Incompreisible, Unfathomable, Unknowable

I'm sure everyone at some point has encountered this situation when discussing god with a believer. Especially after you've made a very compelling case against them that they are not able to ignore. Their typical reply? You just don't understand, god is beyond our comprehension, beyond our understanding, beyond our imagination. We simply can't even know who or what he is. I find this funny as hell honestly. I liken this to those discussion when you were 3.. you know the ones.. "Oh yea, well I say yes times infinity" then the friend would reply "Oh yea, well I say times infinity times infinity!" aaahh such fun..
The problem is most religions have already defined what god is and what god is not. Therefore they have already built the construct for what god must be. I'm sure it is convenient when faced with obvious facts to the contrary to say god is all things unknowable, and yet still be everywhere, know everything, yadda yadda. By bringing spirituality into the mix they are able to convince themselves that there is "More than Meets the Eye" to god. Personally, I think spirituality is nothing more than another emotional state.
To duplicate this what if I told you last night I was lying on the ground star gazing and saw the most indescribable view of the universe. The stars were unimaginably bright, the constellations were unfathomably vivid. The view literally took my breath away and at that moment I felt connected to the entire universe. In this instance you know the parameters of what was viewed, and seen, so the construct is there. The rest could be embellishment, or simply the emotional state I was in when viewing the sky. My point is together we could view a thousand other night sky's and with this definition I just gave, I could always say that this particular night could never be duplicated and you would never be able to fully comprehend it.
This may be an over simplification when it comes to god, but I don't think so. Instead of something tangible and viewable they simply replace the night sky with nothing and add stuff that we are aware of. For example relating god to the ether to explain his ability to be omnipresent etc.
My thought is that religion is simply a tool of persuasion that plays on emotions in order to bring people together for a goal. The men who created the first religions wanted to ensure their powers over others by use of something greater. Unfortunately, I think this is still the case with religion. It's a measure of control over people. Goto any church, and I guarantee you a majority if not all of the parishioners will show submission to that pastor. For that matter check out the definition of reverend when used as an adjective: worthy of adoration or reverence

Just some more of my thoughts for today... ;)

Join a Church??

Presbyterians grapple with question: who should be allowed to join the church?

What a cool idea... I've often thought about picking a church and attending. I've joked about this with the wife often, usually on a Sunday morning around 10am I'd roll over in the bed and say "Honey, why don't we go to church this morning" .. Usually, the reply is "I'd rather stay here in bed." or just as sarcastically as I said it she will say "Sure, I'll get dress.." hehe.. Anyway, I've considered going just for the socialization.. But then I realize it would not last very long. The first time someone asked me a question, or the pastor started asking me about my salvation things might get interesting. I would find it difficult for me to respond in the manner they expect, not to say that I couldn't, but if I did it would simply be to pacify them and I'm not one that condones agreeing with someone just to keep the peace or the "Status Quo". On the other hand it would be interesting to see what types of conversations could be brought up...

I give this guy some kudos.. Apparently, not only did he attend the services regularly, but he became a member (I wonder if there was a fee?) Anyway, I was just curious if anyone else considered attending a service strictly for the social interaction? Or have you considered joining a church just to be the inquisitive mind asking the questions no one else in the congregation would dare to ask the (Sheep in wolves clothing)? And I'm not talking about the just visiting various churches, I'm mean attending regularly, partaking in the social events, etc. Where I live there is little hope of starting a successful "Free Thought" group, but there are plenty of religious organizations around here to proselytize I mean attend :)

Good Deed/s...

Just the other day the family and I went to SAM's to pick up some supplies, as we were leaving I heard a very familiar sound.. (I tend to always drive with the window down) Anyway, it was the sound of an engine failing to have enough juice to ignite the fuel. Immediately, I stopped the truck and began looking around. Then threw the truck in reverse, slowly backing up to see if I could spot this sound and verify my suspicions. Sure enough "bingo" I noticed a red ford ranger with 2 people in it. The man already a cell phone to his ear attempting to find someone to help. I waved to the gentleman and asked if he could use a jump. His facial expression changed from disparity to excitement instantly. Since I always carry jumper cables in the truck I was more than happy to help this man and his wife. I mean hell it takes me what 5 or so min to pull up, jump out of the truck, connect the cables and BAM he and I are both on our merry ways.
In all honesty this is not really a rarity for me. Anytime I see someone on the side of the road, hood up, or someone walking down an isolated road with a gas can in hand.. I will usually give them a lift or see if they need help. What is shocking to me is the fact that so few other people put forth this simple gesture of concern for others. What is quite humorous, is that when I mention this gesture of kindness to others to those I know personally of a religious faith, their response is usually surprising. Instead of seeing the "Good Samaritan" side of this act, their initial reply would be something like, "Well, you just never know.. They might have a gun, or want to rob you". How pathetic, so they don't help people because they are afraid it's a muse? You would think their "god" would protect them... Of all the various people I've helped, I've yet to find one that was "faking" being broken down. So, if you see someone in need take the 5 or 10 min to see if you can help. I'd be willing to bet if everyone did just a little something to help others as cliché as it might sound the world truly would be a better place. We shouldn't be fearful of doing something kind.... Just some thoughts for today...

