Einstein said: "der Herr Gott würfelt nicht"... How clear can it be? — EugeneW

I don't speak that language but I am content with the Wikipedia quote on Einstein, for now.
If I am wrong then I am sure some god will permit his 'essence' to comlink with me in one of my dreams to correct me, as it seems all the available documentation on Einstein is unable to irrefutable settle this issue.

Back to the cave for you then, to cower in the corner at all the scary noises outside.
I won't be joining you. — universeness

It will be dark then in our cozy cave! I would miss your cuddling. Why should we go back to the caves? It's only that science should be separated from state. It's the same unholy pairing up as God and state once formed. The bible replaced by the science books. A one and only objective reality. Now every creature has its own objective reality, but should one be given privilege to others, which is clearly the case in society?

What about them scientists torturing animals to know how the brain works and even get paid or prizes? — EugeneW

I disapprove, are you a vegetarian or a vegan? or is that a whole other thread.

And what's so important about finding a small fucking particle at CERN — EugeneW

The search for knowledge regarding the origin, structure and workings of our Universe!
Your hypothesis has not moved past the posit stage yet.
I hope the fact you are pissed off at the current cosmology and physics worlds has not influenced your wink towards theism.

If I am wrong then I am sure some god will permit his 'essence' to comlink with me in one of my dreams to correct me — universeness

:lol:

I don't think so. Why should they do that?

I disapprove — universeness

But it happens. Not in the name of god but in the name of science, the magic words which, when uttered, legitimize.

It will be dark then in our cozy cave! I would miss your cuddling — EugeneW

:lol: I only cuddle women EugeneW they used to let me do that a lot more than they do now! :gasp:

Why should we go back to the caves? — EugeneW

Make up your mind, do you welcome the technologies produced from science or not.
If you think that humans need to control technology better and prevent it falling into the hands of the nefarious, the crazies, the autocrats etc then say so and I will agree. If your solution is abandon science and embrace theism then I am against you.

Your hypothesis has not moved past the posit stage yet.
I hope the fact you are pissed off at the current cosmology and physics worlds has not influenced your wink towards theism. — universeness

I knew you would bring this up. No its not because Im pissed that my cosmology isnt accepted or understood. It's just that its importance is way overestimated.

But it happens. Not in the name of god but in the name of science, the magic words which, when uttered, legitimize — EugeneW

No, it's mostly in the name of capitalist f***wits who want as much profit as their sweaty hands can bank as quickly as possible. Animal experiments for reasons of developing medicines to help save humans I can live with but only if no other way can be found.

I knew you would bring this up. No its not because Im pissed that my cosmology isnt accepted or understood. It's just that its importance is way overestimated. — EugeneW

Ok EugeneW, I have to accept your word. I am sure you understand why I might consider the possibility. :smile:

Make up your mind, do you welcome the technologies produced from science or not. — universeness

I value a very limited part of the fruits hanging in the trees of science. Why is science named in one breath with technology. I really don't get the awe for technology. Just saw a commercial on TV (a flat one!) asking for employees in technology sector... "We create the future, you work along with us?" A scala of tech was shown. Tech. The future. ?????

Ok EugeneW, I have to accept your word — universeness

Im serious! I wanted to write it but then thought you would say me writing it is actually a sign I am pissed off... Well, maybe I am, but then only at a personal level.

Tech. The future. ????? — EugeneW

So how else will we be able to leave this planetary nest EugeneW? should we wait for god instructions on how to extend humanity beyond our little pale blue dot. Should we just stay here forever and just control our population better? Why did your god(s) create such a vast space? are we not allowed to explore it?

Theism does not relate to atheism. Atheism relates to theism. Theism is not an attack on atheism. Theists defend theism from the attacks of atheists. Where's the hypocrisy then. — Gregory A

The hypocrisy I was referring to was a theist being offended by an atheist while at the same time constantly saying the same sorts of things about atheists, and of course more broadly speaking the religious have done far more offensive things to atheists than anything someone like Dawkins has ever done to theists. Its hypocrisy.
Because of this perceived “attack” in theism its impossible to have a real conversation across the isle when one or both parties come in with a chip on their shoulders.

Im serious! I wanted to write it but then thought you would say me writing it is actually a sign I am pissed off... Well, maybe I am, but then only at a personal level — EugeneW

I'm serious too! Write what you want, from 'a pissed off at science' perspective or not. You are a free man. I fully support you in this. If you want to claim that your words are based on a dream you had then that's totally valid. If you want to claim that you are relaying the word of god to humanity then you will not be the first to claim this and you will not be the last. I will not support you in that claim, that's a bridge too far for me!
If you want to suggest something like this is what YOU THINK god would say to humans if it could, then I for one, would support you. Of course, you don't need my support one way or the other. You can decide to 'publish and be damned.' You will have followers and dissenters, as per previous examples of such. Then everyone will just move on and your typing will be filed and referenced in the same way as previous examples of such writings have been.
You might even start a new religion, who knows. It's your decision and any consequences, good or bad are yours as well.

