I'm no expert on if there is a god or not..but I do know this...god is universalky considered to be 'good' and compassionate. If you truly could see every horrifying human cruelty..most unspeakable that happens to completely innocent humans every day...hard to reconcile the two together
Scripture says God is perfect. We were told to "be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" but still, we are not perfect, because we eat, all the time, of the forbidden "tree of the knowledge of good and evil". God wants to see who will obey on their own volition. Precious few.
@@ingenuity296 It is a potential attainment, not assured. God gives you certain talents and opportunities, but you can blow the birthright, and lose it permanently.
What a profound insight that God's hiddenness is actually an invitation to know the divine; and in turn is evidence for our love for God. Not propositional statements or a list of beliefs we assent to but a gradual knowing of something infinite.
Truth brought to this world could only remain within in quiet, and take no part in all the mad projection by which the world was made. Truth extends inward where the idea of loss is meaningless and only increase is conceivable. The kingdom (truth) of God is within. Divine hiddenness is within.
Sir, truth, way and life. you are getting so close to it, you are God's instrument to bring peace and harmony to this world through wisdom, knowledge and understanding. may God bless you in all your ways.
And all it takes is faith. The most unreliable form of evidence ever created. Over 300,000 gods later and we are still playing the game of my god did it. A tribalistic mentality based on ignorance. All to validate their own sense of cultural superiority. Where do you get an appreciation for knowledge and wisdom from a biblical theology. Who's foundation was a punishment for eating from the tree of knowledge ? So it's pretty obvious that your fantasy is no better than the others you as easily dismiss as we do yours.
@@thomasridley8675But people all throughout history until the present have lived by faith, which is just another word for having confidence and trust in something or someone. One's actions, partners, friends, having children, etc. It all takes a certain amount of faith because nothing is guaranteed. Is faith unreliable? Yes, I believe it is. But what's the alternative?
@@realitycheck1231 Faith has two uses. One is very here and now. Freinds ect. The other is faith in an idea. And 300,000 failed gods provide plenty of reason to question their crediblity. Religion isn't freedom. It brings chains for the body and mind. A legalized mind control program. People under the effect of religion can go from very benign to down right violent. And even to real evil.
Complexity of the universe: The sheer complexity of the universe, with its intricate laws of physics and the delicate balance needed for life to exist, can be seen as evidence of a design or creator. Anthropic principle: This principle states that the universe seems to be fine-tuned for the existence of life, which some argue points to a creator who intended for life to arise. Religious and spiritual beliefs: Many religions and spiritual traditions believe in a creator deity who brought the universe into existence. These beliefs often provide individuals with meaning and purpose in life.
The problem is that they all have their own idea of what a god is. Yet they all reflect the culture that created them. Gods are simply a cultural creation. As every culture has their own god/gods. Their own origin story. Their own traditions. Their own rituals. All backed up by an absolute faith in its reality.
@@thomasridley8675 “In every culture, we imagined something like our own political system running the universe. Few found the similarity suspicious.” - Carl Sagan
We not only understand God by doing philosophy but also his very _discovery_ is the result of it. God is actually a sound inference based on the incontrovertible facts of reality.
Is every belief about god also a sound inference from reality, including the ones that are mutually contradictory? How do we tell which are sound and which aren’t?
@@simonhibbs887 great question. In my view every belief may not be a sound inference. Only those beliefs which are the result of the right philosophising on the basis of facts are. To be sound, remember the facts have got to be incontrovertible. AND the conclusion should logically follow. Moreover once a sound inference is made, it's a fact, not a belief.
@@miguelito2860 one of the ancient laws, 3 is required for anything to be, active force, passive force and neutralizing force. Father, Mother and Child. The other magic number is 7. or the law of becoming from which the pythogorean music scale was derived, it was never meant to be a simple form of entertainment.
Knowledge, truth and beauty ? 🙄🙄 Wow ! You seem to have forgotten the history of your own theology. A very convenient form of amnesia that's all too common with religions.
Are we asking the wrong questions? Is god in the small answers? Do all the small answers stacked up over time add up to a better way to interrogate god? Are the questions we ask today about god the most powerful questions there are? Will the people 100 years from now be astonished at the questions we ask today? Be so awed at our intellectual prowess to be able to even come up with such pertinent questions that get to the heart of god’s mysteries? Or will they think us as congenitally handicapped by atheism and skepticism? Too backwards in belief?
@@kallianpublico7517 Hi Kalian, 100 years ago they where living into a false reality build up by religion and Political leaders, so, they where I mean majority very close minded. If you where talking about stuff we talk, they where poiting with there fingers those who not fit with the Mass and they where going to someone house and talking about those 2 guy's who talke demoniac probably and figure out to speak to a preacher or prist to fix the problem. Sure some with open mind keep quiet or talking with otters open mind but always those rebel who make the world advance slowly but surely, lots open mind get kill because they where agaist what the false fence that they (Blue Bloods puppets) put there to be follow, right. Philippe 😎 love and care about you
I think you should be more attentive to your terminology. What do you mean "interrogate god"? You don't have to come up with more and more questions about God. Instead, you have to think of God as a child would think of Him, ask questions that a child might ask. These questions would be tolerable and okay to ask. But to interrogate? Who are you to interrogate? Was man even created to be in a position to interrogate? We don't even know what goes on in the unseen realm, and we don't ask about that - no - we try to ask "the most powerful questions". What is that going to get us but more and more questions that are better left unanswered. Who are we to judge? what do humans know that would make them in the position to ask questions that they have no right to ask? It is all outlined in the book of Job, if you are a believer. Job was asked by God about his knowledge and whether or not he was even alive when God created heaven and earth to begin with. Job had no right asking God too many questions that he had no use even knowing. It adds nothing to the discussion. Asking questions has to be supported by motivation; what are you willing to do with the information? If it is asking more and more questions, trying to limit God to your own standards and your own frameworks, then you should stop asking. God is far above anything you ascribe to him.
