Out of body religious experiences

[TomOfSweden]

I often point to quantum physics as evidence that the universe has a sense of humor, and that it is playing a joke on everybody in it. Proof of God's existence is a bit hard to pin down, but evidence is another matter. Your idol Dawkins makes a convincing argument for the possibility of miracles, though he seems to think that understanding the universe is beyond our evolutionary ability. His arguments also lacked a fundamental understanding of the nature of the interaction between matter and energy on a quantum level. That is a fundamental problem with specialization of knowledge, and although I do not understand all the math and physics, I at least know enough to find some of his speculation a bit far fetched.

But your idol Jesus has poopy ..... just kidding.

Dawkins arguments for a lack an understanding of quantum mechanics is that we all do. None of us have a clue. Just because you say that there is a creator and it knows, doesn't really add to your case does it? You have no way of verifying it with the diety, do you?

Maybe the reason they all are the same is because they are all holdovers from our original ancestors after creation. If the story started as truth, then all the variations could easily be attributed to human differences. Did you ever play that game where on person whispers something to another, and then to another? the more people in that chain, the more different the final outcome is, and this is with something simple.

On to your question, I would have to say that the reason I chose the Bible is mostly cultural. The Bible is where I first looked for God, and when I started to get serious about Him it is where I searched deeper. One of the things that separates the Bible from other holy books is the internal consistency and claims. Does the Bhagavad Ghita make the claim to divine inspiration? Is there a god in it that actually claims to have created everything? If these are there, I must have missed them.

To me at least, you're now starting to make sense. But you at a stroke insert a massive dose of uncertainty into the Bible. How can we use religious texts to understand god better? If the Bible is later in the whispering chain, how does that increase the case for the Bible.

I don't think anybody knows the origins of the Bhagavad Ghita. It references wars about 3000 BC around Hampi. I think it's in Karnataka, India.That's about it. I think it's really cool that some of the buildings referenced are still standing and can still be visited today. They are very old. Since it explains the supernatural and dieties, I'd say it can be assumed that who ever wrote it, thought they did it on divine inspiration. I can't think of any religious text that wouldn't be considered as such. Don't forget that at the time all kings and anybody very famous for anything was considered a god of sorts. That goes for Europe to. So it needs plenty of critical reading.

A central theme in Hinduism is that everything is part of and a reincarnation of Brahman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

So Brahman isn't just the creator of the universe, but also the universe itself and we are part of it. We are god. Brahman created itself BTW. Take that Escher. I personally find that their model that makes a whole lot more sense, than god being an external entity, but hey, that's me.

I am aware enough about math to understand the arguments that some scientists use to support that molecular biology is not as improbable as some suggest. I agree that certain chemicals can only combine in certain ways, but they ignore the fact that long chains of improbable events have to occur to make all of this work. Inside the cell we have chemical interactions that cannot proceed independent of each other that are individually improbable, and these scientists want me to accept that they occur by chance. The odds are against it. Sure, it is possible if we postulate certain improbable conditions, and make the argument that conditions were different then. Not impossible, but then they turn around and argue for the consistency of conditions to prove other portions of their theories, a bit confusing to me.

As for your argument that life is something that was all but inevitable no matter what random events occur, where is the proof of that? That is asking me to totally through out the Laws of Thermodynamics and believe that entropy will always reverse to create life. You want me to believe that the laws of physics can be suspended, but not in a God that actually suspends them. Which of us is taking the larger leap of faith?

Tell your microbiologist friend to stop being so arrogant and take a look at the real world. there is a guy with no formal training that the United States Navy, as well as most other ocean going powers, to track and predict waves at sea. Most astronomical discoveries are made by amateurs without the training of the professionals. Mathematical advances are made everyday by people who do not have degrees. An education does not give him a better understanding of the way the universe works, despite what he was taught by his close minded professors who want to throw out other possibilities simply because the person advancing them does not have a degree in microbiology.

Soprry, sort of a soap box ther. I can actually walk into JPL in Pasadena and discuss the advances of quantum physics and astrophysics with PhD's that do not look down on me because I do not have a degree because they are smart enough to know that degrees are do not indicate intelligence, but a microbiologists wants to try and tell me that I cannot possibly understand simple statistics because I do not have a degree. I just tend to get my fur up when I run into that attitude, and it is not you I am upset about. I do not know what you know about math, but statistics are pretty straightforward and simple. You take all the variables, and all the possibilities, and you chrunch a few numbers, and the results come out.

The truth is that we don't know how unlikely it is that life occurs. Our statistical population is one and it gives us a positive for life at every reading. Statistically we can't say much. And in none of the models except the creationist model is the laws of thermodynamics broken. As far as I know, nobody has said that life is inevitable, as Mars and the Moon has proven.

