Do you believe in God?

[TenEightyOne]

True enough!
And yet humanity is badly divided. What is our true nature?

I guess we're inquisitive and demand to have answers. The legends come from times when no other answers were available (or easily accepted). Old habits die hard, and some institutions have a millenia-old dog in the fight.

 

[Dotini]

I guess we're inquisitive and demand to have answers. The legends come from times when no other answers were available (or easily accepted). Old habits die hard, and some institutions have a millenia-old dog in the fight.

In Mosul, 60,000 Christians were recently cleansed by ISIS Muslims. An issue for SCJ, but not us?

But I'm more interested in what it is that determines our nature. Did SCJ convert to his paradigm because of an experience he had? Our paradigm rejects miracles, but his doesn't. Maybe he experienced a miracle, or some other life changing benefit from his religious experience? Perhaps others do as well.

Does our paradigm of the current standard model of physics compel us to reject SCJ because he holds a spiritual, transcendent belief which is currently held physically impossible?

 

[sammy neuman]

If what you are saying is true, then you made your decision, actually decisions, in disbelief that the anvil was uncomfortable, and disbelief it would hurt your foot if you dropped it on it, and disbelief that placing it on the workbench was a safe and viable alternative.

Now do you really think that is logically consistent?

I note the slight editing of my quote, but never mind. I think that you have misinterpreted definition 3 of 'belief'.
Def3 applies to situations where there is evidence, but not proof. Example: No one eye-witnessed life appearing from non-life on this planet. There is considerable evidence pointing in that direction, but without a witness, the ultimate proof is not there. Without that proof it is in fact non-falsifiable, and therefore constitutes a belief. In fact, without eye-witness proof it is just as valid to believe that God did it as it is to believe that life appeared from fortunate chemical combinations. With proof it becomes fact, and no longer meets the definition of 'believe'.

 

[Imari]

In Mosul, 60,000 Christians were recently cleansed by ISIS Muslims. An issue for SCJ, but not us?

No, it's just that non-Christians might be upset that ISIS killed 60,000 people.

Maybe Christians take it seriously when other Christians are killed, but those of us whose primary allegiance is to the human race get to take it seriously whenever anyone is killed.

It's called empathy, and many Christians aren't as good at it as they'd like to believe.

Does our paradigm of the current standard model of physics compel us to reject SCJ because he holds a spiritual, transcendent belief which is currently held physically impossible?

Or because it's logically impossible?

Physically impossible isn't a problem, as long as the hypothesis is internally consistent. There are numerous examples in the past of things that were thought to be physical truths turning out not to be. Galileo dropping stuff off the Leaning Tower of Pisa is probably a good simple example.

However, I can't think of anything off the top of my head that was logically impossible but which turned out to be possible. SCJ defines his statements, and the rest of us point out that they're either inconsistent or don't lead to the conclusion that he thinks. He redefines his statements or his words and tries again, hoping that he can reach the conclusion that he's already decided that he wanted.

This is not a method by which anyone learns anything. If you want to learn anything, you have to be prepared to accept that what you think may be wrong. SCJ will not accept anything that leads to the conclusion that God is not the highest power in the universe, with all the abilities and accomplishments that he attributes to Him.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Yay! The cherry-picking one definition from one dictionary game!And you might like to not ignore all of the other definitions, as you did before. I do like how you've missed off the first part of that page, where all three definitions are held as equals to feelings, and the synonym discussion afterwards, which includes the reminder that "belief" is used when there is no certainty...

The etymology of "belief" is from the Old English "geleafa", from "gelove" - the same root from which we get "love" - and means "to hold dear". Your colleagues in the Roman Catholic Church defined it as "something true as in religious doctrine".


So. Belief is what you have when there is no evidence and knowledge is what you have when there is.

