Are We Simulated?

[lino]

Quantum Physic , the latest greatest Quantum Physics CPU is currently under development at MIT where the greatest minds on earth are brought back to their beliefs in GOD so they dont completely loose their minds as these great minds come to understand that 2+2 DOES NOT = 4.
An atom exist in multiple places with one effecting the other. As the math that we understand is proven to be wrong with No 2 atoms can be in the same space at the same time, its mathematically impossible until we jump out of 3rd dimensional physics and go into the 4th dimension of Quantum Physics where interpolation of what is real can now be manipulated with out software as are NEW CPU memory is of BIO matter that grows more bio mass for more memory with bio generated enzymes effecting our RAM (synopsis) giving our BIO MASS CPU interacting with digital computation also for faster interpolation of: code (DNA manipulation) and Actual interaction with our environment in our 3rd dimension while jumping into the 4th dimension of quantum manipulation like moving Physical mass thru a wall (space travel). Its real and we see Quantum physics but dont realize it. We know that photons are passing thru our bodies now via quantum physics.

We start to loose control of our bio mass minds as we discover what our mind is. We're a bio mass cpu that exist in many dimensions.

 

[squiggly]

I agree, to an extent; my main point is that science as a whole the way it is being taught is creating scientist with tunnel vision.

Let me stop you right there. Have you gotten a science education in this country?

If not, I would like to suggest that you really don't know what you're talking about. Virtually the ENTIRETY of any good science education is focused SOLELY on trying to strip students of their innate nature to over focus on one particularity. In a sense, the entire point of science education is to reduce "tunnel vision" as much as is humanly possible. That's sort of the point.

can science explain everything around us; no it cannot, not currently atleast(and not for a very long time), but scientists are being educated as if science is the end all know all; which it's not, in essence i believe scientists now lack wisdom in the results they see and how too "connect the dots" between the different theories.

This is a heavy-handed and frankly big-headed assumption you've just made. You suggest that science cannot know all. How would you know that, though? Do you know everything? If not, how can you be so sure what science is capable of knowing? You are guilty of precisely the same thing you've just accused science as a whole of, in the very same sentence no less. How's that for tunnel vision?

This is where i believe einstein and all the lot; along with tesla where genius, is that they understood that science is not the end all know all, and excepted that science itself explains that there is always something greater; how does science explain "consciousness or the soul"; well up unto a few years ago it was explained as the bio-chemical process of death. But new confirmed research is coming fourth which cannot be explained via the current view of science. einsteins faith and spirituality is in the end what makes great scientists;

Let me stop you there again to correct that last line. Faith and spirituality didn't make Einstein a great scientist. Commitment to the scientific method DESPITE his faith and his beliefs is what did. As I said earlier Einstein famously said "God does not play dice with creation" when confronted with the probabilistic nature of the theory of quanta. Did he simply believe that? No. He designed an experiment, fully expecting andd wanting to disprove the theory--and he ended up placing several of the crowing achievements atop its confirmation. He proved himself wrong.

where as the opposite of which creates great researchers, which is what i believe your mentor is creating in you; a fantastic researcher. Science has created all the technology around us, currently it's also that technology which is killing the planet; so was it really good science that created the technology around us? technology that destroys the one who created it is bad science.

I seem to remember seeing you suggest somewhere that guns don't kill people, people do. Does that reasoning fly out of the window when scientists are in the room?

so science in essence without spirituality is it's own cancer. Now the research here says " yeah but that doesn't matter b/c our knowledge is increasing so quickly that we'll figure out a solution", which isn't the case: science cannot solve or answer all problems or provide viable solutions too all things, that is why it's important to nurture spirituality in young scientists not make it a bane to science our to laugh it off as kooky.....Also in terms of Supersymmetry, i believe(hasen't been proven at all, but then again very little has been proven in this field thus far), that in the future supersymmetry and particle-wave duality will be seen as functions of eachother. And supersymmetry has been proven to exists, but too what degree and the effects in different circumstances has not........Also keep in mind, the best researchers back in the day, unequivocally agreed that the earth was flat, so again science is not an end all know all...when your squigg body lies still hopefully years and years from now i know you will see this.

