parallel Universes?
This is where your complete lack of scientific understanding really shows itself. Nowhere does M-theory allow for an invisible Super Being that existed before time. Sorry.
Despite these seemingly successful explanations, many physicists worry that there is little to be gained by adopting the multiverse worldview. Parallel universes cannot be tested for; worse, an unnatural universe resists understanding. “Without naturalness, we will lose the motivation to look for new physics,” said Kfir Blum, a physicist at the Institute for Advanced Study. “We know it’s there, but there is no robust argument for why we should find it.”
And of course - if there are multiple Universes - they are in reality - not beyond it.
“When people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them that the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the big bang, so there is no time for god to make the universe in. Stephen Hawking
"And of course - if there are multiple Universes - they are in reality - not beyond it."
Wrong. Just as the bit you cut/pasted says, "Parallel universes cannot be tested for." Why? Because it deals with things that exist beyond this one observable reality.
"This is where your complete lack of scientific understanding really shows itself. Nowhere does M-theory allow for an invisible Super Being that existed before time. Sorry."
I never said that. The similarity here is that both explanations deal with what's beyond this one observable universe. Whether it be God, multiple other universes, pink unicorns, or flying spaghetti monsters, or even a combination of any of these, there's simply no way to test for it or confirm it. We only have this one universe to observe when attempting to understand what's beyond the 'knowable'.
If they exist they are part of reality regardless of whether or not we can test for them. Interesting that a total lack of understanding about hypothetical, non testable physics is the same as goddunit. There is nothing "beyond knowable." There is simply "non-existent." As your professor in the YouTube video you cut and pasted based on a title that you thought might support your argument for majick says, "The question of before the big bang is meaningless."
Stick to the majik boat - much better.
"If they exist they are part of reality regardless of whether or not we can test for them."
"If [God] exists [He] is part of reality regardless of whether or not we can test for [Him]." See? That works too.
You just said that multiple other universes might exist, you just acknowledged they're not testable, yet you then say there is nothing "beyond knowable". Yet, somehow you've convinced yourself that it's my "complete lack of scientific understanding" that's the problem.
See? What works too? An infinite number of possible gods? Why are you calling your god a Him? You have just postulated that there are an infinite number of possible gods therefore yours is infinitely improbable.
You also seem to be saying that the god that you have faith in that steps in to do majick and tell people how it works and that exists completely outside reality is the same as hypothetical physics. You do know that your claim is that god does stuff and is therefore part of reality is not the same as unproven hypothetical physics - I can only assume that you lack understanding of science to be making this claim. The two are not the same at all. I never said that other universes might exist. Please don't misquote me.
Can you tell me the difference between unknowable and non existent?
The fact of the matter is science cannot tell between unknowable and non-existent. Both yield the same amount of proof.
My claim that there's a particular God is based on my observations of the biblical text, specifically Genesis, in light of history. Those stories depict events, and even give a very specific timeline, that matches up with the history of southern Mesopotamia down to the number of centuries between each event. I know you just want to make it seem as if I'm just dreaming up some concept I'm pulling out of thin air, but that's clearly not the case. There are a series of events, that really happened, that really do line up with the timeline specified in Genesis, that really did play a significant role in shaping modern human life. The God these texts describe is consistent with current knowledge, and the events these stories describe are consistent with the evidence of the region and time frame.
I'm simply following the evidence. The difference is I'm not defining prematurely what is and isn't possible. I'm considering this a real possibility, and it has not only yielded copious amounts of supporting evidence, it has also proved to make accurate predictions about things I was unaware of when I first formed the hypothesis.
Yes - I already know you have faith. Please stop calling it evidence - it insults my intelligence. Thanks. You are not "considering it a real possibility," you have faith. Please stop lying at me as well. Also insulting.
Odd you don't see the contradiction between claiming your Invisible Super Being steps into reality 13.7 billion years after majicking the Universe into existence is not in any way comparable to theoretical physics models. I can only surmise you lack understanding of science in that case.
But thanks for admitting unknowable is basically the same as non-existent. Odd you then go on to claim to have evidence. Pretty disingenuous of you.
Well I'm sorry if my ideas damage your delicate sensibilities, but your sensibilities are irrelevant in my quest for truth. This IS evidence that strongly supports a hypothesis. My faith is totally beside the point. Your lack of understanding, or unwillingness to accept or even consider a hypothesis that you have personal hang-ups about, doesn't equate to me lying or being disingenuous. That's just your defense mechanism to ensure you never actually have to look at evidence that might suggest the real truth is something other than what you already think. You instead project the problem onto me because, in your mind, the faulty variable can't be you. That is disingenuous, insulting, and incredibly arrogant.
If my hypothesis is complete nonsense, then you should be able to prove it. Many have legitimately tried, many others have instead opted to accuse me of being dishonest or disingenuous as you are here, but none have been able to give factual/evidential reason why this isn't true. And considering this explanation spans the course of nearly 2000 years of known history, and gives a very specific and detailed timeline, it should be easy to refute. You shouldn't have to resort to these kinds of underhanded tactics that only aim to ridicule and discredit.
What delicate sensibilities are these? Pointing out that you claiming to know something unknowable because you have evidence is disingenuous is not being delicate - just honest. I already know you can change the meaning of the bible in order to defend your irrational belief in a god contradicted by science. Sorry if you find that insulting. I suggest you stop being so disingenuous - that might fix your problem. Hypothesis? You sure you don't mean "irrational belief"? Any fool can see you are simply defending a pre-existing irrational belief. This is why your religion causes so many conflicts. Yoru evidnce has been proven wrong on many occasions, I don't see why I should do it again.
