No, nobody is supposed to believe in insanities, on the contrary.

The problem with 'insanity' is that it has no definition other than the one you assign to it. As a result, the word is meaningless, it conveys no factual information, only emotional information, all it does is set the tone of the conversation. Its a word that one can use to conjure all kinds of ideas and images in the mind of the reader, without ever having to bother with clearly explaining what it means.

In this case, what does insanity mean? Define your use of inanity here.

The existence of god is a logical impossibility.

First of all, what exactly do you mean by 'god'?

Do you mean a(some) more Theistic activist sky-wizard(s), fond of secret revelations and hidden knowledge known only to a few, that will change reality just because you ask him/her/them the right way, and maybe, if you have brown-nosed them enough they might (or might not) take you to a happy-place for all eternity after you have ceased to live? If you mean this by the word 'god', then I might be inclined to agree with your statement.

Or, do you mean by 'god', the more Deistic singular 'First Cause', that initiated the existence of the Universe which behaves strictly according to natural laws, then has left it alone to grow, change, and evolve as it would? If you mean this by 'god' , then I would be inclined to disagree with your statement.

It seems to me that humanity has some built-in tendency to believe in a divine being in order to justify and/or explain why bad things happen to good people, or to put it another way, why 's**t happens'. It is much easier, for example, to blame why your family died of plague on you failing to sacrifice a goat last week Thursday than to accept it was just cosmic randomness. When life throws us a curve ball, it is very EASY to just say 'god works in mysterious ways' to rationalize it.

Different people have different concepts of a 'supreme being', some even believing there is not one. It is everyone's right to believe what they individually wish to believe. After all, there is no way to experimentally verify any one particular religious belief system as being correct and true. What you don't have the right to do is to try to force someone else to believe as you do.

This subject is a lit powder-keg, likely to blow up at any time. I am not sure if this discussion will serve any purpose beyond getting some people angry beyond all reason. We will see.

Does his power include the ability to revoke his power such that he can't get it back?

Paradoxes such as those do not apply to God.

Of course they do. They apply to everything. Math exists without god.

Speaking of all powerful, your God could change math so 1 + 1 = 3. Or your God isn't all powerful and math exists without god and 1 + 1 = 2 and paradoxes apply to gods.

The concept of God is beyond human comprehension.

You, a human, defined "all powerful" so obviously this part is included in human comprehension.

Actually, you invented your god to be all powerful. Human inventions are obviously comprehended by humans.

All powerful = square root of negative one.

Sure.

Glad you understand your design of your God is imaginary.

---

Of course they do. They apply to everything. Math exists without god.

Speaking of all powerful, your God could change math so 1 + 1 = 3. Or your God isn't all powerful and math exists without god and 1 + 1 = 2 and paradoxes apply to gods.

Well then there you have your answer. God made math and can change its fundamental constants if it wants to, also meaning that paradoxes don't apply to God.

You, a human, defined "all powerful" so obviously this part is included in human comprehension.

Humans defined 'infinite' and 'nothingness' as well. Good luck counting to infinite and good luck imaging what 'nothingness' is like.

All powerful is like infinite and nothingness. We have a general grasp on the implications of it, we can fumble around the edges of what it really means, but in the end they are unknowable to us, because they are concepts that are fundamentally incompatible with what we are.

Actually, you invented your god to be all powerful. Human inventions are obviously comprehended by humans.

See the above comment. We do not comprehend everything we ever came up with.

Honestly, I think Lovecraft came closest to describing what happens when men meets Gods. And in Lovecraft's case, it weren't even real Gods.

Glad you understand your design of your God is imaginary.

Of course my design of God is imaginary. Everyone's God is imaginary. Thats what happens when there exists no proof of God. There is nothing to go on.

Is the Universe Made of Math?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-universe-made-of-math-excerpt/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

Where do God fit in this?

The basic question of our existence is "Why is there something rather than nothing". The honest to this is "I do not know". This answer does not suffice for those who must have a god. I wrote a fable.

Infinity.
A Fable by David L. Nelson

Two beings, unknown too each other, sat on a bench on planet Earth, each in deep thought. For hours in silence they thought. Then one broke the silence. Why is there something rather than nothing he asked? I think, she replied that we will never know the answer to that question. They parted, never too meet again.

