General Theorem of Existence

[Raulgr]

Originally posted by Suki
And everything I said on it was true. And I still feel the same way about Eddier1. I don't think I ever will feel anything different. What a wonder it was to have met him, and all the other people I have learned from at pr.com. I don't know if my time is up on this forum. But, this thread and what it reflected was very beautiful.

Suki.
Post Data. One always remembers beginnings. Such a lovely beginning I had in this forum.

Hi Suki,

Well, I guess we're like two ships passing in the night. If you check in again, leave your hotmail address. I changed systems and seem to have misplaced it. How are you? And how is your mother? Responding to treatment, I hope.

We did have some interesting conversation here, didn't we? And to think that all I had in mind was to was kill god and be on to the next thing. Silly me! Anyway, I was just polishing Excalibur when it occurred to me that I should trot the General Theorem back over to the Infidels to see what might have developed with regard to abiogenesis over the past couple of years. And voila! I was pleasantly surprised to find your recent post.

I am reading Kip Thorne’s “Black Holes & Time Warps – Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy”. It is an engaging history of 20th century physics, and masterfully presented. One of the things that he notes about Einstein is the awesome power of the man’s intuition. After his brilliant formulation of relativity within a non-gravitational reference frame (special relativity), his intuition that the theory “seemed right” enabled him to persevere through arduous years toward the mathematics that generalized the theory (general relativity) to the gravitational reference frames of our universe.

I have something akin to that feeling about the General Theorem. It just seems right. Although the kernel of the idea comes from Viet Nam, 1969, while I was serving there as a junior grade engineer officer, I finally formalized it 10 years ago. Now, I am waiting for the science to confirm it. While our understanding of abiogenesis has expanded remarkably in recent years, the puzzle of protein synthesis is not yet complete. I give it another 10 to 20 years, at the outside.

So, why would anyone want to kill god, you ask? Well, let’s take a walk through hypothetical history and ask ourselves how that history would have been rewritten had the General Theorem been known and accepted 2000 years ago. For openers, there would have been no feud between Shiites and Sunnis spanning the past 20 centuries and, more recently, there would most likely have been no war between Iran and Iraq. There would have been no Moslem incursion into Europe and no Crusades. We would not have seen a million women and children slaughtered as witches in Europe in the middle ages. No Inquisition. No war between Arabs and Jews in the Middle East. No war between Pakistan and India. No war in Northern Ireland. No 9/11. No wars in Afghanistan or Iraq. And no war on terror. Now, as I recall, we have executed quite a number of bad boys right here in the good old USofA for a whole lot less than that! And, of course, the bonus: We wouldn’t have to listen to a bunch of shrill nonsense from the likes of Jesus Boy, Manny, et al.

Tell you what, I’m serving my warrant on that cosmic terrorist right now in the form of the General Theorem!

Regards,
Raul

[GodCatcher]

Very, and i do mean VERY interesting stuff all of you had to say, mainly Suki, Eddie, and Raul. I love the free exchange of ideas because that is, what i consider, learning is all about. I dont agree however with your views on God and creation itself, because if you can conclude that learning is the free exchange (giving and receiving) of ideas (or theories), then your not accepting one. Why is it so hard to exchange the "God creator of creation" idea? Could it be that it answers life toughest question so simply? or maybe that the answer is so evidently surprising, it is hard to swallow? Maybe its because it puts an end to all of our discussions, which means the end of wisdom and knowledge seeking because you have found wisdom and knowledge to its totality (the best to the 'finite' human brain) about our existance? that would be very hard to accept when everyone wants to be the ONE to answer the question, can this be looked as a pride issue also? Is it hard to admit that what took many physicist and scientist and astrologers, lifetimes to answer, can be answered within seconds. IT seems to me its just a matter of acceptance.