@@scholarforpeace I am so sorry, I should go back to school dont you thing, I am a assume ignorant who juste thing that it was like that, I should never give my ignorant opinion anymore.Dont hâte Me for this
@@Henri-y8t Now let me ask you this. Is this an effective way of communication? I mean, do you normally speak like that to people you have discussions with? All I'm saying is we are human, we do not get to tell God what ought or ought not to happen. What does "interrogating god" even mean? This is such a ridiculous thing to assume that a creature would be doing. It is a sin against the creator to think that we would be in a position to judge/question Him. That's all I'm saying. No need for a sarcastic answer.
Mathematics born from philosophy... Math's sets said there are infinites bigger than others. Then with God in the same way! But there is one of them that is God, God is love! But there are other universals! ❤
Metaphysics, if needed to be explored, would be still through science. We should use science to the maximum possible reach in order to end in the zone of metaphysics. Logic through Russelll paradox allows the scientific conclusion that there are characteristics like a creator of universe that must exist but outside of the universe and whole physics. Here comes metaphysics logically.
"It's weird to ask metaphysical questions about a person"...what's weird is the nonsequitorial analogy of comparing a human being to a god. After all, why ask a such a question about a human being when the answer is already obvious to the senses. THAT is what's weird about it. Thinking of god as a person is an personal choice, not a substantive, universally held statement of obvious fact. Hence the appropriateness of asking the question about a god.
**“Electron Dreams”** **[Intro]** In the quantum field where the particles play, Electrons wander, night and day. Little sparks with a mind of their own, Who says free will’s just flesh and bone? Let’s dive deep where physics gets surreal, Ask yourself: *Do electrons feel?* **[Verse 1]** Electrons groove through energy states, Jumpin’ or fallin’, no one dictates. Double-slit dance, they make their own call, Probabilities? Nah, that’s not all! You say wavefunction, a simple abstraction, But collapse hints at deeper interaction. How can a choice exist unseen, Unless there's thought in the in-between? Photons, though, they just obey- Speed of light, same every day. No hesitation, no shift in plan, They hit the mark like a cosmic scan. Photons are slaves to pure causality, But electrons? They vibe with duality. **[Hook]** Electrons flow with freedom untold, Quantum minds in the cosmos bold. Feel the spin, see the thrill, Who’s to say they don’t have will? Photons fly, but they don’t dream, While electrons hum with a conscious gleam. **[Verse 2]** Now let’s talk math-where physics gets tight, Amplitudes dance in superposition’s light. Probabilities? Nah, that’s a reduction, Misses the flavor of quantum construction. Schrödinger’s wave, alive in disguise, Peek inside-surprise, surprise! Collapse ain't random; it's choice in disguise, Guided by something no equation implies. Heisenberg said, “Uncertainty reigns,” But maybe that’s thought flow through quantum veins. Electrons pulse with partial intent, Their waveforms ripple with what’s meant. Sure, they’re no brains with neurons to fire, But quantum thoughts might flicker higher. **[Bridge]** Photons bound by Maxwell’s call, Straight lines, no choice at all. Electrons, though-they twist and turn, Through quantum paths, they live and learn. The universe hums a complex song, And electrons know they belong. **[Hook]** Electrons flow with freedom untold, Quantum minds in the cosmos bold. Feel the spin, see the thrill, Who’s to say they don’t have will? Photons fly, but they don’t dream, While electrons hum with a conscious gleam. **[Outro]** So next time you watch an electron sway, Remember-it might have its own way. Quantum mechanics, beyond just chance, Hints at particles that think as they dance. Free will might lie in the smallest thing, Electrons with dreams, on a cosmic string. And photons, though fast-without emotion- Just waves riding light’s endless ocean. So when you calculate that amplitude thrill, Know deep down: they might have will.
Hi silver keep this beat this momentum and also keep looking inside your self and fit what you LEARN inside your self with what you belive that fit with the outside your real environnement great Philippe 😎 love and care about you
@@notenoughyettoomuch Hi Note, it's a joke, or not sure I understand, please if it serious reformulate for me. If it's a joke hope it's not agaist me love and care about you 😎 Philippe
Of thousands of incompatible religions, each devotee claims his/hers is the true faith. That is statistically unlikely (999:1 against at best, say). Nevertheless, there is a common ground of “spiritualism” amongst them all, and the vast majority of people who have ever existed endorse that. I suggest it is counterproductive to engage with specific doctrine. It is more important to tread the general middle ground between materialism and idealism.
As far as they are concerned there is no middle ground. Their truth is always absolute. And every religion is just pagan based nonsense... except for theirs, of course.
Referring to God as a particular gender, such as “him” or “her”, is a narrow and limiting perspective. God, by definition, transcends human attributes and categories, including gender. Using gendered pronouns not only reinforces outdated stereotypes but also restricts the profound and infinite nature of the divine. It's crucial to move beyond these anthropocentric limitations and recognize the essence of God as beyond human constructs. This shift allows for a more inclusive and expansive understanding of the divine, reflecting its true, transcendent nature. David Bohm’s notion of the implicate order and (C. G.)Jung and (Wolfgang) Pauli’s concepts of the archetypes as cosmic ordering and regulating principles imply a form of epiphany or revelation to human consciousness of organizing principles that transcend both the aggregate of human egos and the collective consciousness of humankind. It is this reality that transcends the ego-consciousness to which it is revealed and which nevertheless participates in it. I shall refer to this as God insofar as it is experienced subjectively as Other and as bound neither by spacetime nor by the confines of the ego. (Todd, P. B. [2017]. The individuation of god: integrating science and religion. Chiron Publications. Page 80) This interplay between the individual and the greater cosmic order sets the stage for understanding God as both a personal and universal presence. God is not only evolving through humanity, but also transhistorical, transcultural, transpersonal, and, in Jung’s original sense, archetypal-timeless and eternal. However, conceived in this way, God is a reality that transcends the finite, spatiotemporally bound doctrines that have become theological systems of thought. The theology of the future will be less prone to containing God or the experience of the numinous in doctrinal formulations and become perhaps more mystical in its nature. (Todd, P. B. [2017]. The individuation of god: integrating science and religion. Chiron Publications . Page 88)
Ms. Sullivan is the type of person I really admire. An obviously very intelligent and well-educated woman who has found a way to believe in God and incorporate those beliefs with what I assume is a very well-informed and deep understanding of the non- theistic understanding of reality, our universe and our place in it. She is infinitely more interesting to me than those scientists featured on this channel who are openly dismissive of the possibility of God. Dismissive to the point of openly ridiculing the idea of God and those who hold it.