"Inside the cell we have chemical interactions that cannot proceed independent of each other that are individually improbable, and these scientists want me to accept that they occur by chance. The odds are against it."

This is just wrong. It's just creationist propaganda. I'm no molecular biologist but pretty much the whole scientific community doesn't seem to feel the need to insert god anywhere here. The problem is that the people who have the training to understand this can't explain it to us without the training, because it's far too counter intuitive.

To me it made no sense at all. I saw some research on some muscle in mouse lungs in it might as well have been in Greek. it it was pretty electron microscope pictures. The thing is that I have taken the leap of faith that scientists aren't wilfully trying to trick me and when they make statements that go completely unchallenged by a world of lab coats, that it's as close to truth as I believe I'll personally get. The leap of faith required to believe in scientific theories isn't particularly great is it?

I find it strange that an enlightened person like you feel the need to question them. You don't even believe in a literal reading of the Bible, so I don't get the conflict? What's wrong with believing that God created the conditions for life to assemble through random occurrences? Alistar mcGrath, Dawkins biggest critic, a Christian and a molecular biologist sees no conflict between evolution and the Bible. Why do you?

Always when private people discover stuff their academic background researching the stuff in question always pops up. Like Einstein for example. But recently it's completely unheard of. Beside that pastor in the Australian outback who's discovered a shit load of stars, who is there? And his discoveries dropped off to near zero after Hubble was launched.

[Rhabbi]

But your idol Jesus has poopy ..... just kidding.

I can take a joke Tom, np.

Dawkins arguments for a lack an understanding of quantum mechanics is that we all do. None of us have a clue. Just because you say that there is a creator and it knows, doesn't really add to your case does it? You have no way of verifying it with the diety, do you?

Nope, but the fact that he argues for the existence of miracles in one breath, and then against the few instances that we have of them being recorded from history is a bit wishy washy, imo.

To me at least, you're now starting to make sense. But you at a stroke insert a massive dose of uncertainty into the Bible. How can we use religious texts to understand god better? If the Bible is later in the whispering chain, how does that increase the case for the Bible.

I don't think anybody knows the origins of the Bhagavad Ghita. It references wars about 3000 BC around Hampi. I think it's in Karnataka, India.That's about it. I think it's really cool that some of the buildings referenced are still standing and can still be visited today. They are very old. Since it explains the supernatural and dieties, I'd say it can be assumed that who ever wrote it, thought they did it on divine inspiration. I can't think of any religious text that wouldn't be considered as such. Don't forget that at the time all kings and anybody very famous for anything was considered a god of sorts. That goes for Europe to. So it needs plenty of critical reading.

A central theme in Hinduism is that everything is part of and a reincarnation of Brahman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

So Brahman isn't just the creator of the universe, but also the universe itself and we are part of it. We are god. Brahman created itself BTW. Take that Escher. I personally find that their model that makes a whole lot more sense, than god being an external entity, but hey, that's me.

In a way I agree with you. Which is one reason I kind of like the idea that the universe is a joke we cooked up among ourselves, and the biggest part of the joke is that we forgot.

My understanding of Scripture causes me to believe something similar. we are all part of God.

The truth is that we don't know how unlikely it is that life occurs. Our statistical population is one and it gives us a positive for life at every reading. Statistically we can't say much. And in none of the models except the creationist model is the laws of thermodynamics broken. As far as I know, nobody has said that life is inevitable, as Mars and the Moon has proven.

"Inside the cell we have chemical interactions that cannot proceed independent of each other that are individually improbable, and these scientists want me to accept that they occur by chance. The odds are against it."

This is just wrong. It's just creationist propaganda. I'm no molecular biologist but pretty much the whole scientific community doesn't seem to feel the need to insert god anywhere here. The problem is that the people who have the training to understand this can't explain it to us without the training, because it's far too counter intuitive.

To me it made no sense at all. I saw some research on some muscle in mouse lungs in it might as well have been in Greek. it it was pretty electron microscope pictures. The thing is that I have taken the leap of faith that scientists aren't wilfully trying to trick me and when they make statements that go completely unchallenged by a world of lab coats, that it's as close to truth as I believe I'll personally get. The leap of faith required to believe in scientific theories isn't particularly great is it?

I do believe in scientific theories, I just do not know whose argument to believe. My point is that people who do have the training to understand these supposed arguments are making these counter claims. Why do their opponents then try to make the argument that I cannot understand because I do not have the training to comprehend the argument. I know from experience that I can learn the basics of even complex math rather quickly. someone trying to tell me their is no way I can understand is actually telling me that he is not as sure of his arguments as he claims, or that he does not want to take the time to make me understand.