So how else will we be able to leave this planetary nest EugeneW? should we wait for god instructions on how to extend humanity beyond our little pale blue dot. Should we just stay here forever and just control our population better? Why did your god(s) create such a vast space? are we not allowed to explore it? — universeness

I have no intentions leaving the planet, universeness. The colonialization of the Milky Way is another myth cooked up in the fantasy blender of science. Nice to write about but to actually undertake is something completely different!

The gods created that much space for making possible a csrbon copy for all heavenly creatures, god-kind. They don't forbid anything. They are just worried that we fuck up nature and kill species, even make them extinct. Because all the creatures we made extinct, have a counterpart in heaven. You could say, then why dont these continue their life in heaven. Indeed! I havent an answer yet.

Page 32! And counting!

Write what you want, from 'a pissed off at science' perspective or not. You are a free man. I fully support you in this. — universeness

Again: You're my man Earthling! I guess we're not that different after all! Both looking for meaning. You find it in science, I think it doesn't provide meaning at all. But we're both seekers! :smile:

I have no intentions leaving the planet, universeness. The colonialization of the Milky Way is another myth cooked up in the fantasy blender of science. Nice to write about but to actually undertake is something completely different! — EugeneW

Fine but do those who disagree with you have to stay on this planet as well or will you let them try to develop technologies that will allow them to leave, explore and populate that which is outside of this planet?

The gods created that much space for making possible a csrbon copy for all heavenly creatures, god-kind. They don't forbid anything. They are just worried that we fuck up nature and kill species, even make them extinct. Because all the creatures we made extinct, have a counterpart in heaven. You could ssy, then why dont these continue their life in heaven. Indeed! I havent an answer yet — EugeneW

No, these are your concerns EugeneW, not any god(s). You just assign the god label in an attempt to enforce the viewpoint you state here or/and as an attempt to shift responsibility for YOUR personal directives onto a nonexistent god which has no ability to take responsibility. So if people followed your directives and as a result, the human race stagnated over time and we went extinct because we could not control over-population etc. Your future supporters could always play their 'get out of responsibility' card by saying but it was not our directives, it was gods!

Because all the creatures we made extinct, have a counterpart in heaven — EugeneW

What about the ones we didn't make extinct? 99.9% of all species that there have ever been on Planet Earth have gone extinct. The number of species that human activity has made extinct is depressing but it is small in comparison. We didn't make the dinos extinct? Are you suggesting the dinos have heavenly counterparts?

Again: You're my man Earthling! I guess we're not that different after all! Both looking for meaning. You find it in science, I think it doesn't provide meaning at all. But we're both seekers! — EugeneW

I agree, we are all looking for meaning, we are just arguing about the best way to go about it.
I respect true seekers that's why I gave time and brain space to the DIMP guy and the Klein Bottle/Mobius strip guy and YOU, the 5D torus guy. :smile: I am not claiming that my particular brain space offered them much but at least I was supportive and I label them 'true seekers.'

No, these are your concerns EugeneW, not any god( — universeness

I think these are the worries of the gods. That's why they attempt to communicate.

What about the ones we didn't make extinct? 99.9% of all species that there have ever been on Planet Earth have gone extinct. The number of species that human activity has made extinct is depressing but it is small in comparison. We didn't make the dinos extinct? Are you suggesting the dinos have heavenly counterparts? — universeness

That's a good question! The dino-gods lay back in rest maybe. Realizing they have played their part.

BTW, you show (,luckily!) a lot of interest in theism/gods/God. Why?

BTW, you show (,luckily!) a lot of interest in theism/gods/God. Why? — EugeneW

I am surprised you ask! Due to its historical use by nefarious humans to facilitate small elites to control large populations. Its power has been reduced since but remains still very very powerful and it still presents clear and present danger to the progression and survival of the human species.

5D torus guy — universeness

Torus Guy! Is that a Marvel character yet? Stan Lee would have been jealous! "Said nuff!".

Due to its historical use by nefarious humans to facilitate small elites to control large populations. Its power has been reduced since but remains still very very powerful and it still presents clear and present danger to the progression and survival of the human species. — universeness

Doesn't science have the same feature? The difference though that its power has grown exponentially...

Doesn't science have the same feature? — EugeneW

In my opinion, absolutely not. Some of the technologies which have come from scientific endeavors have caused many problems due to who controls them and what purposes they have been used for.
Technology gave us the light bulb and the internet and morphine etc and also the gun and the bullet etc but as I have said and you have not directly responded to, Nuclear bombs don't kill people, people kill people. If you want to insist that science can cause as many problems for humanity as religions can then I really have few problems with that insistence. Perhaps we can agree that both require far more rigorous checks and balances than exist at present. I agree, but, technology will take this species beyond this planet which will give us much better protection against extinction, nothing in theism offers that unless you think god(s) will eventually give us good spaceships.