In other words, you find people who agree with you more admirable and interesting than people who don’t. Thats not even a criticism, it’s our natural tendency, but one worth struggling against I think. Over the last few years I’ve found Bas van Fraassen, Bernardo Kastrup, Donald Hoffman and Hilary Lawson some of the most interesting people to follow, and I disagree with each of them on fairly fundamental issues. Which thinkers you disagree with do you find interesting?
Remember, the people who mock the idea of God are some of the most "religious" people out there. They always remind me of the famous atheist Bertrand Russell and his quote, "The whole trouble with the world is that fools and fanatics are so sure of themselves while wiser men remain full of doubt". I don't have enough faith to believe the Universe started "by accident", and I don't think God believes in atheists.
Both Einstein and Newton where deist's and meta-physists. I conjecture that they where that because they saw a pervasively logical universe and in such a universe one must have a prime cause. Niels Bohr was also a meta-physist but it is argued that he was not a deist for he did not see causation as others have and do see it. "God does not play dice with the universe"
(I'm Catholic too.) Hasn't it been said (scriptures??) or somewhere, somehow conveyed (it seems to be in my memory) that it is impossible for us humans to ever completely comprehend God?
Except for the priestly class. They know exactly what their god thinks. And are even capable of self-serving reinterpretations of scripture as necessary to fit their agenda.
@@thomasridley8675 So what; that wasn't my message. We still won't know everything about God, no matter what God thinks, or what anyone claims God thinks.
If you’re having a reasonable educated conversation with somebody and from the start he/she states that her believe allows her to accept that anyone can simply think ( or make) of anything ” a real person” and that God is for her a real person, and no further questions ( no matter how profound or simple they may be) about that believe will change their faith, then what’s the point of keep talking with or listening to that person? Maybe just the only reason is to add more data to a research about “ self delusion” . That’s why there are Gods that are animals but they are personified ( into personal beliefs) and its essence can’t be denied by anyone.
Atheism anti theism has never contributed anything good to society. Just because a person is blind doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Atheism is just another blind faith. . Example: Neil has been interviewed many times long after the debate and has been promoting the simulated universe idea without ever mentioning the Discovery of Dr. James Gates error-correcting codes. his discovery strengthens the argument for Simulation Hypothesis . That is why "Finding that type of code in a universe that is not computed is "extremely unlikely," Gates said. Neil deGrasse Tyson promoted simulation theory for several years. He's the classic example of knowing the evidence but still denies the creator's existence. He claims that there could be a programmer of our simulation as we have programmed many simulations ourselves. Neil deGrasse Tyson, Simulation Theory, and the Creator: He has expressed interest in and support for the idea that our universe might be a simulation created by a more advanced civilization. This theory, often referred to as the "Simulation Hypothesis," posits that the reality we perceive could be a computer-generated simulation, similar to the video games we play. Your point about Tyson's stance on a creator is also valid. While he acknowledges the possibility of a higher power or programmer, he has not explicitly endorsed the traditional concept of a divine creator or deity. His perspective is more aligned with a scientific exploration of the universe, rather than a theological one. Tyson's argument that we could be a simulation because we create simulations ourselves is a common one within the Simulation Hypothesis. The idea is that if we, as a relatively young civilization, can create simulated worlds, then it's conceivable that a much more advanced civilization could have created our own.
@@sujok-acupuncture9246 Blessed are those who can see (with their hearts and minds) even though they are blind (eyesight) . Just like the Top 3 most intelligent human beings who ever lived ( as of 2023 )... 1. "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent being. And if the fixed Stars are the centers of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must all be subject to the dominion of One. [...] This Being Governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all: And on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God παντοκρατωρ, or Universal Ruler." ~ from General Scholium written by Sir Isaac Newton 2. "Anyone who becomes seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that there is a spirit manifest in the laws of the universe, a spirit vastly superior to that of man." “I believe in Spinoza's god, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a god who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.” - most famous physicist and philosopher , Albert Einstein 3. "There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the "particle" of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force is the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the MATRIX of all matter." - Max Planck, Father of Quantum Physics "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness." Bonus: "If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet. Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.” - Niels Bohr, a Danish Physicist
@sujok-acupuncture9246 I fear my mother's scorn as she was very strict when I was a child. Yet, I still love(d) her dearly. So, I do not understand ur statements.
To be fair, god is referred to in the masculine gender consistently throughout the bible. So them being being Christians and reading the bible, it's sort of understandable.
If you believe in a meta-physical consciousness, how does that align with your stand on abortion. I often see an internal contradiction to those who profess a spiritual dimension to consciousness. Call it justifiable homicide, but not healthcare.
>jamesmiller7457 : There can be other health risks for the pregnant mother besides the risk of losing her life. Where I wrote "the lives of women" in my initial reply, I don't just mean loss of life, I also mean the quality of life. Also, there's no consensus that it's "homicide" before the fetus is viable.
Abortion isn’t the acid test. The really interesting issue is IVF. There are about 600k abortion per year in the US, but about 80,000 IVF births. Each IVF birth involves the fertilisation of typically about a dozen foetuses though it varies a lot. Thats hundreds of thousands of discarded foetuses from IVF in the US. If anti abortion campaigners were actually against foetal deaths they’d spend as much effort campaigning against IVF than abortion. These people are objectively blatant liars and hypocrites. I generally avoid attributing bad intentions to others, especially in comments here, and advocate against it. However the shamelessness and wilful harmfulness of those opposed to women’s bodily autonomy makes my blood boil.