Religion and Politics.....

....And why they should not be intermingled, even in a small town. This incredible display of "chrisitan" character absolutely disgusting!

City Commission Meeting Turns Ugly

They should make excellent commissioners! I just hope the citizens remember this later, and if they don't... you can be damn sure I'll still have this post around to remind them.

One of the great things I did notice about this election, is that the "Good ole Boy" network is loosing strength in this town. The final tally for mayor was only a difference of 15 votes.. 49% to 51% at least that shows that the town is growing closer to becoming more progressive. Hopefully, in another 4yrs, enough new people might move in and finally wipe out the old school of thought and actually bring about the much needed change in this area.

I've got mail (Feedback Welcome)

I'm posting this because I'd like to hear how others might have responded.

I recently received this in my inbox:

I found your site. Your definition of faith is flawed, because it assumes that all faith is flawed. Emotion about an irrational notion or a false notion is certainly a problem. But faith is something that you use all the time whether you are rational or not to find truth about things that are true.

For example, I have faith in the future. The future is something that hasn't happened yet, because I cannot yet see it. But that doesn't mean that it isn't real, because it will shortly present itself. And from past experience, I know that it is real, because it has presented itself previously. And it takes faith for me to believe that it will continue to present itself. And wait, what is that? Woah, the future just became the present, and I believed it would, and hey, I was right! And I just proved it. Because the future just became the present. See the mental exercise there? Faith is useful when based on the truth. A hypothesis is faith, because its hope in that which is not seen, but which might be true, and if proven, then it is true. A natural law is a proven fact that started out with a hypothesis that is now proven. Therefore your definition of faith is fundamentally flawed, because the principle of faith is interwoven with science. You just have just dismissed it entirely in the realm of religion, because you have dismissed religion entirely. If you don't believe in religion, you should just say so, but don't trash on faith. Faith is something that you can't do away with, because it is fact when it is used with something that is true.

Faith, or the HYPOTHESIS, opened the way to every discovery in science. Faith is the CREATIVITY that brought about the reason for doing the EXPERIMENTATION, that let to the DISCOVERIES in science. Therefore, I challenge your fundamental definition of faith. If you hate religion, just say so. If you don't believe in God, because you don't believe in something that the scientific method can't touch, then just say so. But you can't trash on faith, because it is the core principle behind the scientific method.

Now, how do you get to know God? Not through the experimentations of science, but through spiritual experimentation. If you don't believe in that, then it is simply because you haven't done the experimentation, and you haven't had the true desire to experiment to get the result that would yield fruit. Therefore I challenge your notion that God and religion is something deluded or irrational, because you haven't used the principles of the scientific method to prove that your assertion is so. And you can't use the tools in your lab to scientifically prove God is there. You have to scientifically pray.

A believer and knower of a scientific and rational God,
XXXXXX

I pondered over this email for awhile and decided to respond as follows:

Hello XXXXXX,
Thanks for visiting my site, and taking some time to send an email. I appreciate your input, however, all you have really done here is prove your lack of understanding not only in the definition of faith, but in your definition of a hypothesis and your complete disregard for the scientific method.
You are attempting to integrate faith into logic and the 2 are mutually exclusive. Time or "The Future" does not require faith. The mental exercise you so sarcastically presented really proves nothing. Why not attempt to prove this with some evidence? How could we possibly do this without faith? To begin with we would have to create a hypothesis based on observable repeatable evidence (A hypothesis is simply an educated guess based on observable evidence it is not faith) from there we could make a prediction and based on the results we should be able to share this evidence with others to verify our observations in order to validate our initial hypothesis. I'm sure you can figure the rest out.... We could use our rising sun as the basis, the fact that we grow older, etc.. So, you see no "faith" is required. Faith is never based on "Truth". It is however something required to believe in something that has no evidence.

PS. "You have to scientifically pray" is probably the funniest thing I've heard in awhile... Thanks!