As said in my post to TM, belief as defined only has to meet one of the listed specific requirements to qualify.
Which it does.
And as said, since it is blatantly obvious a evidentially supported proposition can be believed, it doesn't really even need to.
I believe we are finally getting down to the source I mentioned earlier, in that you believe, belief is not to be associated with evidentially supported propositions, when in fact it not only can be, but irrefutably it is.

 

[KSaiyu]

Or because it's logically impossible?

I haven't been following all of the posts, but are any logically impossible or are they logically improbable?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Does our paradigm of the current standard model of physics compel us to reject SCJ because he holds a spiritual, transcendent belief which is currently held physically impossible?

Let me be the first to state, yes IMO, it is physically impossible.

Or because it's logically impossible?

Logically impossible as to what?
The physical? then yes absolutely it is.
Now the question is, does logic or perception in reality extend beyond that?

SCJ defines his statements, and the rest of us point out that they're either inconsistent or don't lead to the conclusion that he thinks. He redefines his statements or his words and tries again, hoping that he can reach the conclusion that he's already decided that he wanted.

You are assuming that Imari.
It's not a conclusion based on want.
Thats irrelevant.

In reality, what we are doing is testing, challenging, point, counter point, back and forth and back and forth.
Logic, beliefs, ideas, perceptions......... so on and so forth.

This is not a method by which anyone learns anything. If you want to learn anything, you have to be prepared to accept that what you think may be wrong. SCJ will not accept anything that leads to the conclusion that God is not the highest power in the universe, with all the abilities and accomplishments that he attributes to Him.

Well in my experience attempting to learn by assumption, is also logically impossible.
Being prepared to accept that what you think may be wrong, is a two way street.
And BTW God attributes all the ablities and accomplishments unto himself.
Conclusively, I find I do agree with them, not necessarily because I want to, but rather because that is the reality.

Contrary to what you might think, I've learned a great deal from participating in this thread.

 

[Imari]

I haven't been following all of the posts, but are any logically impossible or are they logically improbable?

There's no such thing as logically improbable. Something is either logically possible or it is not. Logic is a binary system, not a statistical one.

All SCJ's arguments for God are based on the assumption that his God exists. SCJ's God as SCJ has defined him is logically impossible. SCJ's God cannot exist within the rules of logic.

SCJ's arguments require the existence of his God, the logically impossible one. Therefore his arguments are logically impossible.

If he wants to reformulate based on logically possible Gods, then sure. Although that would be yet another example of goalpost moving.

In reality, what we are doing is testing, challenging, point, counter point, back and forth and back and forth.
Logic, beliefs, ideas, perceptions......... so on and so forth.

No, that's what the rest of us are doing.

What you are doing is trying to find a set of evidence and reasoning by which you can justify your pre-chosen conclusion.

Have you noticed that whenever a hole in your logic is pointed out you try to plug it by either moving the goalposts, redefining the words, or pointing out that they're not true Scotsmen?

What rational people do is do their very best to make sure that they are working from accurate statements to begin with, and generate a conclusion from there. When some statement is proven to be faulty, they correct whichever of their statements they need to and generate a new conclusion based on the new statements. The second conclusion may be entirely different to the first

You, on the other hand, will always come to the same conclusion, that God is what he is claimed to be in the Bible. You are unable to reach the conclusion that, say, the God of the Bible is incorrect and that actually the God of the Koran is the true God. When shown to be incorrect, you look for other statements that will prove your chosen conclusion to be correct, and no other.

That is not rational. That is not how someone who wants to know the truth behaves. That is how someone who already knows The Truth and wants to prove it to others behaves.

Ironically, someone who already knows The Truth probably couldn't find the truth with both hands and a map.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I shouldn't have to spell it out: the tooth fairy.

Well perhaps you can explain how you got a reward from something that purportedly does not exist?

This is so far from the original point you tried to make, so let's cut right back to it:

Thinking "I've spoken to God" is not confirming anything.

Under that assumption, then I would agree.
However, if it is more than what is being assumed, which is what I am claiming, then it is more than just thinking.