Torus Guy! Is that a Marvel character yet? Stan Lee would have been jealous! — EugeneW

Could be another story for your writing hand. You know enough about the physics involved so you could give Torus guy the powers he needs to control his Universe, just like the old human storytellers did for all the gods they invented! :wink:

Technology gave us the light bulb and the internet and morphine etc and also the gun and the bullet etc but as I have said and you have not directly responded to, Nuclear bombs don't kill people, people kill people. — universeness

Of course. Christianity doesn't kill people either. People kill people. You can't separate both though. Science and Christianity dont exist in a vacuum. They're part of human thinking and activity.

If you want to insist that science can cause as many problems for human as religions can then I really have few problems with that insistence — universeness

I think it causes problems as well as good things. But the balance is totally unbalanced, so to speak.

Perhaps we can agree that both require far more rigorous checks and balances than exist at present. I agree, but, technology will take this species beyond this planet which will give us much better protection against extinction, nothing in theism offers that unless you think god(s) will eventually give us good spaceships. — universeness

Not sure what you mean by "far more rigorous checks and balances than exist at present".
The spaceship argument is...well...ridiculous. or should I say ludicrous. My native tongue aint English (wished Glasgowian were!). No offense! I know you are serious about that stuff.

Could be another story for your writing hand. You know enough about the physics involved so you could give Torus guy the powers he needs to control his Universe, just like the old human storytellers did for all the gods they invented! :wink: — universeness

Could be a new title on the list! "TG and the dark solution"

As usual, the pleasure was mine uni! :wink:

I previously asked you about your relationship with YOUR god(s) as did I like sushi. At last, you have now offered a little more insight. So, you don't worship god(s). It sounds to me then that YOUR god(s) are AT BEST, 'background decoration,' in your life and not as significant as your more emotive postings would suggest. As I said, you are a mischievous provocateur, in my opinion, and an unconvincing theist. You just get a buzz out of 'annoying' atheists. But most atheists are well-practiced at dealing with such. Individuals like Matt Dillahunty would quickly chew you up, in my opinion. — universeness

Hadnt seen this one yet! I go into it later! The dog looks at me again with waggling tale. I know what time it is!

Of course. Christianity doesn't kill people either. People kill people. You can't separate both though. Science and Christianity dont exist in a vacuum. — EugeneW

I think it's important to separate human actions and the labels used to describe it.
A killer Christian has to contend with his/her COMMANDMENT from god 'Thou shalt not kill.'
Science has no such commandments. Medicine has DO NO HARM and must also be contended with.

Not sure what you mean by "far more rigorous checks and balances than exist at present". — EugeneW

Control of dangerous technology is normally the purview of politics or 'those with power,' so we must have adequate checks and balances to prevent nefarious individuals from gaining economic or political power or both and therefore stop them from gaining access to such technology or stop them from ever having the authority to use such technology without permission from independent arbiters who represent the Populus involved.

The spaceship argument is...well...ridiculous. or should I say ludicrous. — EugeneW

It wasn't an argument, how do you suggest we expand beyond Earth without developing the necessary technologies. Your suggestion that we just don't, is not going to be adhered to and it's a bad suggestion anyway as extinction is much more likely if we all exist on one planet only.

Hadnt seen this one yet! I go into it later! The dog looks at me again with waggling tale. I know what time it is! — EugeneW

ok maybe ramorra!
I away for a shower a feed and then the cheers of the beers!

Somehow, the atheistic worshipper - servant, if you like - only of that sublimely monstrous, self-devouring, deaf dumb & blind god, i.e, "Nature", is a carbon copy of the apocalyptic worshipper of the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent monster god appearing in the monotheist world religions.

So, you don't worship god(s). It sounds to me then that YOUR god(s) are AT BEST, 'background decoration,' in your life and not as significant as your more emotive postings would suggest. — universeness

It's quite the opposite. Science is a mere decoration. The explaining power of the sciences (insofar they have one) wrt the meaning of life (many physicists would say we're just here because of a quantum quirk or quack at the dawn of time or some fictional breaking of a gauge theory in a false vacuum) or the things we do (Dawkins gospeling the truth of organisms being machines to replicate genes or, in the case of people, memes), is non-satisfactory. The existence of gods fills life with a meaning that is non-explicable. The gods are just there eternally. How they came to be is a complete mystery. They just are. But contrary to a universe just existing and made up out of dead matter, as science teaches, life being (just?) an emergent phenomenon, it gives existence and our playing a magic load. Explaining things science cant. Gods can even be useful for physics and cosmology. Eternal inflation, for example, is an absurd idea. Like MWI and the standard interpretation in QM.