I'm providing you with a few links that may clear up your understanding of the scientific method..

• Introduction to the Scientific Method
• Scientific method
• Steps of the Scientific Method

Sincerely,
Robert

And now for his reply:

You sound a bit overconfident in yourself. Let me quote from dictionary.com since you reject the definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith ):

14 results for: faith

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
faith

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
—Idiom
9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.

Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

The relevant results here for a secular definition of faith (outside of a religious context) are 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 9, and all back up my points in my original email.

Therefore, this refutes your argument on faith, and shows that my definition was perfectly fine. Further, reference #2, specifically backs up the fact that having confidence in the ultimate result of a hypothesis, and the proposal of a hypothesis, is indeed an act of faith. Therefore you are simply wrong. Faith is a HOPE of truth. Faith is always based on something that you hope turns out to be true, and is useful when that which is hoped for does turn out to be true, just as a scientist hopes that his hypothesis turns out to be true once tested. Therefore you are plain wrong.

Faith is a principle of reality that is based upon a guess that you hope for might turn out to be true, and if it does turn out to be true, then the faith was useful. This principle can be used in a secular context just as easily as a religious context. Just because you reject the religious context out of hand doesn't justify dismissing its usefulness in a secular context. Therefore, the fact that it is used in conjunction with a hypothesis means that it is a core piece of the scientific method and you are now refuted. Don't argue with me. Go argue with the dictionary.

Now, in a religious context, if you don't believe something to be true, and it does turn out to be true on judgment day, then you are damned because you didn't care to attempt to find out if it was true before judgment day.

Now, in the scientific method, facts are found out by the use of observation of observable phenomena. The problem with spiritual things is that they are not observable phenomena, and are usually only discernible by their effects, not unlike dark matter and dark energy. How do you use the scientific method with spiritual things? By spiritual experimentation. First, you must have a desire to know if spiritual things really do exist, and if they do, then you must want to know if God exists. If you don't care, then don't bother. But you should know first of all why it would be useful for you to know why God exists.

Many Christians are absolutely wrong about the reason for existence. Is it really to serve God as the religious people that originally indoctrinated you tried to drill into you? No. That is only something that you end up doing because you want to, that is, if you end up being happy in the state you end up being in. Happiness is the design and purpose of our existence. Misery is not.

What makes you happy right now? And what is lasting happiness? What if you die and then you haven't prepared to be happy after death? Let's say for the sake of argument that your mind is an immortal thing that cannot be destroyed, just as light is, or matter is. If your mind is indeed going to outlive your body, and is actually an independent entity that cannot be destroyed, doesn't it make sense to find out ahead of time before you can't do anything about it, and haven't prepared for the eventuality?

My last reply was as follows:

Interesting argument. In your honor, I will rename my "Definition for Faith" on my website to "A Religious Definition of Faith".

I still have my doubts as to your conclusion and your use of the term faith, but i have read where this argument has been made before.

Thank you for your feedback.

Robert

Now, if you happen to make it through all of that... What do you think? He brought up truth, yet I don't recall mentioning anything about truth. Any hypothesis has an equal chance of being true as it does being false prior to being verified who says the one hypothesizing wants it to be true or false? Anyway, I had so many thoughts on this that I simply didn't know where to begin, so i figured I'd share and see what others thought as well.

Slingshot Theory

I really love this stuff. A new theory is always intriguing in my opinion. When theorizing on things of this scale it's simply mind boggling. This really begins to make you think we really are just a drip of water in someones cosmic sink.

Cristiano Germani Slingshot Theory

Here are some highlights that I found interesting..

"I AM a heretic," Cristiano Germani announced to an audience of
cosmologists last month. Few would disagree, as he is proposing a
radical alternative to standard cosmology: a universe with no big bang
creation moment, and no rapid inflation. Rather than a big bang, he
suggests a slingshot.

When someone claims to be a heretic it always seems to catch my attention. And oddly inspires me to at least listen to their view point as objectively as possible :)

But then Germani considered a spinning universe. "In fact, it is much
more realistic that the universe will be rotating as it drops," he
says. Something more interesting happens to a rotating universe as it
hurtles down the throat. Because it is spinning, it avoids falling
into the tip of the throat and whirls round it instead. Like a
boomerang or a stone from a slingshot, it then flies back up again.
Germani realised that the second leg of this journey could correspond
to the expanding universe we observe today.

See what I mean.... A drip in someones cosmic sink lol.... I've thought about this when contemplating the Bubble Theory as well. This stuff is way above my head, but very interesting.