Victims of Stockholm Syndrome do tend to see things as a relationship, yes.

Thats an excellent analogy.
In comparison we are in the same situation spiritually, and don't even realize it.
And likewise we similarly identify with our situation as somewhat at least, OK, secure and satisfactory.

I'm reminded of someone I once heard recall an event from the past, wherein this lady's best friend told her she had accepted Jesus and got saved, and this lady immediately responded, "saved from what"?
I'd call that the ultimate expression of "Stockholm Syndrome".

Still doesn't answer why you've called this "relationship" you have something that can be tested and repeated, yet plenty of people have had religious dealings in the past without becoming quite so blinkered.

It is testable and repeatable from indivdual to individual, because that is the only way it can be experienced.

It is recievable and impartible by no other means.

Now as to a religious dealing or experience, this is much more than that.

It is not a blinkering experience, but rather a confirming one.

Trust me I am not blind to your objections, I know all about them.

"I believe I'm being talked to. Therefore, I am."

Get ready.
Let me ask you something.
Do you believe we are and have been conversing via written lanquage?

This has nothing to do with "carnal minds", either. It has everything to do with thinking on one's own.

That's precisely what exercise of the carnal mind is.

Perhaps that was a bad analogy. "Verbal diarrhea" is more apt.

I think I like your shotgun assessment better.

A synonym for "rumour" is a good choice to use in this situation. I agree.

And all "rumours" are not necessarily untrue.

Again, you are ignoring the part of the situation where this someone is the reason for the impending critical circumstance.

Again that is subject to interpretation.
Let me ask you a series of questions.
If you had a son and he murdered someone.
Would you hold yourself directly responsible?
Or further, would you hold yourself indirectly responsible?
Or would you just take the easy out and hold God responsible?

No need, I take responsibility for my life every day.

And how do you go about that?

Reality does not require choice. Especially a choice in following an imaginary figure.

God contends that a quality reality does require it.
Upon a lengthy and complete evaluation of the circumstances, even though I am reluctant to a degree,
I see his point.
Further like almost everything else "it is what it is", further analysis won't change that.

A dead end that he himself would've put me on. A dead end that he himself created.

No, in that he did not put you on it.
Yes in that he did create it.
But again, would you rather be a Android, Automaton, or some such thing.

Of what value is choice and reality if it does not encompass all reality?

This is where I'll hear he's a loving god again, right?

Thats what he claims.
Considering all the circumstances I can't argue with it.
Referring back to the son scenario, if that were to happen, you would still love your son wouldn't you?
Not what he did of course, but him?

You're forgetting the part where they made Bernie what he is, and they were originally close business partners until Bernie wanted to go solo. Oh, and they also have no proof of this good return, I'm told to just believe it'll all work out.

Not exactly.
Like everyone else Bernie had a choice and he made it.
Now he can blame God if he wants to, but God didn't make the choice, Bernie did.
And if Bernie had inquired as to God's advice, he would have found God advises against making that choice.
So is it really God's fault?

Already sick with something he gave me, in this situation.

Well no not really.
You inherited it just like other things that are attributable to inheritance.

For what, the third or forth time now, I'll repeat myself: my paycheque is physical. It exists.

Precisely.
But how does that prohibit you from having spiritual paycheck, or establish that it does not exist?

You've already confirmed you don't have a strong grasp on what the word factual means.

Perhaps, that is the case.
or perhaps, that is not the case.

 

[Exorcet]

I agree except for one thing.

Why and how, are you severing belief from the equation?

Because it's not present. It can't be. Belief is not based on evidence, which is the opposite of how most people act in most cases. Belief makes no sense because it allows for a complete lack of consistency (belief can change arbitrarily) and it does not allow you to adapt (when faced with something unexpected, belief can hold on to incorrect notions).

Now if you don't actually mean belief and want to include the impact of evidence, that changes things, but then there is no relevence to god(s) which have no supporting evidence.