Billions of years passed. The Sun became a red giant and vaporized the Earth, went super nova and destroyed the solar system. The Milky Way evaporated. The Universe took no notice.

In a trillion years or so, in a galaxy very much like the Milky Way, out of a huge cloud of dust, perhaps containing some molecules from the old Milky Way, a new solar system formed. Under the force of gravity the cloud collapsed and a new star came into being. Wisps of dust that escaped the initial collapse took up orbits around the star and evolved into planets. On one of these, perhaps the third from the star, the laws of nature allowed evolution, guided by natural selection, to bring forth life. In time this life evolved into an intelligent species.

And two beings, unknown too each other, sat on a bench···

---

Dave Nelson

To scientists, being able to carry out science is about being able to understand nature.

Therefore, being able to do exactly such a thing without having or believing any deities, including a possible God, becomes of most importance.

To most people who are supposed to be believing, the notion of God is by means of the Bible, which includes both the Old Testament, New Testament, as well as the Revelation.

The problem is that while one poster perhaps is able to mention not only one, but perhaps more likely several subjects possibly being related to a given subject, some other may step in and mention or include other subjects likely being related as well.

Perhaps excluding some of which are not needed, you may end up with possible several approaches or answers to the same subject for which some or all may give a good or better explanation for more or less the same thing.

When seeking answers to given or specific questions, you will need to come up with a particular or good explanation for the questions you may be asking in order to be able to give the better answers to the same questions.

In the same way as both History, Religion and other related subject fields are supposed to "tell" us certain or specific things about given or particular things, we still find it natural or relevant to dig even further into the same given subjects, perhaps with the assumption or thought that a given attitude or approach towards the same subject fields may be able to tell us even more than what we already know, or have already been told.

Both particle physisists as well as cosmologists are trying to explain how certain things are working by means of carrying out studies in their respective fields. As usual, theories arising as a result of studies being carried out are supposed to be proven by means of experiments in order to be verified.

You are not supposed to be asking neither one whether or not he or she may think that both creation as well as destruction in nature and changes that could be observed over time because of given or specific laws (at least by assuming the existence of such laws), better should be able to tell or give an explanation whether or not God supposedly could exist.

To some people, God is synonymous with not only religion, but also faith.

Religion could well be about an understanding of the divine. Also religion could well be associated with the Devil, or all those bad things that possibly could be present in your mind.

As usual, it is always better to give than to take, even though doing such a thing may not be as easy every time.

It should be an easier thing to say just "Thanks" than rather pray for forgiveness each time you are supposed to be doing anything wrong.

Because most scientists most likely could believe in the Devil and not necessarily any God when something is happening, you end up making religion of all these things, but in fact you are not supposed to be able to readily explain such things in a scientific way either.

This is the main reason that any notion of God you may have is not supposed to be explained by any knowledge of particle physics or cosmology you may be having. Whether or not a given or specific field is supposed to be related to science, they are still supposed to be their own subject fields.

Because of this fact, nuclear physics is best being explained by a nuclear scientist, cosmology and the universe by means of an astronomer or astrophysicist and finally religion by means of a theologist or possibly a lecturer.

Therefore, as usual, the ability of being able to carry out good science is once again being able to make the difference between being an atheist, an agnostic, or perhaps a skeptic, debunker, or perhaps even a believer.

It is supposed to be science, but because of that, you are supposed to believe in it as well.

The basic question of our existence is "Why is there something rather than nothing". The honest to this is "I do not know". This answer does not suffice for those who must have a god. I wrote a fable.

Infinity.
A Fable by David L. Nelson

Two beings, unknown too each other, sat on a bench on planet Earth, each in deep thought. For hours in silence they thought. Then one broke the silence. Why is there something rather than nothing he asked? I think, she replied that we will never know the answer to that question. They parted, never too meet again.

Billions of years passed. The Sun became a red giant and vaporized the Earth, went super nova and destroyed the solar system. The Milky Way evaporated. The Universe took no notice.