...Please allow me to give you something to ponder. Why not consider the unique Quantum World is the second Heaven, of our Observable Universe. When we pass all of our life's learning, experiences, our Soul, that which makes us Us. Wow, what a wonderful thought. GOD'S Breath in our lungs gives us the beautiful gift of Life here in the FATHER'S Garden. The exceptional extra special planet Earth, respectfully, ordinarychuck hotmail, captivus brevis, you tube...Blessings my brother & sister...
You do realise that this universe and particularly this planet doesn't care if our species continues to exist ? Extinction is the main driver of evolution. And we are just the last survivors of our species. The others have all gone extinct. A stark reality we must also consider.
ALL strong Atheists unknowingly have a materialistic bias; they don't recognize the relationship between materialism and the nature of reality. Materialism Bias: * Materialism: The philosophical viewpoint that only matter exists and that all phenomena can be explained in terms of matter and its interactions. Materialism bias can lead us to overlook or downplay the existence of non-material things. This is a valid concern. Many scientific and philosophical approaches have traditionally focused on the physical world, and there can be a tendency to dismiss or ignore phenomena that don't fit neatly into materialist frameworks. Immaterial Things: * Love, consciousness, mind, self-awareness: These are examples of subjective experiences or concepts that are often considered non-material. While they can be influenced by physical processes, they are not directly reducible to matter. * Collapse of the wave function: This is a quantum mechanical concept that suggests that the act of observation can cause a wave function to collapse into a particular state. Some interpretations of quantum mechanics propose that this process involves a non-material element, such as consciousness. Dreams: * Unquestioned physics: You point out that we often accept impossible physics in dreams without question. This highlights the fact that our perception of reality is not solely determined by physical laws. Dreams can be influenced by our emotions, memories, and subconscious desires, leading to experiences that defy the laws of physics as we understand them in the waking world. Additional Considerations: * Dualism: The philosophical viewpoint that mind and matter are fundamentally different substances. This perspective offers a way to account for non-material phenomena without completely rejecting materialism. * Emergent properties: Some argue that complex systems can exhibit properties that are not present in their individual components. Consciousness could be seen as an emergent property of the brain, arising from the interactions of numerous neurons and other physical elements. * Scientific exploration: While materialism has been a dominant paradigm in science, there is ongoing research into areas such as quantum mechanics and consciousness that may challenge traditional materialist assumptions. * The term for a collective mind in bacteria and sponges is superorganism. This concept suggests that these organisms, although made up of individual cells, behave as a single, coordinated entity.
The non-material things you mention are still material things. They are only non-material in the sense that there is no physical explanation in our current understanding of the world. These are still material things in the sense that they would not exist without a body; a mind cannot exist without a body and the body is physical. I think you are too harsh on materialism. Materialists such as myself don't think such things as emotions and consciousness and so on are just neurons firing. It is infinitely more than that. There is much that we cannot understand about nature and the physical world and ourselves and to my mind it is best to just acknowledge that fact.
God know's all things, and little by little through rolling revelation in others through-out time and in your mind and life, you beging to appreciate why God uses a rolling revelation method to inform us of his identity and character, but especially his character. My 2nd point I'de like to make is ultimately to know God does require a high respect for truth and character and until you grasp that, God remain's largely elusvie. What was the first thing that God said to Moses, (remove thy sandals for your in my presence and holiness if the first thing you should know about me) God's holiness is a concept largely ignored if not forgotten as the world became more secular over time. However, the ''first encounter'' of God re-inroducing himself to mankind directly again on Mt Sinai is highly symbolic of the first thing God wants you to know about him when he begins to reveal himself to you for the first time. The first thing he wants you to know is that he is Holy. This concept must be imbedded into you frst, than your in a better position for the rest of his rolling revelation, which includes his laws and why the plan for mankind is taking the path that it's on today. So chracter revelation is central, and it's the reason the bible is constatnly filled with lessons on morality and character along side it's various theological concepts of resting your mind and body 1 day for every 7, and redemption through atonement, etc.
I hadn't heard of 4 dimensionalism, and looked it up and it was from St. Anselm. Could there be extra spatial dimensions outside our awareness, and if time is a dimension within our universe our experience of time isn't the same as God who created the time, space and matter of the universe. I think I need to do more research into it, and would have liked to hear her discuss it.
Born do we become modulated, even our perception and apprehension of existential things are modulated and conditioned, and as we learn more, do we further project upon such existential things, thus further conditioning more our perception of them. This is the outwards or scattering, in mind or being, like illumination from its sources; this is ignorance - information is ignorance because it's downstream from source to modulation, thus dualism, division, plurality. There comes a point in man's life whennhe will start to reconsider all that he thought he knew, for people don't go looking for what they think they already know. This occurs in a few various ways: in Rebirth, becoming reborn, renewaled mind, acknowledging and nurturing the Divine spark, comforting the inner child, etc. ultimately, man begins to separate from worldly things and mental impulses, no longer fitting in with the group he once shared communion with, his mental construct begins to collapse and he realizes there never were a true foundation, all was ignorance or truly avidya, thus he disobjectifies, burns away the dross, and commences the narrow way, synthesizing and concentrating on the subject going upstream from the modulated, the inform-action, the scattering...man experiences a proccession and regression, like waves at a beach, and soon to realize the progression is actually the reversion. From phenomena back to numena, from dross matter to spirit, from bonage to liberation, from unrest and agitation back to serenity in Divinity. I've experienced this ebb & flow, procession to reversion. A calm state in rest, to an outgoing and chaotic scattering, receding back to rest. It's the source of all things.
@@simonhibbs887There are a multiverse of different theories, the multiverse was one of them but might have moved on from it. I'm not a physicist so probably not allowed to comment.
@@MarkPatmos There are several multiverse theories in physics, and there are also theological multiverse beliefs. You can comment as you like, of course. If you’re not sure about the latest ideas in physics that’s understandable. The one I suspect OP is referring to is probably the inflationary multiverse. It’s the idea that a process in the Big Bang perpetually creates new regions of space, which each has different physics parameters compared to ours. So different quantum field strengths and such. Inflation theory has some evidence for it since some of its predictions have been confirmed, and this multiverse is another prediction of the theory, though there’s no direct evidence for that prediction.