Or on what legitimate grounds are you basing severability.
In reality or as a fundamental rule, a person acts or does not act, from the basis of belief.
Those beliefs may or may not be based in logic, fact, or evidence.

If evidence is involved, it's not belief.

 

[doctorrg]

Because it's not present. It can't be. Belief is not based on evidence, which is the opposite of how most people act in most cases. Belief makes no sense because it allows for a complete lack of consistency (belief can change arbitrarily) and it does not allow you to adapt (when faced with something unexpected, belief can hold on to incorrect notions).

Now if you don't actually mean belief and want to include the impact of evidence, that changes things, but then there is no relevence to god(s) which have no supporting evidence.

Then again, if I type "evidence" into google, look at the first definition that pops up:

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

If evidence is involved, it's not belief.

If you'd argue this in some other place, I may agree, but within the context of Philosophy or Religion, this is not all that clear cut.

A standard article on belief from the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/

In particular, have a look at the section on Belief and Knowledge: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/#2.6

The traditional analysis of knowledge, brought into contemporary discussion (and famously criticized) by Gettier (1963), takes knowledge to be a species of belief—specifically, justified true belief. Most contemporary treatments of knowledge are modifications or qualifications of the traditional analysis and consequently also treat knowledge as a species of belief.

In other words, knowledge is a type of belief. This is not some nonsensical fringe position, this is actually a very common position in contemporary philosophy.

Now, could someone please point out to me why exactly their definition of "belief" is correct and needs to be adherred to?

 

[Exorcet]

Then again, if I type "evidence" into google, look at the first definition that pops up:







If you'd argue this in some other place, I may agree, but within the context of Philosophy or Religion, this is not all that clear cut.

A standard article on belief from the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/

In particular, have a look at the section on Belief and Knowledge: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/#2.6



In other words, knowledge is a type of belief. This is not some nonsensical fringe position, this is actually a very common position in contemporary philosophy.

Alright, but I addressed that.

Now if you don't actually mean belief and want to include the impact of evidence, that changes things, but then there is no relevance to god(s) which have no supporting evidence.

What it comes down to is that without evidence, considering God to be factual doesn't make sense. This goes no matter the words used or how they're defined.

 

[doctorrg]

What it comes down to is that without evidence, considering God to be factual doesn't make sense. This goes no matter the words used or how they're defined.

I don't think it's all that clear cut either. Within a purely scientific context I'd say you have absolutely no issues denying the existence of God, that I'd agree with. Within a purely scientific context it makes no sense for God to exist. Yet, the question of whether God exists or not isn't a matter of science, it's more of a philosophical or religious question. If any believer would wish to bring this within the realm of science, then any non-believer would have any right to flat out reject it. I don't have an issue with that. Yet, it's not the same when addressing the question of God in a philosophical context. It can well make sense for God to exist and there can be a vast amount of supporting evidence, and here, what words we use and what exactly they mean is extremely relevant.

 

[Exorcet]

Why isn't God a question of science? His presence is a yes or a no. That would be in the realm of science, unless there is no way to know the answer. If there is no way to know then no matter the context, you could argue that the question is pointless.

 

[doctorrg]

Why isn't God a question of science?

I guess you could make it a question of science if you were to fully qualify God. Can you fully qualify God and refer to what people tend to believe in?

His presence is a yes or a no.

His? Who? What? If you fully qualify whatever God is, then I guess you could answer this question, but why would you think you can fully qualify God and still talk about what all those believers are referring to when they say "God"?

That would be in the realm of science, unless there is no way to know the answer.

I doubt it's possible to fully qualify God, but if people want to give it a try, and put God into a scientific context, sure, why not. I doubt they'd still be referring to what "God" is generally referred to, though. But you must first fully qualify God, before you can address the question as to whether or not God exists.

If there is no way to know then no matter the context, you could argue that the question is pointless.

I'd say trying to qualify God in scientific terms is pointless, yes. As such, in a scientific context, the question of its existence is pointless, yes.