In a trillion years or so, in a galaxy very much like the Milky Way, out of a huge cloud of dust, perhaps containing some molecules from the old Milky Way, a new solar system formed. Under the force of gravity the cloud collapsed and a new star came into being. Wisps of dust that escaped the initial collapse took up orbits around the star and evolved into planets. On one of these, perhaps the third from the star, the laws of nature allowed evolution, guided by natural selection, to bring forth life. In time this life evolved into an intelligent species.

And two beings, unknown too each other, sat on a bench···

Repeat that fable an infinity time and you will see that God is not needed.

Theological math:1+1+1=1.

---

Dave Nelson

Hell is an institution set up
for the religiously insane!

---

Theological math:1+1+1=1.

That is not math.
It should be 1 God + 1 Son + 1 holy soul = 1 Trinity.
Units are very important in math.

1 God + 1 Son + 1 holy soul = 1 Trinity.

Three gods?

---

1 God + 1 Son + 1 holy soul = 1 Trinity.

Three gods?

LOL
Of course not.
I think it's explained in the Bible.

To elaborate it.
1 God = 1 Trinity - 1 Son - 1 holy soul.

well, what do you expect from a person who flunked 3rd grade arithmatic?, and spellintg>

---

Dave Nelson

I resemble that!

---

Theological math:1+1+1=1.

That is not math.
It should be 1 God + 1 Son + 1 holy soul = 1 Trinity.
Units are very important in math.

I've always been more for the vorlon method. Simply tear off some consciousness put it in a vessel (or not) and watch it grow.

OBW, if god is all powerful, if a puny human mind can describe it, it is child's play to a god.

---

OBW, if god is all powerful, if a puny human mind can describe it, it is child's play to a god.

Can you describe all powerfulness then in anything but abstract terms?

Possibly this all gets mixed up a little bit, but still could be worth giving a read.

Is it possible to give an explanation for the existence of God by means of only applying science alone when it comes to this question?

The sad fact is that not everyone living in this world is busy doing science or thinking about their world in such a way, at least not all the time.

But we happen to be inhabitants of the earth because everything we know that is around us is adhering to certain laws of physics, some of which might be related and explained by the laws of gravity and motion, some by the notion of time.

In the same way, being able to understand the subject of mathematics does not always give an explanation for everything that for now is left unexplained, including subjects which are thought of as being scientifically valid.

Because of our curiosity, the willingness to know how certain things are working supposedly is always there.

Not always so when it comes to religion which rather is something that is quite often being taught on you, at times even forcefully so.

With that not meaning the way you are supposed to be taught about religion.

In fact, some people are supposed to be having a personal notion about religion and faith, including possible belief which may be as a result of the presence of the possible supernatural, or overnatural. In most cases, such experiences are not thought of as being of any particular scientific value.

Any knowledge you may be having about certain things might be as a result of education. At other times the skills and abilities you may when it comes to the same could well give you even further insights into the same.

If for not some reason having a belief in the supernatural or overnatural, you could at times be having a personal belief in a God because of certain things which otherwise could be regarded as spiritual.

When speaking about the spiritual, you soon are back to the world of mysteries and magic.

If for some reason the discovery of the W and Z particles makes us able to combine or merge three of the fundamental Laws of Physics into one singular law, for now excluding gravity and possibly time as well, is it possible that such a discovery in any way could make it easier for both nuclear physicists as well as cosmologists to give a explanation for the possible existence of God without making religion and faith out of such a thing?

Right now the subject of belief in God belongs to the subject of theology and not necessarily the subject of science, at least not Seti@home science, as far as I am able to tell.

But whether or not you should happen to be a believer or not, my experience is that throwing away any theologists is not the best thing to do either.

If you have been around here for some time, you may know that we earlier were having a discussion about evolution.

Evolution is not supposed to be about religion or faith at all.

The same goes for the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence as a given subject. Both subjects should still be regarded as valid scientific study fields, though.

Some people are having the thought or opinion that a story is better told by means of debunking, or even falsifying it. Therefore, there may at times be part of a given story which is not worth telling, because it is not telling the truth, or at least giving a description of facts which deviates from facts as they should be known.

Such a thing could very well happen regardless of the validity of such facts.

Not wishing to continue on this subject, but Seti@home is possibly about trying to understand, or give an explanation for possible extraterrestrial intelligence which might be attributed, or related to other beings which are not part of the celestial earth.

