I don't think a god exists in a traditional sense, or rather not as a single form...

I don't think a god exists in a traditional sense, or rather not as a single form. I believe that the big bang was the death of a god, all knowledge and all power spread forth from a single point giving rise to the universe as we know it. Now because energy can be neither created nor destroyed we all carry a small piece of this being within us, the trees, the stars, everything. We learn more each life that we live and constantly reappear in different eras and slowly ascend back towards godhood.

I also believe that there are only six people on this earth and everybody else that you see is just a reflection of them in another time and another life

I also think that stars have some type of soul, perhaps an ascended human becomes a life giving star

Why do you think any of that is true?

Further, I believe that magic as we know it could just be science that has progressed so far we no longer understand it. Perhaps spells and runes are just the true language of the universe and thus lets us manipulate it when speaking its true name

Because I feel its authenticity in my soul. I feel like science and spirituality are akin to quantum mechanics when compared to the larger univerae, they do not rely on one another to be true but both must be present for our understanding to grow. My version marries science and spirituality

Self bumping for good conversation

...

...

...

dude, nice.

...

...

Thanks user, I don't talk about my thoughts often

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

share more, I'm a sceptic but your ideas intrigue me.

So you don't have any good reason. Gotcha.

name a good reason to believe in anything you don't know for sure? coming up with your own ideas and explanation for the unknown is how science works dude.
this is not science but it reaches beyond scientific theory to an area beyond our comprehension.
open your mind bro and grow as a person.
peace

Belive in whatever you want OP as long as you dont expect me to share it or legislate around it. Also there are two types of quantum physics, those based on math and sience and the mumbo jumbo lazy writers and swindlers use to justify shit, if you want to talk about them I would suggest to study hard to learn the first kind. Glgl op

What would you like to know user? I've got ideas on everything

Have you ever been to mars? How do you know its real? Because you see pictures of it? The media tells you so? Form your own theory user

>name a good reason to believe in anything you don't know for sure?
Evidence.
>coming up with your own ideas and explanation for the unknown is how science works dude.
No, it's not. Coming up with a testable hypothesis and then testing it is.
>this is not science
That much is true.
>reaches beyond scientific theory to an area beyond our comprehension.
Prove it.
>open your mind bro and grow as a person.
Learn to filter out nonsense from your mind and grow as a person.

I meant more mathematical quantum theory not meshing well with Einstein's theories of relativity. I think that's it I'm bad with names but you know what I'm trying to convey. And of course not user I wouldnt force shit like that on people I just felt like a different thread today

The existence of mars can be independently verified.

ask yerself these qwerstions...ORIGIN: where did YOU come from...your mothers cunt is not the answer...MEANING: what is the meaning of life and how do you play a part in it...MORALITY...what is right and wrong...finally...DESTINATION: where do you go after your body says fuck it...this planet...this universe is too finally tuned to be a product of chance...if we are all products of matter x chance x time, no morality exists.

>No, it's not. Coming up with a testable hypothesis and then testing it is.

Yes and that would come from forming your own ideas and an environment in which to test them. That equals science

you forgot to mention the important bit, the fact that the meaning of life is embedded in the notion that the god particle we all have will once come together and become one again.

and thus god will be able to determine who he/she is based on everything that happened since the big bang.

problem solved.

>your mothers cunt is not the answer
It is though.
>what is the meaning of life
There isn't any intrinsic meaning of life. Your meaning is whatever you make of it.
>what is right and wrong
A complex subject addressed by secular humanism.
>where do you go after your body says fuck it
You are your body, so you go into the ground / get cremated.
>this universe is too finally tuned to be a product of chance
Argument from incredulity.
>if we are all products of matter x chance x time, no morality exists.
We define morality. Hint: introducing gods and spirits into it doesn't change that.

Explain how and ill explain why your wrong, in any case it was an example. I suppose a better analogy could of been used but the argument is the same. Unless you can touch it, experience it for yourself than its all based on a trust

>and an environment in which to test them
Okay, what environment have you set up in which to test them such that your results may be independently verified?

...

>trust
A trust that has been earned through repeated reliability of the methodology behind it and is contingent on it continuing to be reliable.

the big bang was when the abortion of Sophia, the bride of Christ happened,and the abortion was Yaldabaoth the blind god of darkness who is blind to the higher realms and absolutely terrified of reality

this is his world where most people are just like him , blind to everything and terrified of reality

...

Currently I'm still working the theoretical side of this idea, I'm not a scientist and because an idea is yet to be tested does not disqualify it from being true. Some ideas are beyond are technology or our understanding to test

...

this is not science! we have covered this dude, keep up.

...

...

>is yet to be tested does not disqualify it from being true
Correct, but you don't have reason to believe it is true until you do (or can form a logical proof).
The guy I responded to said that it equaled science. Keep up.

so you only stay within the realms of proven science? cool for you bro let everyone else pave your existence, your thoughts must be boring.

...

...

I would disagree with that on the larger scale. Perhaps for earth bound sciences this holds true but it all comes down to perspective. As far as reliability goes, it all comes down to trial and error

...

>so you only stay within the realms of proven science?
When to comes to believing things, essentially.
>cool for you bro let everyone else pave your existence
Positing things that are provable and believing things that have been proven are not the same thing.
What?

but it is still not science and you can't use science to prove or disprove it therefore regular scientific methods and testing is irrelevant. your forcing a circular argument and I don't want you to, I just want you to listen to it, think about it and enjoy it for what it is.
you can't prove or disprove it so stop being unnecessarily critical man.
also I'm not op but I'm enjoying his ideas, I don't believe it myself but it's a romantic theory no?

Neither do I have reason to beleive it is false, science explains the how of everything but not the why. The big bang, we know it happened and roughly how but not a clue as to why? The only other option I can think of if you want pure science is the collapse of a infinitely massive black hole at the end of a previous universe.