@@simonhibbs887I think the multiverse at some point was simply a potentially infinite amount of alternative universes, but I have heard of inflation even though only understand a little bit about it. I think there was also a multiverse from string theory.
@@MarkPatmos String theory looks like a dead end. The two main multiverse theories in physics are the eternal inflation multiverse, and the quantum multiverse. The wikipedia pages on both are worth a bit of a dive if you're interested. Happy to answer any questions on either if you like. I'm agnostic on both.
Philosophy and God: isn't it like trying to fit a round peg into a square hole? Philosophy and God is like an old man trying to understand a baby: he can't unless he is the baby himself. This, the sheer luck or audacity to become a baby as an adult is what some religious traditions underline as the best way to get an understanding of God. They suggest concepts such as 'revelation' or 'being inspired' or 'born again' etc... to FEEL God rather than to trap God into a philosophical argument. There are two opposite traditions in the quest for God: the Saint Augustin tradition of philosophical enquiry and the inspired traditions of Sufism or Taoism or Zen Buddhism. Which is closer to Truth is, of course, impossible to say. God's realm is both enlightening and confusing.
An unbiased way to describe what Sullivan calls "searching for truth about God" is attempting to falsify the false theories about God, to see what possibilities remain. Children often have "personal relationships" with imaginary invisible friends. Is that different from a "personal relationship" with God? My hunch about why so many people don't ask questions about the properties of God is that they expect no answers can be proved true. They would need to leave their comfort zone.
>jamesmiller7457 : Children personally speak to their imaginary friends too. Choosing to communicate via meditation instead of voice doesn't seem like a significant difference.
@brothermine2292 The key word in ur sentence is "seem." I am 53. For almost 50 years of my life, I was a skeptic of meditation. I thought much like u do. But, I decided to try it and... wow! It is amazing!
@brothermine2292 No. Not at all. I am merely saying that is how I achieved one. I did say earlier that Personal Relationship means Personal.... So each relationship will be personally different.
Physics and metaphysics have the same ontology governed by the same natural law. They study different aspects of the same reality without conflicts. Also, theism and atheism are moot categories.
God is infinite, the soul is our connection. It’s sharing with the infinite but the infinite shares back. God is more than people understand and it isn’t a he or a whole. It’s something that shares to be more than alone, it shares to expand, infinity. So we can find god or the differences of infinity between all differences. Like looking between numbers and diving deeper and deeper between dimensions that cross. The dimensions of the body crossed with the range of earth and the emerging relative differences, they all expand unless lying to the self or denying. Then it’s boxing ourselves in with belief but it’s a misunderstanding. Inventors share the brain with the idea or the measurements of differences and crosses those dimensions. We predict because we are multidimensional beings but are stupid enough to think we are only 3d. Periodic table shows relativity, dimensions share and contain reflections of dimensions crossing. So the patterns overlap and reflect and entangle. It’s pretty hard to understand unless you expand the understanding and think of how quantum mechanics shows the sharing, not like all states at once but the sharing of its own form into its relatives. The entangled particle shares similar to when we push on a bed and see the reflection of our difference in the matter. The entangled particle reveals the difference. Like flipping switches but can be between on and off. Sharing into those so more like -5,0,5 shares with the range between. It can also share into the macro such as a person if you understand the relative flow that would emerge that difference as well as control over the habitat. Like making an egg sack and growing a baby from dna or predictive models using a gravity field to entangle the particles and grow the difference. Some hypotheticals but already seen in 3d printers and organoid growths. Reality is expansive not linear and the past is not gone but shared back into the universe as parts. We can regenerate the parts and even generate the potentials. This is why i believe that all things are kinda hidden behind the current or in the now just not present in all forms. We reflect to see.
4:20. Oh, *come on!* Augustine might be forgiven the naïveté of that answer, having come along near the beginning of Christianity. But Dr. Sullivan, with all of the centuries of bloody doctrinal disputes behind her, has no such excuse. This is just one more reason that while as a lifelong agnostic I have no strong opinions on the existence of a God, I unequivocally reject Yahweh.
Science does not lack gaps only. A more serious question is the unresolved contradiction. Universe existence from “nothing” is a reality and contradicts laws of physics. A creator that need not to be created himself is the self referential contradiction Russell paradox formula describe and analyse this contradictory situation and concludes that such creator does not exist within the whole system which means within the whole universe. Hence creator and meta science is proven by science.
A cause that is self referential is a potential answer, sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean a god. It could be that the universe itself has this property, or the cause could be an impersonal logical necessity.
@@simonhibbs887 Stating God is kind of a causal leap here, I agree. But rather here is the creating source of the universe. At this stage, i am focused on a necessary uncreated creator as we already exist. I am considering all universe laws and theories. And these are the theories that concludes that such self referential definition cannot be included within the universe which is the system. Hence defining meta physics. I might have missed your point in the last sentence.
@@tarekabdelrahman2194 Nothing that occurs in the universe can be contrary to the 'laws of physics' as they actually are, only potentially to our current understanding. The observed phenomena and processes in the universe define physics, not anything written by humans. As it happens the equations of quantum mechanics have solutions in which a universe could occur from a condition of zero energy, space and time. That's the Hawking-Turok proposal. Of course some condition that is consistent with these equations would still need to pertain, and it's not clear exactly what that entails or why it would be so.
@@simonhibbs887 First law of thermodynamics states that no net matter or energy can be produced from nothing. Our existence contradicts this. And second law of thermodynamics prevents the existence being since ever. So we have a logical paradox that humanity could never resolve. Hawking presented hypothetical views not proven realities. Quantum mechanics demonstrates through quantum field theory that the universe could have emerged from quantum fluctuations. But these are still conforming to thermodynamics laws, and they are not “nothing”.