Actually the idea that people believed the earth was flat has been overplayed. The reality is that most intelligent folk knew the earth was round since the days of pythagoras in 6th century BC. Many uneducated folk still believed the earth was flat, but scientists knew for quite some time that it was not. Before "science" was even a word, as it were.

A final note. You say that very little has been proven in particle physics. Well, to correct you--nothing has been proven. Because science doesn't prove things. Ever.

It demonstrates them. However, it is incorrect to say that very little has been demonstrated by particle physics. We've observed virtually every particle predicted by the standard model. We're missing gravitons and possibly a few different higgs particles. After that the standard model is essentially complete. Supersymmetry has not been and never will be "proven". To use the correct word, it also has not been demonstrated--not even a little bit. We haven't ever seen or been tipped off to the existence of a single anti-particle. Not one.

 

[squiggly]

Quantum Physic , the latest greatest Quantum Physics CPU is currently under development at MIT where the greatest minds on earth are brought back to their beliefs in GOD so they dont completely loose their minds as these great minds come to understand that 2+2 DOES NOT = 4.
An atom exist in multiple places with one effecting the other. As the math that we understand is proven to be wrong with No 2 atoms can be in the same space at the same time, its mathematically impossible until we jump out of 3rd dimensional physics and go into the 4th dimension of Quantum Physics where interpolation of what is real can now be manipulated with out software as are NEW CPU memory is of BIO matter that grows more bio mass for more memory with bio generated enzymes effecting our RAM (synopsis) giving our BIO MASS CPU interacting with digital computation also for faster interpolation of: code (DNA manipulation) and Actual interaction with our environment in our 3rd dimension while jumping into the 4th dimension of quantum manipulation like moving Physical mass thru a wall (space travel). Its real and we see Quantum physics but dont realize it. We know that photons are passing thru our bodies now via quantum physics.

We start to loose control of our bio mass minds as we discover what our mind is. We're a bio mass cpu that exist in many dimensions.

This is naught but a random collection of big words you've mostly used improperly.

Please, for everyone's sake, stop. We've all become dumber reading this just now.

 

[Ohiofarmer]

Let me stop you right there. Have you gotten a science education in this country?

If not, I would like to suggest that you really don't know what you're talking about. Virtually the ENTIRETY of any good science education is focused SOLELY on trying to strip students of their innate nature to over focus on one particularity. In a sense, the entire point of science education is to reduce "tunnel vision" as much as is humanly possible. That's sort of the point.




This is a heavy-handed and frankly big-headed assumption you've just made. You suggest that science cannot know all. How would you know that, though? Do you know everything? If not, how can you be so sure what science is capable of knowing? You are guilty of precisely the same thing you've just accused science as a whole of, in the very same sentence no less. How's that for tunnel vision?



Let me stop you there again to correct that last line. Faith and spirituality didn't make Einstein a great scientist. Commitment to the scientific method DESPITE his faith and his beliefs is what did. As I said earlier Einstein famously said "God does not play dice with creation" when confronted with the probabilistic nature of the theory of quanta. Did he simply believe that? No. He designed an experiment, fully expecting andd wanting to disprove the theory--and he ended up placing several of the crowing achievements atop its confirmation. He proved himself wrong.



I seem to remember seeing you suggest somewhere that guns don't kill people, people do. Does that reasoning fly out of the window when scientists are in the room?



Actually the idea that people believed the earth was flat has been overplayed. The reality is that most intelligent folk knew the earth was round since the days of pythagoras in 6th century BC. Many uneducated folk still believed the earth was flat, but scientists knew for quite some time that it was not. Before "science" was even a word, as it were.

A final note. You say that very little has been proven in particle physics. Well, to correct you--nothing has been proven. Because science doesn't prove things. Ever.