Trying to argue God away with science is equally pointless.

Unless the question is addressed within a philosophical context, I really do not see a point to it, no.

Edit: Oh, of course there can be a point to it in a philosophical context. After all, the majority of people on this planet believe in some form of God, so this most definitely is a worthy question concerning human nature. In contrast, it would not be worthy to address the existence of Sky Fairies (not that I'm saying that always held true).

Edit 2:

Somehow I'm in the mood, so let me expand on this a little more. Quite possibly, I was a little too general here. After all, based on my understanding, "God" means a lot of different things to a lot of different people, and I simply don't see any way how you could have an understanding of God everyone would be able to agree with (unless, of course, you strip it right down to the core). But, of course, if you are only looking at one particular understanding of God, essentially ignoring the majority having a different understanding, then your task might be a whole lot easier.

In theory, if you can qualify any part of that God, and show, in scientific terms, that it doesn't exist, you will have shown that God doesn't exist.

The question is, even if you were able to show that God doesn't exist, would it make any difference?

And yes, the question is rhetoric, we know it wouldn't make any difference. The important question here really isn't whether or not God exists, but why it would not make any difference if we were to negatively answer the question in a scientific context.

Why would it not make any difference? Because irrespective of how it may look on the surface, what you've shown to not exist isn't really God.

 

[JKgo]

...I read a pretty interesting article today and wanted to share it, but wasn't 100% sure where to post it. In the end though, I felt it might be a "better" fit here.

"The town where dinosaurs and Jesus mingle"

"It is a wonderful image - and gives me hope for the future. After all, if Christ could be shown preaching to stegosaurs and sauropods, then why should visitors to Drumheller not be able to follow a dramatisation of St John's Gospel with a zip-wire ride over a velociraptor pack? It would certainly tick my boxes."

 

[TenEightyOne]

In theory, if you can qualify any part of that God, and show, in scientific terms, that it doesn't exist, you will have shown that God doesn't exist.

Many people believe at some time of their life (in certain parts of the world) that the tooth fairy exists. Experientially we see that there is no evidence for the truth being that the tooth fairy exists and we can also identify people who have been involved in inventing and furthering the lie at some time. The context of the lie and the reason for it are explicable through our measured understanding of human nature.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

All SCJ's arguments for God are based on the assumption that his God exists.

Just the opposite in reality.

SCJ's God as SCJ has defined him is logically impossible.

How so?

SCJ's God cannot exist within the rules of logic.

Again how so?

SCJ's arguments require the existence of his God, the logically impossible one. Therefore his arguments are logically impossible.

They do not require it, only testify to it.

No, that's what the rest of us are doing.

No, that is what we are all doing.

What you are doing is trying to find a set of evidence and reasoning by which you can justify your pre-chosen conclusion.

Have you noticed that whenever a hole in your logic is pointed out you try to plug it by either moving the goalposts, redefining the words, or pointing out that they're not true Scotsmen?

Same old, baseless same old.
Redefining?
The last definition I gave was right out of the dictionary.

What rational people do is do their very best to make sure that they are working from accurate statements to begin with, and generate a conclusion from there. When some statement is proven to be faulty, they correct whichever of their statements they need to and generate a new conclusion based on the new statements. The second conclusion may be entirely different to the first

Specifically what holes and faulty statements are you referring too, or do you just like to toss baseless assumptive accusations about?

You, on the other hand, will always come to the same conclusion, that God is what he is claimed to be in the Bible. You are unable to reach the conclusion that, say, the God of the Bible is incorrect and that actually the God of the Koran is the true God.

The conclusion is not based in preference or a law oriented self justification system, but rather a relationship with the God of the Bible.
And I have that relationship, so yes the conclusion is never likely to change.

When shown to be incorrect, you look for other statements that will prove your chosen conclusion to be correct, and no other.

As I said thats a two way street.
I don't have a chosen conclusion, other than I did choose to exercise the option of the relationship with the God of the Bible, wherein the conclusion was established.

