At the form with which the content is presented. Enki has just the most entertaining and colorful ways of presenting his posts. They are a joy to read. He has a very particular sense of humor which almost always seems to work.

In a world of powerful goverments (such as the U.S. and China) giving global conglomerates a green light on environment polution in the name of jobs, I find this statement quite irresponsible on your part, Culture. Just because not enough people are being killed by man made enviromental calamities yet, we can't just continue alone the present lines of disregard for the consequences of bad environmental policies by some governments and institutions.

Getting back on topic, let us talk about God: I agree with Nikola Tesla: "God, has no properties."--like Ø. But is Ø non existant?

Therefore, GØD, IMHO, is total existence, not one who exists as separate and apart from existence.

For scientific proof, use your senses!

So why not carry on talking about code's point? Otherwise you will have to separate politics from god (not part of "total existence"). Can't have it all ways.

OK, lets return to the topic Mr. Lindsay.

1. According to Bible God has character. He says to Moses that he is envious God.
So the God himself mentions one of his Properties.

So the God you speak about – the God having no properties, cannot be considered as God of Israel, because the God of Israel himself mentions that he has Properties.

Besides that Property, he also has certain name which he told to Moses.

2. For scientific proof human senses are not valid because they are not standardized measurement equipmentation.

Only science in close cooperation with the churches of the world can uncover the true nature of the God.

I think the key lies in random fluctuations.

Very good question Hey Hey. I am sure he will not provide certain answer... Guess why.

Never happened.


Nor do they interpret Gods voice with any accuracy or translate reality into words that have any real meaning.

So, as envious creature he dislikes very much somebody saying that he does not exist or that he is something all within and diffusive bushtit like that.

So he is very obstinate noisy guy and when he gets angry the pigs start to fly in the air, empires crush, Dow index fluctuates, things start to happen...

Scientific proof?

Or still kidding around...

Find funding for scientific research and the quest will be started.

A lot of equipment is needed.
Support personal is needed.
Pre-funding is needed.
Etc.

So as long as there is money involved there will be an interest to scientifically search for God.
Money is the motivation, not God.

Contemporary level scientific research cannot be conducted without money.

I think it is very obvious.

You know every scientist or investigator in the world personally? Oh sorry, I forgot, you know everything, so of course you do. I know some genuine philanthropists and I know some scientists who have no financial motivation - whatsoever. What a pity your life has not been enriched by these type of people. You should get out more. Didn't I say this on a previous occasion?

This is not the same thing as the stimulus for research being a financial motivation. There are two separate issues here and Joesus has jumbled them together.

I'm pretty sure you're being emotionally presumptuous.

Just to refresh, in case you missed the point:

Do I need to explain why I include this old thread and ask you to check out?:
http://brainmeta.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=12003&hl=

There, starting with a topic about the IRISH POTATO FAMINE, Scientists (I presume they are all scientists)--some called "unknown" others with login names--talk about the history and nature of "life" here, and elswhere in space.


IMHO, they are talking about what I call the body, or the manifestation, but not the totality, of
[G�˜D. Is there any explanation why my 'puter does this trick, now and then? I wonder what will happen if I write it G?D and then GØD]

IS LIFE ANOTHER NAME FOR GOD?
============================
When scientists agree--and many do--to include philosophers, theologians (of all faiths), ethicists and artists--people who want to talk about concepts having to do with meaning, purpose, moral, ethical and esthetic values--as part of the the process, we will be talking theologically. In other words we will be including G?D as an intrinsic component of, in and through, the process.

I repeat: I have no quarrel with scientists who have a "thing" about the term 'God'.

So do I. This is why Jews write G-d. This is why I write G?D. Rick wants to use 'Nature". What name, if any, would you like?

If you insist that matter is the ultimate reality; that mentality, spirituality and God, and that values like justice, peace, faith, hope and love are illusions, chemically and physically created, then I hope we can agree to disagree, agreeably.

I will say the same thing to those who insist that God is our heavenly father as described in the Bible, a perfect person-like being, who is entirely separate from his creation and in control of all things, past, present and future. IMHO, this kind of god is--and I am open to be convinced otherwise--as Richard Dawkins says, a delusion.

Be that as it may, I want to include G?D, Nature--whatever name one chooses--as part of the process because I honestly feel and believe that it makes the process far more efficient. New and very helpful knowledge will come our way more readily, IMHO. Furthermore, science in the hands of moral, ethical, faithful, hopeful and loving people is the best tool for bringing order out of chaos.