It demonstrates them. However, it is incorrect to say that very little has been demonstrated by particle physics. We've observed virtually every particle predicted by the standard model. We're missing gravitons and possibly a few different higgs particles. After that the standard model is essentially complete. Supersymmetry has not been and never will be "proven". To use the correct word, it also has not been demonstrated--not even a little bit. We haven't ever seen or been tipped off to the existence of a single anti-particle. Not one.

haha, i'll take that all as you have no comment, atleast one thats worth my time, unlike the 1st post.........i think you'll grow out of the "i'm right, prove you wrong "mentallity eventually. i except your opinion tho, not your attitude......

 

[squiggly]

haha, i'll take that all as you have no comment, atleast one thats worth my time, unlike the 1st post.........i think you'll grow out of the "i'm right, prove you wrong "mentallity eventually. i except your opinion tho, not your attitude......

Actually it's precisely the opposite. I will never accept your condescension. If you would like to talk down to me, you can hire me @ a rate of 75K a year and be my boss. Otherwise, I welcome you to shove any and all such communications to me where the sun don't shine.

I'm perfectly capable of being civilized with you, but at the end of the day you have a tendency to snip at me with thinly veiled insults which reek of your feelings of superiority. That's not something I was raised to or that I will stand for. If that rubs you the wrong way, I can only suggest that you address me in a such a way as I have earned and deserve to be addressed in. Else I will be forced to simply believe that you're a person who never learned how respect works (earned, not given).

 

[Ohiofarmer]

This is naught but a random collection of big words you've mostly used improperly.

Please, for everyone's sake, stop. We've all become dumber reading this just now.

looks like you and lino have more incommon then you thought haha.......i was trying to use philosophy to further this thread, not measure dicks.......and one last thing according to you science doesn't prove anything; i wonder what the point of the scientific method is then. to just come to random conclusions that are never except as fact because they can't be proven? hm.....interesting

 

[Ohiofarmer]

Actually it's precisely the opposite. I will never accept your condescension. If you would like to talk down to me, you can hire me @ a rate of 75K a year and be my boss. Otherwise, I welcome you to shove any and all such communications to me where the sun don't shine.

I'm perfectly capable of being civilized with you, but at the end of the day you have a tendency to snip at me with thinly veiled insults which reek of your feelings of superiority. That's not something I was raised to or that I will stand for. If that rubs you the wrong way, I can only suggest that you address me in a such a way as I have earned and deserve to be addressed in. Else I will be forced to simply believe that you're a person who never learned how respect works (earned, not given).

i understand u always revert to dick measuring when all that is being discussed is opinion on an educational system; no insults have been given no matter how thinly veiled, your skin just must be really thin

 

[squiggly]

looks like you and lino have more incommon then you thought haha.......i was trying to use philosophy to further this thread, not measure dicks.......and one last thing according to you science doesn't prove anything; i wonder what the point of the scientific method is then. to just come to random conclusions that are never except as fact because they can't be proven? hm.....interesting

If you're typing a message to me that is being beamed all over the world at the speed of light via satellite and all other sorts of technological innovations--on a computer which relies on all of our knowledge of physics, chemistry, computer science et al--and you can't figure out what the point of the scientific method is, I'm afraid I can't help you.

The idea, of course, is that something need not be a fact which we accept, protect, and believe to the exclusion of all data in the future which might suggest otherwise--in order for the experimental result to be put to good use in practice.

We may find in the future that electricity and magnetism works a little differently than we had originally thought. If and when we make such a discovery, all of the computers and electronic devices in the world will not immediately cease functioning.

Science is a way to probe the nature of the world we live in, without pretending that we are God and can know all. Things cannot be proven, ever, because the arrow of time prohibits it. It's as simple as that. Each moment is a new moment, different from the last. Thus an experiment may never be run exactly the same way twice--because even when all other variables are held constant, time is still moving forward. The moment the 2nd experiment is done in is a different moment from the 1st, so we cannot ever hope to compare them in a 1:1 fashion. This precludes us from proving things in the absolute sense, but it doesn't prevent us from demonstrating, repeating, and supporting them in such a way that we can develop useful technology.

 

[caveman4.20]

Are we simulated?


verb (used with object)
1. to create a simulation, likeness, or model of (a situation, system, or the like)

Yes
simulated by God in Gods image

Why?

1 Corinthians 1:9, Why did God make you?
by Matt Slick

"For God is faithful through whom you were called into Fellowship with His Son Christ Jesus."