Both evolution of species as well as evolution of nature is following a path which could be predicted in advance, because of the notion of time, among other things.

Because for now we are unable to comprehend the notion of time, perhaps it rather should be viewed in the context of Quantum Theory?

For now we might assume that extraterrestrials might well be out there in the same way as the physical laws of nature could be explained by applied laws of Physics by means of the discovery of new particles and models for the way these particles are related to each other could be represented or modeled as representing or being part of the Grand Unified theory, which seeks to explain everything in nature, at least when it comes to the subject of Physics.

Scientists are speaking of a certain particle, called the Higgs boson and for now nicknaming it the "God particle".

Not necessarily so because such a particle could be able to determine the presence of God, but rather the properties it may possess or inhibit and by means of that perhaps being able to give an explanation for theories related to physics which have yet to be solved.

In particular, this means trying to come up with a Grand Unified Theory of Everything, which is attempting to give an explanation for all current Laws of Physics, which are related to both microcosmos, our own world, as well as macrocosmos.

Because such laws are not based on simple, readily explainable facts, we rather seek to merge these theories by possibly relating current Laws of Physics into what we today are regarding as being the subject of Quantum Theory.

Any belief in the presence of God that currently may be present should be based on our current assumptions when it comes to religion and faith. Any presence of God can neither be proven nor the opposite by means of a scientific approach to the same context or thing, regardless of or whether or not your own way of possible such belief.

Therefore it should be quite clear that at least an atheist, as well as an agnostic could approach a theologist, or a lecturer stating that he or she is not able to believe in a God, because science is telling precisely such a thing.

The question becomes - is the main purpose of science to perhaps prove (or not) that any God may or may not exist by means of applying the usual ways of approach towards this subject?

Does it perhaps help out science in any way whether or not I am supposed to believe in a God, or should I rather not believe in the presence of God, because doing such a thing is a better thing to do when supposedly carrying out science?

I guess this discussion could go on forever and right now I do not see anyone perhaps being able to give a precise and simple answer to these questions.

Needs a rewrite in order to make certain things clearer.

What I like to do, is discover where each idea came from.
Once you put together all the biblical references, then the archaeological evidence to back up the biblical references, then compare it to current scientific understanding, the whole thing falls apart.

The biggest key, is the past. Learn the past in what was happening at the time. What religions were practiced, and what the economy was like, how everyday life got to be where it was. These are the real clues as to what happened. I have only studied bits of Christian roots, as even that is more than I have time for, but the roots , history, and even history prior to 10,000 years ago, religion was evolving. Go back even farther, and you will see the continents shift, the earths atmosphere change from Methane to Oxygen based, just because of trillions of microbes over a billion years.

Steve

---

Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

Hi, SciManStev.

I think I already mentioned the same fact, namely that one particular subject could well be having either several different responses, approaches or opinions when it comes to the same thing.

Our notion of religion and faith is some 2,000 years old and as a result of history supposedly being taught.

Whether or not motion pictures were there recording these events as they happened, even in black and white, we are supposed to believe in such stories.

Also your second paragraph is reminding me about the most recent ice age here on earth which lasted probably tens of thousands of years and finally ended some 8,000 - 10,000 years ago.

Right now I do not have the exact duration for the total length of this time period, but humans did not necessarily evolve directly from apes, or even the stone age, only because of temperature, ice ages, or other natural events.

For now I will have to read the Wikipedia in order to be able to learn more about these events.

In between all of this we happened to see both the pyramids of Giza, the invention of the wheel as well as the use of agriculture on the soil in order for possible nutrition and harvesting. Also survival by means of the resources from the sea, including fishing, should not be forgotten as well.

In the same way we should not forget that the history of UFO's is possible about a possible notion about the presence of extraterrestrial intelligence as well.

All of this becomes part of human history and we are supposed to believe in this because of known facts.

Both religion as well as other phenomena may end up becoming subjects being scrutinized by science, because science is about a quest for understanding and knowledge, which supposedly means knowing the truth behind everything.

For now we happen to know that we are living on a planet orbiting a star in space and assuming that we are the only intelligent species around. In order to perhaps be able to know our future, we need to understand our past in order to see where we supposedly are going.

Only the future will tell whether or not this will be continue to be that way.