No, i do admit, that in order for you to study a theory there has to be truths or better yet 'evidence' and that follow that theory. But how can you be standing upon the biggest evidence to Gods existance and still say, "oh its just random" It is true, that is one tough question that seems eternity away from being answered, where do we come from? is there a God? how can you say that something was created from nothing, that to me is ilogical and unprovable. We know that something or someone creates somethings. The reason your smart peoples cannot concieve of a God creating this universe is because they try to compare God with men. We know that you and others can conclude that the universe was created by a collapsed star or the big bang because some of it is evident, wich means that your theories and assumptions or ideas are made up of things that do exist. So then how can people create or come up with this invention of God when it is clear you cannot think up or come up with something new (lets say God) out of the blue? Ok, so i'll ask you this.

Can you come up with a new color, other than using black or white or the prime colors of the rainbow?

So how can people invent or come up with this idea of God? you cant. That is unless He already existed.

nuff said

[Eddier1]

Oh I get it, your one of those "fools for Christ or whomever your god is". As long as your belly is full, your heart is content. You haven't a thought in your head, and know not that a mind is a terrible thing to waste. And you bub are wasted! Next!

[GodCatcher]

Nice!.. Look, not to hurt your feelings, but you wasted some good energy because i could care less what you think, i was just replying to your post. However, interestingly enough, you didnt even answer my question. Why? oh.. you cant, can you? Look... no disrispect, i didnt come here to dis' anyone or put anybody down.. as a matter of fact i applauded your efforts, so there was no need for you to act so immaturely. Now.. unless you answer my question, then i refuse to come to your level. Lets be mature about this.

God Bless! (wether we believe in Him or not its irrelevant)

nuff said

[Eddier1]

Okay, okay so you think that being recognized as a fool for Christ is a "dis". Hmmm, I thought that was the thing that you religionists do and it is an acceptable practice. Did I seem over critical about your stuff about faith and creationism?, I didn't mean to be if that is the way you took it.

Creationism is baloney and has been debunked by those who know how to employ scientific analysis to the problem of the Universe. But, hey!, don't let me "stoppa" you, if you wish restate your question succinctly and I will have a go at it. What is your problem?

[GodCatcher]

Thanks for clearing that up. But understand that if i post a reply to something you wrote to label it as "baloney" or fake... or to call you a "fool", i dont think it'll sound too nice to anyone. But i understood your point of view and i respect that, you have your beliefs and i have mine. I'm not here to disproof or proove anything, but to ask two simple questions that even people like you are not too affraid to answer.

1. God, as creator of creation, is as established as any other religion or belief system in our world today. True to say there are most who believe in evolution or the famous, unproovable, "BigBang". It is also true there are millions in this same world, who grew up with the same teaching in schools about evolution and all of that, who now believe that the universe was created by 'Intelligent Design' with a precise balance in nature that if we were to "tweek" nature, even by a micro"inch", life wouldnt be capable of existing. Even your astrologers and scientist know this... ofcourse they are affraid to accept it because we, as humans, dont like the idea that we are NOT in control of life. So my question would be, why is it so hard to consider GOD as creator of creation? I can accept the fact that your bringing to the table, that doesnt mean i have to tolerate it (in MY life). No matter what proof you bring in the end is God (to ME, not to you as you demonstrated). So if i can accept that, why is it so hard for people to accept that there might be a God, or in a scientific form - "higher intelligent source"? You cannot just invent something like that. which brings me to my next question.

2. Can you come-up with (invent) a new color, WITHOUT using black or white or the prime colors of the rainbow? Thats ok... you dont have to answer, I already know you cant... neither can I. It only goes to strengthen the fact that you cannot come-up with or invent something so "fake" and "outrageous" as God. Sure, you can think-up of Pink Elephants, but the color 'Pink' exist and so does the 'Elephant'. Sure, you may even invent something as inventive and fake as 'superman', but "man of steel" there is steel that bullets cant penetrate and there is man. "its a bird.. a plane!, no its superman" non-living things and living things exist that fly, how do you think they invented the plane? its in nature, he probably got inspired by watching living things that EXIST. "faster than a bullet..." theres speed of light.. why didnt they say "faster than speed of light"? "laser-like beams from his eyes" there was already "lazer-cutting" technology. "x-ray vision" thats self explanatory.