Have you ever wondered why you are here? Why God created you?

Was it to satisfy a hidden need in Him? Was it because God was bored just hanging around forever in empty space doing nothing. Maybe it was because He was just curious and wanted to know what would happen if He made a bunch of people and put them on a planet in the middle of nowhere. The Bible doesn't specifically say why God made us, but it does say that he created us.

Rev. 4:11 says, "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being."
But, why are you here?

To find out why God made you we have to look in the Bible. And a good place to start is The Garden of Eden.
God walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden (Gen. 3:8).
What does it mean for God to walk with them.
It means closeness, intimacy, communion.
Picture this. Adam and Eve and God literally walking next to each other in perfect harmony.
Why did God walk with them?
Because He loved them.
Because He wanted fellowship with them.
When Adam and Eve sinned, what did they do?
They hid themselves: Gen. 3:8 "And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden."
Who came looking for who?
God came looking for them: Gen. 3:9 says, "Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, 'Where are you?'"
Who was the first to shed blood?
Gen. 3:21, "And the LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them."
God made an atonement for them.
Jesus is the first to shed blood, because the Father is never seen in the Bible: John 6:46. But Adam and Eve were with God, God the Son.
They had been cast out of God's presence.
But, that isn't the end. God sought His people again.
From the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve went out and had children who had children, etc.
They filled the earth
Eventually, after the tower of Babel, after Noah's Flood, God called a Abraham to go to a new land.
Abraham became the first of God's chosen people who multiplied on the earth.
They became enslaved in Egypt and eventually were freed by Moses.
After leaving Egypt and after the 10 commandments had been given to the Jews, God said something most interesting to Moses in Exodus 25:8, "And let them construct a sanctuary for Me, that I may dwell among them."
There is more physical space in the Bible devoted to the subject of the tabernacle than any other subject even heaven, hell, Jesus, or the cross... anything.
If you remember, God sought Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Here in the Wilderness He sought them again.
Why did He tell them to build a sanctuary?
He needed a holy place to dwell.
He wanted to be among His people in a special way.
The tabernacle
It was a movable tent.
One hundred cubits long and fifty cubits wide (about 150 feet long by 75 feet wide)
It had many furnishings, but the most important was the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies.
In the Holy of Holies is where the ark of the covenant was
Aaron's Rod, a jar of manna, and the ten commandments
The Mercy Seat was a top made of pure gold with 2 angels fashioned in them. This was on top of the Ark of the Covenant.
The Tabernacle was where the yearly offering of atonement would be made by the High Priest
After the tabernacle was built, the Temple was built and the Holy of Holies was moved in there along with the Ark of the Covenant.
This was with Israel up until the time of Jesus.
In the N.T. God still seeks to be with His people.
In John 1:1,14 it says, "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God... and the word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."
The Greek word there for "dwelt" is skanae. It means to tabernacle.
Again, God is seeking His people, but this time, instead of dwelling in a temple, he was then walking around among the people.
Jesus, who was God in flesh, was again walking with His people, just like the Garden of Eden.
But we know what they did to Jesus. They killed Him. They crucified Him.
But God was not surprised by this. In fact, it was part of his plan. Instead making a sacrifice by a high priest, once a year, in the holy of holies, Jesus became that sacrifice once and for all by dying on the cross so that we can believe in Jesus and be forgiven of our sins.
That is why it says in John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever would believe in Him would not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).
The nature of Love is to give
What is the best thing God could give? - love.
What is the best thing YOU can give? - love...
Love people by showing them Jesus, by being honest, good, and true.
1 Cor. 1:9, "For God is faithful through whom you were called into Fellowship with His Son Christ Jesus."
He wants to have fellowship with you because He loves you.
Fellowship in Greek is the word koinonia. It means intimacy, communion, and fellowship.
It is also translated into the word, "communion" when referring to the communion supper.
The communion supper is the place of intense intimacy between God and the Christian.
Describe what happens there.
This fellowship with God the Father, MUST be through God the Son: Jesus. There is no other way.
You HAVE to go through Jesus. You cannot make yourself right before God by what you do, by what you think, or by being sincere.... You can only be right before God by trusting in what Jesus did on the cross, by the sacrifice of Himself so you could be forgiven of your sins...... and then be able to be with God.... forever.
Only through Jesus..... which is why God made you to be with Him, forever.
God wants to have fellowship with you, through His Son.
God wants to love you forever.
Conclusion

God wants fellowship with you not because of what you are but because of what He is.