Tell us the one about the majick boat that cannot float that has been proven to float. I like that one best.
We have but it's rather difficult to convince you as you are convinced that and issues found are translation problems. Rather than looking at the evidence you change translations to mean something else. However it's your job to prove your theory factual, not ours to prove it fiction. Birds did not evolve along side fish and before land animals. The was no era of birds. There is no evidence for a global or regional flood that covered mountains for a year. There is no evidence that Jews were kept as slave in Egypt. We have plenty of evidence that other tribes told their people that they we God chosen people and waged war for that God. There is no evidence that the tribe as described in Genesis is any different.
No, you haven't. I am convinced by adequate evidence. I am convinced by Hebrew translations that can be demonstrated to be in direct conflict. You have not shown these things. You've only offered your own interpretation of an English version which is obviously tinted by what you've been told it says because what you say is very much in line with traditional interpretations. Interpretations formed before we had the knowledge to actually be able to tie these texts to history.
It's an easy answer to just dismiss me as being a stubborn or 'convinced' believer, but that doesn't make it true. I am open to being wrong. I welcome it, because truth is what I'm after. If you can adequately demonstrate that I'm wrong about something, I'm all ears, because that means there's something I think is true that isn't. I don't want to walk around just thinking things that are false are true. What would be the point of convincing myself I'm right when I'm not? What do I have to gain? I have no problem with your view, other than it doesn't make logical sense. I have no motivation to do what you're claiming I'm doing.
Birds evolved in the same era as the first land animals that 'came forth from the sea'. And that's exactly what it says. It doesn't say fish. It says "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life". In the same breath it speaks of birds, so clearly it's not just talking about sea animals. That's just what you've been told, and you can't separate the text itself from what you've been told. There IS evidence of a regional flood and it would have easily covered anything that constituted as a 'mountain' or a 'hill' in that region, considering it's a plain. And given the timeline here is over 1000 years before writing, it's no surprise there's no documentation of the Jews being enslaved by the Egyptians.
I have shown how this one explanation also explains other gods in the region and other religions, including Hindu. It actually ties together all of those other stories rather well, and it offers explanations as to who they're talking about, which is a much more likely answer than just to say these people invented the earliest forms of propaganda and knowingly lied to justify what their people did. As soon as writing was sophisticated enough to enable them to record stories, these are the stories they began to commit to stone. This was their actual history as far as they thought.
Hi Mark. I thought that was you, but the 'This is why your religion causes so many conflicts' comment is a dead give-away. Didn't you always used to give me grief about 'hiding' behind a fake name and avatar? So which of us here is the one being the more disingenuous? The one under the same name as before, with my real name on my profile page, sticking to the same story? Or the guy now working under a second avatar? What happened to the other one?
"What delicate sensibilities are these?"
"it insults my intelligence."
"Please stop lying at me as well. Also insulting."
Those delicate sensibilities.
"I already know you can change the meaning of the bible in order to defend your irrational belief in a god contradicted by science."
To quote you from earlier, "This is where your complete lack of scientific understanding really shows itself." That statement about a "God contradicted by science" just shows you either don't understand God, science, or you don't understand either.
So, you're saying I'm changing the meaning of the bible to make it work? How about the hard numbers? The ages given? The very specific timeline? The numbers add up. The events that separate them mirror actual events that are also separated by the same number of centuries. I can maybe understand if I were to twist around one or two vague verses, but I'm showing how the first 11 chapters line up, first with the geological/biological formation of the earth, then a span that covers roughly 5500-3500BC in southern Mesopotamia. 11 chapters. Over 2000 years of known history in detail.
"Yoru evidnce has been proven wrong on many occasions, I don't see why I should do it again."
If it were proven wrong, why would I still be doing this? What's my motivation? What do I get out of this, not just to believe it myself, but to spend so much time and energy engaging in discussions and defending it? What do I have to gain? How does that even make sense?
I agree, but when you first change the definition of the word 'reality' to only mean what's observable/detectable material, as is the case in this forum, then there is room for 'beyond reality', because there is a high probability of there being parts of the story beyond what can be 'seen'. Anything beyond the big bang, for example, while technically would still be 'reality', whether that be a God or millions of other universes, would not be detectable by the material sciences, yet no less real.
Well, I guess this thread is officially broken, as the last comments never did arrive, and it has been days if not a week.
You could tell people were responding in the main Hubpages feed, but so many never arrived here. That had already been happening some, but usually after some time, they would all arrive all of a sudden. Is there a point at which a forum thread doesn't work anymore? Does anyone know? Will be interesting to see if this even goes through.
by jerami 8 years ago
There are no such dates hidden in scripture point to the end of the world. How ever ! The beast which rises up out of the sea is given 42 prophetic months to committ blasphemy and to persicute any and all that does not sign up in their camp. This is the only...
by Juan Rivera 6 years ago
Do you believe in the Mayan profecies? If you don't tell me whyI don't believe in those profecies I can explain why but first I need your opinion
by Emile R 6 years ago
So, the Mayans were wrong. Which doesn't mean that the end isn't near. According to Saint Malachi, anyway. His predictions on the popes have been eerily accurate.Once the current pope is gone, do you think that will herald the end of the Catholic church, the end of the world or simply leave us in...
by ntljhn 9 years ago
Do you feel that Revelation, in particular , how the signs are supposed to be incredibly apparent to God's children, is taking place in this day and age?
by James Kobzeff 5 years ago
Christians: Will There Be a Rapture?Christians are divided on whether or not we are correct to believe in a rapture. What do you think?
by prophet2012 9 years ago
oops, did you read the forum rules first??the grey box next to the reply box.<--------please read before posting.
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|