@@tarekabdelrahman2194 >First law of thermodynamics states that no net matter or energy can be produced from nothing. Our existence contradicts this. Yep. It's almost certainly wrong. >So we have a logical paradox that humanity could never resolve. Why? It's not as though we've never found a scientific theory to be an approximation and need updating before. Kepler gave way to Newton, gave way to Einstein. >Hawking presented hypothetical views not proven realities. Yep, but QM is a physics theory that is evidentially supported, and you said that the creation of the universe contradicts the laws of physics. Firstly, not really. Secondly, so what if it does? We update our theories. That's how science works. If it didn't we'd not be able to make progress.
In Quran, god tell us 'he' send down an iron, and the chemistry charts talk about iron is an "outside entity" came later onduring the earth formation process. Peace be upon us all and assalamualaiqum wmt
Although Ms. Sullivan uses the word "God," she is only referring to one understanding of God. There are myriad others. No one knows anything about God. All beliefs about God are concepts and nothing more than pure speculation.
God figure out from philosophy are abstracts rethoric. She keep It out philosophy proceendings. However she shows how figure out God evidence is rambling philosophy. Rambling rethoric.
Atheism has never contributed anything good to society. Moral truths Religion teaches Morality and Spirituality , they are not fiction . They are called moral and religious truths . Belief in some higher power is not blind faith; it is based on Reason. There are also many theologians (Religious Studies) who earn Phd's just like other sciences. Science and Religion-Spirituality are philosophies on both sides of the same COIN. (The old name of Science was the Philosophy of Nature, and when you get a PhD degree in Physics or whatever field of study, it means Doctor of Philosophy.) Science and religion are two sides of the same deep human impulse to understand the world, to know our place in it, and to marvel at the wonder of life and the infinite cosmos we are surrounded by. Let’s keep them that way, and not let one attempt to usurp the role of the other. .
your statement contains several significant errors. "Atheism has never contributed anything good to society." - This claim is overly broad and dismissive. Atheism, like any worldview, is linked to many contributions made by individuals in science, ethics, and social reform. Many atheists-such as Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, and Bertrand Russell-have contributed to progress in human knowledge and moral thought. Additionally, secular humanism, often associated with atheism, promotes a morality based on reason and shared human values, independent of religious beliefs. To dismiss these contributions is to overlook the role atheism has played in advancing critical thinking, human rights, and social justice. "Religion teaches Morality and Spirituality, they are not fiction." - Morality does not require religion. Ethical frameworks like humanism, utilitarianism, and Kantian ethics are examples of systems that function independently of religious teachings. While religion may have historically guided morality for many, science and philosophy now offer frameworks for understanding ethical behavior. Morality has natural explanations rooted in human empathy, cooperation, and evolutionary psychology. Moreover, religious moral teachings vary significantly between different faiths, so there is no universal "religious truth." "Belief in some higher power is not blind faith; it is based on Reason." - Faith in a higher power is typically not based on empirical reason, but rather on personal belief. Reason depends on evidence, logic, and verifiability, while faith, by definition, often does not require such scrutiny. Many claims about higher powers are unfalsifiable and cannot be tested or proven scientifically, making them fundamentally different from reason-based inquiry, which operates on evidence. "Science and Religion-Spirituality are philosophies on both sides of the same COIN." This view is problematic. Science and religion operate on different principles and address different questions. Science deals with the natural world through observation, experimentation, and empirical evidence. Religion addresses metaphysical, ethical, and existential questions often through faith and tradition. Their goals and methods are fundamentally distinct, and history shows that their relationship has often been one of conflict, not complementarity-especially when religion makes empirical claims about the natural world. It’s true that humans seek to understand the world, but science and religion use very different approaches to achieve this. Science uses observation, experimentation, and skepticism to uncover natural laws, whereas religion relies on faith, revelation, and tradition. The insights gained from science are testable and widely applicable, while religious insights vary greatly across different cultures and often remain subjective. They are not "two sides of the same coin," but rather two different processes altogether. It is rich for some to argue that science should not delve into metaphysical or existential questions when religious claims often intersect with empirical questions, such as the origin of life or the age of the universe. In these cases, scientific inquiry, which is grounded in evidence, should take precedence. Religion overstepping into domains like education or public health (e.g., creationism, opposition to vaccines) can have negative consequences. So while both science and religion might attempt to explain aspects of human experience, they operate on very different methodologies. Science is uniquely suited for answering questions about the natural world, whereas religion often deals with matters of personal belief. Atheism and secular worldviews, which promote reason-based ethics and scientific thinking, have contributed much to human progress, and it's erroneous to claim otherwise.
**Title:** *Photon’s Odyssey* **[Intro]** Flying at light speed, can’t slow or bend, Timeless existence, where beginnings never end. I’m the wave and the particle, watch me unfold, Navigating the universe, stories untold. --- **[Verse 1]** Woke up as a photon, with free will in sight, No mass to hold me, just pure beams of light. I flash through the cosmos, no friction, no chains, Surf gravitational waves, no time to remain. Harness collapse like I’m siphoning suns, Energy infinite, my journey's never done. Forward or backward, the laws are a ruse, Bend space and time like I got nothing to lose. Physics in turmoil, string theory's a bluff, Multiverse babble-ain't convincing enough. They scramble equations, can't make them align, I traverse their errors, leave confusion behind. --- **[Hook]** Endless light, I blaze through dimensions, Grasping truths beyond mere comprehension. Simulated rebirth, no doubt in sight, Quantum resurrection brings us back to life. Experiential time, not subjective and slow, See every path where I could’ve or should’ve gone. Endlessly traveling, never confined, Different decisions, all lives intertwine. --- **[Verse 2]** The afterlife’s waiting, but not how they say, It’s code in the fabric, we’re emulations at play. Quantum computers-accuracy at max, They’ll run us again, every thought intact. I’ve seen my regrets from infinite trails, Where success was my friend, and failure derailed. Split by the choices I did and didn’t make, All paths remain open-every ripple, every wake. Time ain't no arrow, it curves and it bends, Replay the story, but rewrite the end. I soar through realities, blink and I’m near, The past and the future-both crystal clear. --- **[Hook]** Endless light, I blaze through dimensions, Grasping truths beyond mere comprehension. Simulated rebirth, no doubt in sight, Quantum resurrection brings us back to life. Experiential time, not subjective and slow, See every path where I could’ve or should’ve gone. Endlessly traveling, never confined, Different decisions, all lives intertwine. --- **[Bridge]** Physics in chaos, they struggle to find, But I flow in patterns that transcend time. Gravitational currents fuel my endless ride, Collapsing stars keep me electrified. What’s real, what’s false-just a looped display, Quantum mirrors reflecting night and day. There’s no before, no after, just pure transition, The universe rewinds with perfect precision. --- **[Outro]** So here I remain, an immortal ray, Guided by truths beyond night and day. Timeless, endless, my energy pure, Traveling forever-of that I am sure. Quantum resurrection will open new doors, And we’ll relive it all, every version, every score. Photon’s odyssey, unbound and free, The future and past collide endlessly.