He is loving
He is giving
The best He can give is Himself.
He has given you the Holy Spirit so that you might have God living within you. Not in a desert sanctuary or a stone temple, but in a living intimate way.
You can know Him, experience Him, and feel Him.
He made the universe for you.
He created you for Him.
Enjoy Him.

 

[squiggly]

Wall-Of-Jesus-Text Strikes Squiggly for 102938473824 points of damage.

Squiggly faints.

Squiggly is dead.

 

[soserthc1]

LOL When I first saw this thread I thought "Yep, that there is some Squiggly-bait"

ha to funny i actually typed awile back in the beginning but backed it out - calling Squiggly ....lol... but i don't discuss Religion or Politic's as the debates can go on and on ...

 

[squiggly]

I don't mind if they go on and on, so long as they are debates and the shit flinging doesn't start in earnest.

 

[deepthought]

I don't mind if they go on and on, so long as they are debates and the shit flinging doesn't start in earnest.

Indeed.

 

[iCultivate]

Religion debates are pointless with most people. It's called "belief" for a reason. No amount of logic will change a believer's mind. They believe because they choose to.

-- iCultivate --

 

[lino]

Race cars, religion and politics have no conclusion that will end the conversation. Only a closed mind can end that debate. Almost all great minds navigate back to the belief of God before their life ends.

 

[squiggly]

Almost all great minds navigate back to the belief of God before their life ends.

Calling bullshit on that.

Citation plz.

 

[lino]

I dont want to look it up unless we have to debate it out all the way and I find it not worthy of an intense debate cause it irrelevant to me, but without a fact sheet before me I recall Einstein went back and forth on God issues but I reflect that in the end he believed in God and the same for Carl Sagen , and Hawkins has been floating on the issue also/ I assume this thought process is more frequent with great minds.

 

[squiggly]

I dont want to look it up unless we have to debate it out all the way and I find it not worthy of an intense debate cause it irrelevant to me, but without a fact sheet before me I recall Einstein went back and forth on God issues but I reflect that in the end he believed in God and the same for Carl Sagen , and Hawkins has been floating on the issue also/ I assume this thought process is more frequent with great minds.

Carl Sagan = Agnostic, without a doubt.

Hawking = Three years ago said his latest work demonstrated that God did not create the universe. I think we can mark him down for "hell no."

Einstein = Always was a deist. Lived as one, died as one. It was popular religious view in his time.

You were saying?

Even if you had been right about these three, they don't average out to "almost all great minds."

 

[lino]

Sagan is famous for saying God is essential in mankind's existence>

Carl Sagan wasn’t an atheist, he was an agnostic. He didn’t believe in the Christian god, yes, because there was no evidence to support it. But he also argued that there could be a god, but he had made no position on the matter, due to a lack of evidence (Varieties of Scientific Experience, Billions and Billions, Pale Blue Dot, The Demon-Haunted World, Broca’s Brain, Cosmic Connection).

Sagan Quote
Even if there is a "traditional God", then our curiosity and intelligence are gifts we should use by exploring the universe. If there is no traditional God, then those gifts are our only way of surviving. "The enterprise of knowledge is consistent with both science and religion, and is essential for the welfare of the human species." (3, p. 291)

Many rumors surfaced that at the time of his death- he believed and prayed just like those on a battle field with all the men dead around them and or crying mommy and atheist praying to god with gut wounds, just a common human reaction that happens to almost every man at the time of death. Ann Druyan, Carl Sagan’s wife, disagreed with rumors

 

[lino]

I would think that Einstein might believe in a God from this quote of his

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."

"The most incomprehensible thing about the world," he said on another occasion, "is that it is comprehensible."