That is not rational. That is not how someone who wants to know the truth behaves.
That is how someone who already knows The Truth and wants to prove it to others behaves.

Correction, not prove it to you, but testify it is viable.

Ironically, someone who already knows The Truth probably couldn't find the truth with both hands and a map.

If a person already knows the truth, why would they still be trying to find it?

I'd say trying to qualify God in scientific terms is pointless, yes. As such, in a scientific context, the question of its existence is pointless, yes.

Trying to argue God away with science is equally pointless.

Yes it absolutely is.
But do you know why thats the case?

Because Science is a resource or better yet, a tool.

And simply put, you cannot use it to find God for the same reason you cannot use a 36 inch pipe wrench to adjust a carburetor.
You got the wrong tool for the job pal.
Like practically everything, a tool is application specific.
Practically speaking, it is useless outside of that application, or it's capability.

 

[TenEightyOne]

...Science is a resource or better yet, a tool.

And simply put, you cannot use it to find God for the same reason you cannot use a 36 inch pipe wrench to adjust a carburetor.
You got the wrong tool for the job pal....

And what would the correct tool be?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

And what would the correct tool be?

Well what other tools do you have available to you?

 

[Famine]

In other words, knowledge is a type of belief. This is not some nonsensical fringe position, this is actually a very common position in contemporary philosophy.

Solipsism. And it's both nonsensical and common.

 

[BobK]

And what would the correct tool be?

Well what other tools do you have available to you?

@SuperCobraJet, why do you find it so difficult to give a simple, direct answer to a simple, direct question?

 

[Denur]

The conclusion is not based in preference or a law oriented self justification system, but rather a relationship with the God of the Bible.
And I have that relationship, so yes the conclusion is never likely to change.

And what makes you so certain that you truly have a relationship with the god of the Bible? How can you be certain that it's not the Devil, or another deity, or that it's all just in your head and that you're merely conversing with an imaginary friend, like children often do. What makes you so very very certain. It's an honest question and I'd really like to know.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Now, could someone please point out to me why exactly their definition of "belief" is correct and needs to be adherred to?

It has to be adherred to because of this:

Likewise knowing is always a partial assumption, or in reality "as far as I know" so again because of that, belief is unseverable.

@SuperCobraJet, why do you find it so difficult to give a simple, direct answer to a simple, direct question?

Thats funny, I ask my wife that same thing all the time.
Normally, I don't approach it that way.
It's not primarily difficulty, but rather the question of:
Is it better to attempt to establish it first, as opposed to naming it?
Or is it better to name it, and then attempt to establish it?
I just chose the former this time, I don't know, perhaps for enviromental reasons.
But my preference is usually always the latter.

Over the years I have found that there are basically two types of people in verbalizing an answer to a question.
The first type will start at the beginning and list every detail of their answer, some of which may not be relevant, until they arrive at the end.
The second type, such as myself go to the end first. Then back up as necessary and address details as relevance dictates.
I have also found that depending on the subject at hand the first type can be the better of the two.
But I have to dicipline myself at times to keep that in mind, and not get distracted or fall asleep waiting for the the end to come.

So admittedly what I did there is out of character, and I'm not really sure exactly why I did it that way.
Perhaps, God forbid, I am morphing into the first type as a result of exposure to my wife and a friend and business associate who is the first type as well.

I hope that answers your question.

 

[Formula1269]

No, not all. Never have, never will. In my opinion, there's no-one or no-thing pulling the strings. We are all part of a natural process. We were born, we live and we will die. That's it. That's hard for a lot of people to take though.

 

[Imari]

Well what other tools do you have available to you?

Some people have such a hard time saying three simple words: "I don't know."

 

[GBO Possum]

Well what other tools do you have available to you?

Self delusion works for many.

 

[FastFurious77]

No, not all. Never have, never will. In my opinion, there's no-one or no-thing pulling the strings. We are all part of a natural process. We were born, we live and we will die. That's it. That's hard for a lot of people to take though.