I am watching the reformation of theories about how solar systems form based on new findings from the Hubble. We are learning that most of the theories we had based on looking at our system are wrong, and that it is getting a little harder to explain why this system formed the way it did. Scientist hoped to find Super Jupiters, but we have been stumbling over them at such an astounding rate that we are learning that the ideas we had are wrong. I am not saying that the solar system we live in is inexplicable, just a bit more unlikely then we thought.

If we were wrong about that, what else can we be wrong about?

I find it strange that an enlightened person like you feel the need to question them. You don't even believe in a literal reading of the Bible, so I don't get the conflict? What's wrong with believing that God created the conditions for life to assemble through random occurrences? Alistar mcGrath, Dawkins biggest critic, a Christian and a molecular biologist sees no conflict between evolution and the Bible. Why do you?

Who says I do? The conflict I have is with the teaching of evolution as a totally proven theory. The scientific community can be just as blind as anyone else when their beliefs are challenged, and they need to acknowledge that the answers are not as cut and dried as they are being presented. But that is actually another discussion, and we can take it up again later.

Always when private people discover stuff their academic background researching the stuff in question always pops up. Like Einstein for example. But recently it's completely unheard of. Beside that pastor in the Australian outback who's discovered a shit load of stars, who is there? And his discoveries dropped off to near zero after Hubble was launched.

The interesting thing about the new discoveries being made by amateurs is that they far out pace those of the professionals. There was a comment in one of the TED videos I watched (btw, thanks so much for that link, I love it) about a part time comet hunter that downloads data from the Hubble and uses it to look for comets. He has discovered 150 comets this way, more than people who have sophisticated search programs and are actually paid to do this.

The fact is that a person without formal education is just as capable, and sometimes more likely, to make a discovery because he does not have to justify his ideas to someone else.

[TomOfSweden]

Nope, but the fact that he argues for the existence of miracles in one breath, and then against the few instances that we have of them being recorded from history is a bit wishy washy, imo.

I think he argues against our understanding of whether it is miracles or not. A bit like, even if a miracle would shoot up and bite us in the ass, we might not register it as such. In the same way. If we see something mundane but in a way we're not prepared for we might register it falsely as a miracle.

I do believe in scientific theories, I just do not know whose argument to believe. My point is that people who do have the training to understand these supposed arguments are making these counter claims. Why do their opponents then try to make the argument that I cannot understand because I do not have the training to comprehend the argument. I know from experience that I can learn the basics of even complex math rather quickly. someone trying to tell me their is no way I can understand is actually telling me that he is not as sure of his arguments as he claims, or that he does not want to take the time to make me understand.

What I said was that I didn't understand it. I wasn't talking about you. But I do very strongly doubt that without serious studies, it's possible to understand.

I am watching the reformation of theories about how solar systems form based on new findings from the Hubble. We are learning that most of the theories we had based on looking at our system are wrong, and that it is getting a little harder to explain why this system formed the way it did. Scientist hoped to find Super Jupiters, but we have been stumbling over them at such an astounding rate that we are learning that the ideas we had are wrong. I am not saying that the solar system we live in is inexplicable, just a bit more unlikely then we thought.

If we were wrong about that, what else can we be wrong about?

um...yeah. and we still have the Banach Tarski paradox to deal with. I think you're mixing up positive and negative attributes to arguments. The more uncertaintly you insert to a premise means just that. It doesn't add to any specific theory no matter how wide it's domain is.

Sure, the "god theory" has the handy attribute of fitting into any situation due to it's nature. It is supremely intelligent, has no mass, gives no energy readings, is invisible and at the same time all powerful. Me personally, I'd say that if that doesn't make you laugh, then I don't know what's wrong with you. As far as a scientific theory is concerned it's a bit like walking around with a bazooka and calling it "a key that fits any door".

So, the fact remains that there is still no reason to insert an omnipotent, or even mildly powerful ethereal being anywhere in any theory today. So you inserting doubt in now defunct old popular scientific theories doesn't really do much for Christianity I'm afraid. If it does to you, then that is proof that you're just seeing things you want to see.

The plain fact is that the more uncertainty you insert the harder it is for anybody to make a leap of faith. If you do anyway then .... well ... I'll refrain from making insults here.

Who says I do? The conflict I have is with the teaching of evolution as a totally proven theory. The scientific community can be just as blind as anyone else when their beliefs are challenged, and they need to acknowledge that the answers are not as cut and dried as they are being presented. But that is actually another discussion, and we can take it up again later.