BTW, I no longer feel comfortable praying to a god (God) and saying, "Thy kingdom come..." I now prefer: "The republic of all persons comes, and G?D in us, is part of the process of its coming, physically, mentally and spiritually."

I'm pretty sure you aren't following the conversation between enki and I with any objectivity. I wasn't making a general statement. I was making a statement to the fact that money is not the potential in any reasoning to the existence of God.
Rather than making a statement that it would take money to prove God exists I think that money is not the issue in the believability of God or the requirement for scientific proof.

The idea that God can be found and proved for "X" amount of money is ......short sighted.

Seems a pretty general statement to me. And pretty obviously you were implying that investigators are only motivated by money.

You can retract these statements, you know. After all, none of us are prefect. Oh, sorry, i forgot .....

I forgive you

So now let's get on with "Does God Exist".

A bit off topic, but Id be happy to start another discussion about this.

Look, there is an awful lot of hot air over many environmental issues, and
Joe Public is hardly any more informed than any of the experts who make
predictions and take public funds (for research) in order to make more
predictions.

I'm not saying "don't care for the planet". I'm not saying "let the planet
die". All I'm trying to do is point out that there isn't much difference
between a newborn environmentalist and say a newborn christian. i.e. the
passion is based on personal perspective and not on facts.

Climate change is a fact. Global warming and cooling are facts. The cycle of
warm/cold periods is a geological fact. And the increase in carbon dioxide
probably has more to do with the loss of vegetation than it does to do with
our contribution to the volumes.

The following are not facts but just speculation:
* we're in a human-caused global warming cycle
(it may be natural and we're reacting irrationally)
* we can do something now that will make any impact in our lifetimes on the
global climate
* the warming is _global_ (it's not, southern hemisphere is experiencing the
opposite to the north on many issues)
* the experts are 'experts'

It is worth pointing out that any finite resource needs good management, but
that human habit means we often exploit finite resources quite quickly, and
human ingenuity means we find alternatives just as quickly.

It's too long a philosophical argument to go into right now, but you don't
owe the next generation anything, and if you're a breeder you're
instinctively going to look after you own first. You don't owe the planet
anything, but if you nurture your environment it will most likely reward
you. And if you don't, the results aren't punishment -- they're what happens
when the 'flux' equilibrium experiences significant changes.

Natural disasters (which we have zero control over) do more damage to the
environment than we could ever hope to achieve in the same time (say a
volcano eruption) and the earth recovers just fine from those despite them
occurring quite regularly. Things from space occasionally land on earth with
a bang, wiping out entire species and the earth recovers from that just fine
too.

You can adopt a planet-bound, 'keep the prison spotless' approach under the
eye of authority (real or imagined), or you can explore the cosmos. Your call.

Clearly entire planetary systems are _naturally_ expendable, just over a
very long period of time.

Sorry for the last post. Was way off topic, but I got carried away when reading the
thread from the beginning again.

The problem starts with the definition. By defining God, you are conceding to the existence of God in some form. Not only are you acknowledging that God exists in some form, but you are claiming to know God by ascribing properties to God. Following your logic, your concept of God would also "transcend logic".

Nobody can prove that something doesn't exist . Most logical minded folks would know this and also know that it can not be used to prove that God exists. What people often fail to see is that this does not only apply to God but, also to anything that anyone can imagine. When you start arguing that things that you imagine are real because others can not prove that they are not real, you can not expect people to think you are making rational arguments.

Actually, when I tried to steer the discussion back to the topic started by Konoko Rikushu, I should have said "Does God exist?, Scientific proof?", that gives the topic a slightly different slant. As he said, "This article tries to explain using proof that God exists and that it takes more than having faith."

So then, maybe I could ask for more comments on the validity of his claim of proof.

A) One thing is clear that something & somebody exist.

To investigate that Something & Somebody one needs money and permission of the Something & Somebody.

I think that can serve as a conclusion of this topic.

You better find somebody who will fund the research and provide prefunding for arranging research group which will plan the research agenda. Or list people who possibly can fund the research.

WHO ARE WE?
The following is from the writings of Canadian poet, Bliss Carman
http://library.vicu.utoronto.ca/special/F05fonds.htm


I like this:

I am only frightened by fiction. All the rest has meaning, a harmonious (though sometimes naturally predatory) universe and its contents. So sometimes one needs to fight it (survival) but not fear it.

The Templeton Foundation?
http://www.templeton.org/

Interesting. Thank you.
I will consider the site and will talk with some people over the topic.