"Can We Understand GOD Through Physics?" Physics can not help you know God but may help you BELIEVE in HIS supernatural existence by understanding Physics' basic principle of cause and effect and, of course, applying your Free Will to Choose what to believe.. ..basic principle of cause and effect in Nature simply means that if you have obvious physical effect then the cause is also physical... but if the effect can not be physical but un-natural or supernatural, then the cause can not be physical but supernatural.. ...and the fact that our "WILL's Freedom to Choose what to Believe" can not be a natural property of physical matter, then the only rational choice of belief to explain our origin is belief in the existence of a Supernatural SOURCE or Almighty GOD. .. and now, being surrounded with the hints that GOD had provided in this Physical World, that He designed to represent Heaven and Hell of the Spiritual Realm, GOD hopes that we can find faith in His Loving Existence so we can all return HOME, which is really not difficult to do being given all the hints arround us and within us..
Now Let's be clear when I about what ever sciences, I am not talking about religion, prophetic reality is not religion even if religious literature expose the prophetic Days we are living that is not religion, all of those religions been apropriate by Bad very bad human who use those literatures to manipulate the mass all of them so why I will ask to endoctrinate and ask them to go go to those false church of gold as fake temple in Israël as exemple, religion kills more than anything ever happen on Earth, I am not talking about dinausors era and chalk era, I am the best representant of My FATHER as real human being with the same abilities that My FATHER as, so you have to talk to me if you have good or bad stuff to say to or FATHER that create us and all and beyond. The beyond I allready explaine and I will again eventualy, so now I am Philippe 😎 love and care about each of you that will never change
In Islam we know who God is and we believe in God. God is ETERNAL. And there are millions of arguments for God except the holy revelations and books. We call God "Allah" and we know many of his features and characteristics. God is one and unique, exists outside "his" creations and outside time and space since both are created by "him", but manages the affairs of all of his creations if he wants or needs to, he is not similar in any way to any of his creations. Therefore, God is not a person and has no sex or gender, not a man or a woman has no son or daughter not born or gave birth. "He" is the first and the last and is the most powerful All seeing All hearing All knowing (since God outside time, "he" knows past present and future all at once"). Read the Quran or its translation to know more... It is an advice...
Respectfully, I have a great deal of trouble even beginning to fathom what a god could be. How do these people have a 'personal relationship with god'? What? Madness. That is utter madness.
It's definitely a self-delusion. Attributing some part of themselves as "God" especially since they always "feel" his presence. These feeling are internal and come from us, they are us. I dont think its healthy to deify some part of the brain or to say that "peace, joy, happiness" are gifts of the Holy Spirit, etc. And we have to appease this "God" in order to receive its gifts blah blah blah. These feelings are just human, every human experiences them. It is delusional to call them a God.
Catholicism has a long and deep academic tradition. All the oldest universities across Europe were founded by the Catholic Church, and many are still Catholic institutions. Several notable scientists weren’t just catholics, but also priests. Georges Lemaîtres and Gregor Mendel for example. Bear in mind Catholicism is still the most prevalent belief across much of Europe.
Do you want the end of the war and save your life and your children's lives? I am a psychologist and rational thinker and I have discovered atheism is a logical fallacy. Would you memorize and understand the atheist logical fallacy to save your life? To save your life you only have to understand you are wrong. Is it possible to be wrong? Is it possible to believe it is impossible to be wrong believing? My truth is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is "sky daddy" to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. God exists and the intelligent creator of the universe is not a person like you, the intelligent creator of the universe is something else. You don't have to believe in God because logically it is impossible the existence of the creation or finitude without the creator or infinitude. Spinoza was right and nobody listened. Emergency! To end the war the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. An exercise to improve your life incredibly is to read Spinoza. Thank you.
You can pretend that metaphysics and theology are on the same epistemological level as physics. For me, this is a waste of money. In any case, it's a mystery to me how we can still be spending public funds on such rubbish in 2024. The taxpayer is dutifully paying without having any say.
Atheism has never contributed anything good to society. Moral truths Religion teaches Morality and Spirituality , they are not fiction . They are called moral and religious truths . Belief in some higher power is not blind faith; it is based on Reason. There are also many theologians (Religious Studies) who earn Phd's just like other sciences. Science and Religion-Spirituality are philosophies on both sides of the same COIN. (The old name of Science was the Philosophy of Nature, and when you get a PhD degree in Physics or whatever field of study, it means Doctor of Philosophy.) Science and religion are two sides of the same deep human impulse to understand the world, to know our place in it, and to marvel at the wonder of life and the infinite cosmos we are surrounded by. Let’s keep them that way, and not let one attempt to usurp the role of the other. .