So can you come up with something that doesnt exist? I dont think so... but isnt that what some scientist are saying and enforcing, "something was created from nothing" thats what they are sounding like. It is evident you cannot come-up with this idea of God, massive religious gatherings, miracles and wonders-all surrounding "their" creator, God. Can you come up with a supernatural God? or what basis can you use to come up with a supernatural "high-intelligent source" God? Again... even as a simplified question like this second question cant be answered... i can live with that.. can you?

Trust me, not even me.. myself, would be following God if i wanst convinced (through Faith) that He exist. But then again... Faith is such a strong word for unbelievers, some cant even understand it, and thats ok... we cant pretend to know (understand) everything. We know what we know, and thats all we KNOW. you know what you know, and thats all YOU KNOW. What is there to proove.. you know what you know from your science, astrology, archeology, and history books... we know what we know from one book, the Bible. And thats another story. I've written enough already, but remember my two questions.
1. Why is it so hard to accept God as "source" of creation?
2. Can you come-up with a new color, without using black or white or the prime colors of the rainbow?

I'll be waiting for your "go at it" answers.

nuff said

[Eddier1]

Originally posted by GodCatcher
I've written enough already, but remember my two questions.
1. Why is it so hard to accept God as "source" of creation?
2. Can you come-up with a new color, without using black or white or the prime colors of the rainbow?

I'll be waiting for your "go at it" answers.

nuff said [/b]

G.C. as to your first question I have answered that in another post of mine, long ago, that perhaps you never read. So I will post it below, so that you can entertain yourself with it, although it is the farthest thing from comic books that you can imagine. It offers the scientific proofs against creationism, or the argument of a designed universe also, from the atheist's point of view. So if you can extrapolate from the post, you will can get a pretty fair picture of my view and answer to your first question. As to your second question, I am not an artist and into mixing paints like Leonardo da Vinci and other artists are, so you will have to go that type of a source if you want an answer to that question. For me, therefore, the question on colors is irrelevant to the issue of a so-called creationist universe. But I can see where you might be so interested in colors, since you seem to like reading the colorful comic books so much. Not putting you down for that because different strokes for different folks, if you understand what I mean.

Here comes my post:
Eddier1
Senior Member

Registered: Apr 2000
Posts: 2452
The Foundations of Atheism
As a Christian doing research at M.I.T., Dr. Hutchinson says, "The marvels of the scientific world are little revelations of God?s creative thoughts. ." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Folks;

Religionists, like Dr. Hutchinson, have the "notion" that things are the way they are, BECAUSE they believe or have faith that they are so.

On the other hand, scientists have the concept that things are the way they are, BECAUSE they can prove that they are so through the scientific method of discovering the invariant relationships or iron laws of nature, by going from things that are known and making inferences to things that are not known. In point of fact, though testing and reproducing or repeating the results of the tests, scientists can discover a scientific explanation which is biunique with prediction. Such a scientific explanation of the way things are is in a one-to-one correlation with predictability. And the results are the scientific laws discovered concerning the universe.

Theists, on the contrary, never have to prove anthing, because they have "belief". And when in ecclesiastical history, they tried to prove the existence of what they termed "God", they were never able to do it. And so they resorted to believing that it was so; in short, advancing the notion of faith in that it was so. All of it, is without proving that it was so. And when they challenged atheist scientists to DISprove the existence of what they termed "God", such scientists made it clear and unequivocable that they did not have to disprove it, because it was beyond the limitations of human understanding to prove the nonexistence of what religionists believe, which is that there is an omnipotent, infinite, and omniscient being who created everything and to whom they are obliged to worship.

Religionists went on to charge the scientists with having a religion and/or a cult in atheism. But astute scientists have pointed out that their atheism is merely the ABSENCE OF BELIEF OR FAITH, and not a denial of the existence of "God". For the term "god" refers to that which is beyond the boundaries of finite human understanding, and is therefore in effect NOTHING. And anything that is multiplied by nothing, zilch, or zero is NOTHING or ZERO, no matter what it is. Therefore, even multiplying DENIAL by ZERO is zero. And, therefore, atheist scientists can never be accused of being cultists or religionist in their atheism.

Only the religionists can have a religion of nothingness, because they introduce the element of their belief or faith into a failed attempt to prove the existence of "God".

Yours truly,
EddieR