Yes but do you know all the answers? I know I don't. No human being in history can claim to know all the answers. We are tiny spec of dust. We have only had technology on our tiny little earth and technology still in its most basic form for less than 200 years. In all the millions or billions of years of multiverse or universe history. We are most primitive. Humans are far from knowing or comprehending everything there is to know. Our understanding of nature, physics, gravity, space, time and matter is still far from a complete picture. It like we know less than 0.1% of a 100% complete knowledge or time, space and matter. You can't take an incomplete picture and claim that the whole universe works on said laws or principals just because mans using the concept of numbers or maths as the language we commonly use to try to understand all that there is. So maybe there is or isn't a conscious entity or spirit or universal mind if which we are either part of or make or create that can affect matter and all that exists. Like the saying anythings possible when you put your mind to it. Or that mass people can have an affect or cause change.

The universe might not operate by numbers and maths as a language. Its just the method human beings choose to use to try to give form and structure to try to comprehend. Science can not explain supernatural phenomena, demons, aliens or otherworldly entities, angels, it can't explain the human spirit, it can't explain where Love comes from, or the other things unseen that yet although unseen still exist. The wind exists does it not although an invisible force, it can't be seen but can be felt. Humans can be gullible by thinking they know so much when they / we know so little. I'm a man who supports science and discovery. I'm all for it. And for us human beings we are forever trying to understand our place in the universe / multiverse. We can only observe and comprehend to the limit that we ourselves are capable. And hat if their are boundaries beyond. We have to find some way of measuring or comprehending what we observe. It still does not mean that because we can find ways to apply it to a working model or theory that that working model or theory is ultimately correct but the closest thing we have to understanding what we know. We create laws or principals and rules into which the maths complies to things we observe in nature in which to try and understand all there is to know.

With all that we know and understand, we humans still can not pro create or create another living breathing being that has consciousness. Do you really know how amazing our DNA is and our genes. It makes our digital binary computing model and logic look farsical in comparison. Do you see how our own human DNA is like unique nano organisms and how efficiently it contains and distributes correct information to exactly the right places. Our DNA can store trillions of data on a gargantuan scale so huge yet in such a minute nano scale smaller than we can on physical mediums. Its so amazing and fascinating how these nanoscale machinery and operations are going on in our body to such minute degree and scale and they always do the work precisely. And the ballet style movement, movement and function is more accurate than we can achieve. Even our most basic cell is more complex that a 747 airliner. Man can not explain why our hearts are made to function everlastingly yet we are aging for a reason. Ask yourself is it because our genes and DNA was locked or downgraded. Humans used to live far far longer.

Just think about the emotions and feelings and love that we can experience. How can science hope to observe such things. The same with thought as a consciousness. And apparently interstellar vehicles for communication can operate by mind or thought because thoughts can be somehow manifested anywhere in the universe at once like your atoms can be here and co exist somewhere else at the same time. Such that your thought can travel faster than the speed of light. But in fact maybe there are particles or matter than can operate outside boundaries of speed of light. Anyway at the end of the day as I said its my opinion and it's just interesting talking about physics, science and the unknown. So my conclusion is I think their may be something that we can't comprehend or perceive in this reality. There could be some force or some energy outside and not bound by space and time but it is mind or a consciousness and it is intelligent because all that exists is because of it. And then again I can't make up my mind so it may not be like this. Maybe we are in a matrix and our reality is a hologram or we are someones dreams. Or maybe we are the actors performing a play acting out the story on a stage and the author or the audience is watching us and clapping to a melodious cheer. Down the rabbit hole we go. 0.o

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Some people have such a hard time saying three simple words: "I don't know."

Well since it is a reality there has to be a way to verbalize it, but the best way to do it, I am still working on.
Your almost right, but it is more "I am not sure yet".

 

[Carbonox]

Humans used to live far far longer.