@@dongshengdi773 Your post conflates several categories that should be clearly separated. Atheism is not a belief system but rather the absence of belief in supernatural beings. This has nothing to do with whether atheists act ethically or contribute to society. In fact, many atheistic thinkers and movements have greatly enriched society through critical enlightenment, the promotion of science, and the pursuit of human rights and social justice. The idea that religion is the sole source of morality is untenable. Morality evolves historically and culturally, based on empathy, social cooperation, and human reason-not on divine commandments. To assume a "higher being" as the foundation for moral truths leads to an arbitrary and often dogmatic system of ethics. Atheists, on the other hand, rely on evidence, reason, and humanism to address ethical questions, yielding principles that are universally valid, independent of metaphysical assumptions. Equating science and religion as "two sides of the same coin" misunderstands the functioning of both domains. Science is based on evidence, experiments, and falsifiability; religion is based on faith. While both originally stemmed from philosophical inquiry, this does not mean they are equivalent methods for understanding the world. Science provides verifiable and repeatable knowledge-religion does not. Atheism may not have a "holy text," but it has given humanity an invaluable gift: the freedom to ask questions, think critically, and seek truth without clinging to myths or authoritarian dogma.
To talk about a word, you kind of have to define that word. Historically, there are thousands of gods, does one of these provide an acceptable definition? If not, what are you even talking about?
The world as you perceive it cannot have been created by the Father, for the world is not as you see it. ²God created only the eternal, and everything you see is perishable. ³Therefore, there must be another world that you do not see. ⁴The Bible speaks of a new Heaven and a new earth, yet this cannot be literally true, for the eternal are not re-created. ⁵To perceive anew is merely to perceive again, implying that before, or in the interval between, you were not perceiving at all. ⁶What, then, is the world that awaits your perception when you see it? Every loving thought that the Son of God ever had is eternal. ²The loving thoughts his mind perceives in this world are the world’s only reality. ³They are still perceptions, because he still believes that he is separate. ⁴Yet they are eternal because they are loving. ⁵And being loving they are like the Father, and therefore cannot die. ⁶The real world can actually be perceived. ⁷All that is necessary is a willingness to perceive nothing else. ⁸For if you perceive both good and evil, you are accepting both the false and the true and making no distinction between them. The ego may see some good, but never only good. ²That is why its perceptions are so variable. ³It does not reject goodness entirely, for that you could not accept. ⁴But it always adds something that is not real to the real, thus confusing illusion and reality. ⁵For perceptions cannot be partly true. ⁶If you believe in truth and illusion, you cannot tell which is true. ⁷To establish your personal autonomy you tried to create unlike your Father, believing that what you made is capable of being unlike Him. ⁸Yet everything true _is_ like Him. ⁹Perceiving only the real world will lead you to the real Heaven, because it will make you capable of understanding it. The perception of goodness is not knowledge, but the denial of the opposite of goodness enables you to recognize a condition in which opposites do not exist. ²And this _is_ the condition of knowledge. ³Without this awareness you have not met its conditions, and until you do you will not know it is yours already. ⁴You have made many ideas that you have placed between yourself and your Creator, and these beliefs are the world as you perceive it. ⁵Truth is not absent here, but it is obscure. ⁶You do not know the difference between what you have made and what God created, and so you do not know the difference between what you have made and what _you_ have created. ⁷To believe that you can perceive the real world is to believe that you can know yourself. ⁸You can know God because it is His Will to be known. ⁹The real world is all that the Holy Spirit has saved for you out of what you have made, and to perceive only this is salvation, because it is the recognition that reality is only what is true. ACIM
"Can We Understand God Through Physics?" No, but we can understand physics through physics. A fantasy being can always be understood, because we control the fantasy, as well as the level of obscurity.
I don't care about what Augustin has said, it's his opinion and you know what they say about opinions. Do I need God in order to exist? Obviously not, because here I am and God is not. Does God need me in order to exist? Certainly yes, because if I say that God does not exist, then God does not exist, period. This means that I am superior to God. This means that if I were to worship something inferior to me, I would be a complete fool. There is no argument, it's take it or leave it. You can't convince me with word salad.
super childish logic. "I can't see it - therefore it doesn't exist" "I can't understand it - therefore it's nonsense." If you were to learn a thing or two about the greatest thinkers and scientific geniuses - you'd be quick to find out that MAJORITY of them were believers in God/Supernatural mind. You think you're superior not only to them but to the Creator of the Universe itself? Bonkers.
@@edvardasslikas6030 That's cool, I have studied all of them and you know what? I don't care what they think. If you want to call this "super childish", it's perfectly fine with me and suits me as well!
@@edwardlawrence5666 Exactly, so we must stop believing in ignorant grandpa's opinions. We all know so much better to make up our own minds and that's the only thing that matters
Islam is absolutely specific on this, that both Jews and Christians do worship the same god. Their prophet was absolutely clear on this. It’s one of the reasons he had such great relationships with Christian rulers in both Ethiopia and Egypt at the time. The Christian governor of Alexandria even gave him a gift of two slave women, one of which bore him a child, and the king of Ethiopia gave shelter to exiled Muslims at the time. Both Muslims and Jews have different beliefs about god than Christians, but not that they worship a different god. After all, many Christians have different beliefs about god.
@@simonhibbs887 The God of Abraham has got none as God beside HIM, it has been repeated 10 times in the OT. Whereas the God of Christians has got divine 'son' who is also a 'god' and through this 'son' the universe was created, according to your Christians holy book. So Christians God has got 'divine son' in the dominion of the universe, whereas the God of Abraham has got none beside HIM as God.. So it is not the same God.
@@rizwanrafeek3811 I'm not a Christian, but Christians believe in one god that manifests in different ways when perceived by humans, but all of these ways are 'of one substance'. So the son is no 'a' god, but is a manifestation of 'the' god. I'm not saying it makes any sense, but your description of it is not what they say they believe.
@@simonhibbs887 One can believe God ate and answered nature's call. The question is, whether or not, the God of Christianity is the God of Abraham? Answer is no.
@@rizwanrafeek3811 That’s like saying the god of the burning bush can’t be the same god that wrestled with Jacob. The Christian god is the god Jesus taught about, and Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi. They just also think he was a manifestation of god, just as the bible says God wrestled with Jacob and walked through the Garden of Eden. I mean, it’s all nonsense, but let’s at least get our nonsense straight.