No it isn't as blind as anyone else when their beliefs are challenged. That's what so nice about science. It is very important that scientists do come up with wonky theories which break from today's paradigm. But they are scientists. They are systematic and above all make sure they don't break any of the things we can prove. I'd say that you need to be a part of the scientific community to make sure you aren't forgetting any previous critical research. If nothing else you need to be attached to a university just to have access to their databases to be able to search earlier research. It's extremely valuable to know that nobody before you took your idea, ran with it and failed.

There is more than just knowing or not knowing. There are known unknowns and there are things that you may not know that you don't know.

The interesting thing about the new discoveries being made by amateurs is that they far out pace those of the professionals. There was a comment in one of the TED videos I watched (btw, thanks so much for that link, I love it) about a part time comet hunter that downloads data from the Hubble and uses it to look for comets. He has discovered 150 comets this way, more than people who have sophisticated search programs and are actually paid to do this.

The fact is that a person without formal education is just as capable, and sometimes more likely, to make a discovery because he does not have to justify his ideas to someone else.

But without the scientific work that tells him what to look for he wouldn't have a clue. The discovery isn't the comets, but the method on how to find it. It's all about how you look at it.

[Rhabbi]

I think he argues against our understanding of whether it is miracles or not. A bit like, even if a miracle would shoot up and bite us in the ass, we might not register it as such. In the same way. If we see something mundane but in a way we're not prepared for we might register it falsely as a miracle.

I can see that, and it goes along with another favorite quote of mine; "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke. My point is that for years science has argued that miracles as they are described in the bible are impossible. we are just now beginning to understand that they are actually possible.

What I said was that I didn't understand it. I wasn't talking about you. But I do very strongly doubt that without serious studies, it's possible to understand.

And where is that serious study? Science already thinks it has the answers, so it is not looking.

um...yeah. and we still have the Banach Tarski paradox to deal with. I think you're mixing up positive and negative attributes to arguments. The more uncertaintly you insert to a premise means just that. It doesn't add to any specific theory no matter how wide it's domain is.

Sure, the "god theory" has the handy attribute of fitting into any situation due to it's nature. It is supremely intelligent, has no mass, gives no energy readings, is invisible and at the same time all powerful. Me personally, I'd say that if that doesn't make you laugh, then I don't know what's wrong with you. As far as a scientific theory is concerned it's a bit like walking around with a bazooka and calling it "a key that fits any door".

So, the fact remains that there is still no reason to insert an omnipotent, or even mildly powerful ethereal being anywhere in any theory today. So you inserting doubt in now defunct old popular scientific theories doesn't really do much for Christianity I'm afraid. If it does to you, then that is proof that you're just seeing things you want to see.

The plain fact is that the more uncertainty you insert the harder it is for anybody to make a leap of faith. If you do anyway then .... well ... I'll refrain from making insults here.

As a scientific theory it does make me laugh. I always want to brain the people who try to make the theory fit their beliefs, even if it is as natural as breathing. I am not trying to argue that God is the answer here, just that that explanation makes a bit more sense to me than random chance. Scientists reject it as a theory only because they do not want to believe in God, which shows their prejudice, not mine.

Sure, this opens new questions, but since science is about exploring questions, why not explore them? Can we find answers? I do not know, but I do know that there is no way we will if we do not look.

No it isn't as blind as anyone else when their beliefs are challenged. That's what so nice about science. It is very important that scientists do come up with wonky theories which break from today's paradigm. But they are scientists. They are systematic and above all make sure they don't break any of the things we can prove. I'd say that you need to be a part of the scientific community to make sure you aren't forgetting any previous critical research. If nothing else you need to be attached to a university just to have access to their databases to be able to search earlier research. It's extremely valuable to know that nobody before you took your idea, ran with it and failed.

There is more than just knowing or not knowing. There are known unknowns and there are things that you may not know that you don't know.

Now you are the one confusing things here. I said the scientific community can be just as blind as anyone else, and you rebut that science is about questioning. The thing that I know is that scientists are humans. I can go back through history, even recent history, that shows how scientist resist new ideas. This is only human, but it should raise a flag whenever it occurs. I personally have found that the more violently I react to a new idea, the more likely it is to be correct.

But without the scientific work that tells him what to look for he wouldn't have a clue. The discovery isn't the comets, but the method on how to find it. It's all about how you look at it.

True, but amateurs have access to all the same information that scientists do. They can subscribe to all the scientific journals, read all the articles online, and everything that a regular scientists does. In this day and age information is readily available to anyone who looks for it. This enables even someone without a degree to understand everything that a PhD does.

This is why I always take exception to people who try to tell me I cannot understand something without years of university training. Schools do not teach us how to think. In fact, they actually do the opposite, they teach us what to think. At least that is what happens here in the US, it might be different in Sweden.