>think about it and enjoy it for what it is.
That's what I'm doing. It's a mental exercise.
>you can't prove or disprove it so stop being unnecessarily critical man.
That's exactly why you should be critical.
>I don't believe it myself but it's a romantic theory no?
Doesn't matter.

I believe our entire universe is a digital construct made by a far more technologically advanced civilization or being. Pic unrelated, it's just a happy tit.

if it can not be measured or be used to make predictions, the idea is of insignificant worth.

Fits with some theories, take that as you will. Something something black holes are computers something something asymmetrical contraction and expansion of space something something bubble separating itself from another bubble something something "basement universe". Eh.
>
>
If there's some sort of base value used in how the universe is "computed", if it is, and it is possible to cause a sort of buffer overflow in an array or arrays therein, then maybe this is valid. But that remains to be seen.
I do not agree.

you should be critical of things that are impossible to prove or disprove? why? it seems like a wasted exercise. you don't have to accept it but you would be ignorant to deny it. that is the nature of the unprovable.
the romance matters to me, I enjoy listening to how people's minds work.

I've been giving a lot of thought lately to perspective and its influence to our beliefs. I am a mind that relies heavily on science but more so on experience and the idea that nothing may be as it seems has begun to plague me

>Neither do I have reason to beleive it is false
You should work under the assumption that there is no correlation until it is demonstrated otherwise.
>the why?
Often a nonsensical question to ask unless you conflate why and how.
>The only other option I can think of if you want pure science is the collapse of a infinitely massive black hole at the end of a previous universe.
Here's another option that I can think of: reality exists and to speak of a before the big bang could be nonsensical.

So your dick is of insignificant worth? Despite that it can produce generations of new thinkers and creators that could change the world?

>you should be critical of things that are impossible to prove or disprove? why?
Because that's how mysticism and pseudoscience operate, and those things are harmful.
>you don't have to accept it but you would be ignorant to deny it
If you are exposed to something and you don't accept it, then you reject it. I don't claim that whatever he is saying cannot possibly be the case, I claim that there is no reason to believe that it is.

you can measure a dick and it can predict when it's sexytime. pretty much nails the brief

Why is the most important question. It is the essential question that will be answered when we know the how. Do you care how a person killed somebody or why they killed somebody? One is a finite boring answer, the other is a new question.

I see where our wires cross friend.
you are limiting yourself to 2 options, accept or reject but you are ignoring the go to option for the unprovable, indifference, why do you have to chose? if this were a bet on your life and the option to cover both sides was available I'm sure you would go for it on something that can't be proven nor disproven.

>Why is the most important question
It's also the question most likely to not have any real answer.
>Do you care how a person killed somebody or why they killed somebody?
When a person does something there's intent. When matter is just doing what matter does, there isn't.

Not really, dicks aren't standard nor do all of them get sexy time. So not an accurate measurement

>why do you have to chose
Because A and not A are the only logical possibilities. You either accept something or you do not accept it (reject).
>f this were a bet on your life and the option to cover both sides was available I'm sure you would go for it on something that can't be proven nor disproven.
What?

>When a person does something there's intent. When matter is just doing what matter does, there isn't.

Could you prove that?

What made god?
What makes u think it was god and not the universe?

Wheeler's delayed choice experiment is actually several thought experiments in quantum physics, proposed by John Archibald Wheeler, with the most prominent among them appearing in 1978 and 1984.These experiments are attempts to decide whether light somehow "senses" the experimental apparatus in the double-slit experiment it will travel through and adjusts its behavior to fit by assuming the appropriate determinate state for it, or whether light remains in an indeterminate state, neither wave nor particle.

Intent requires mind and all evidence suggests that mind requires brain.

Interesting, but I fail to see the relevance.

The universe made god, god made the universe. At this scale time and space bend allowing for a closed loop

And brain is made of atoms, therefore atom is brain

Choice is the relavence

That's a fallacy of division. That atoms arranged in a certain fashion result in a brain does not imply that atoms are brains.

...

I don't see anything in what you wrote to suggest that the light is actually making a choice.

...

Fallacy of Division would make a great band name. And yeah I've got nothing for that as far as an argument

No, it doesnt

>i want there to be god, so i can answer those question some way and not not know, cuz it feels bad

no u dip. why language? the true "language" of the universe is math you bohemian sand villager
magic isnt some runic language, that isnt science. if you want an actually likely explanation to magic, look at quantum physics, if we could master it we could basically do all those magical shits. no need to overspiritualize everything mr guru.


if god was the thing the universe is made of then we would all be god. and thats humbling, but souls dont have proof to them, maybe a soul is just the specific configuration of neurons and active electrical signals that make you up, i think the universe has no purpose whatsoever. inherently existence has no reason to be.

but that means that we are the thing that sets its purpose. and honeslty, that sounds like something a god would do. give things purpose

A cognitive choice that we could understand or measure? Likely not, but something inherent in its nature drives it towards this duality

Math is a language user, it is a science yes but also a language

So your saying that a black hole does not distort spacetime? That an infinitely massive black hole would effect nothing?

Singularity isnt black hole and there isnt a spacetime yet to distort, u fuck

...

The heart of a black hole is a singularity, and I don't think you could make that claim about spacetime, all matter and energy in the universe condensed to an infintesmally small point? I'm pretty sure physics would get a little weird

...

What do you think reality is?

Your ideas are severely limited.

Black holes r singularities caused by gravity and its not the initial singularity
listen here, faggot: how bout u show me the peer-reviewed study that proves the existence of god and how it turned into the universe or your nobel prize in physics
if u think logic was different at point 0 in time, u cant claim there was a god or if it created anything either