God---------the evidence (without religion)

Grupo Alpha wrote: I've always been very clear that our "survival" after death, or the possible existence beyond the astral plane we know, has nothing to do with what some have called "god." The man from the beginning of time has documented that "survival" has always had "something" as evidenced by the rituals and paintings can be seen in many parts of the earth. I do not think that has anything to do with God, but rather the existence of other planes different from ours. The most basic theories of quantum physics and forward it to us: "matter is neither created nor destroyed, only transformed" ... our friends are matter in a pure state and as such, to die, we only change our state of existence ...

Thank you and apologies as always if my English is not very good, hug friends

Your English looks better than my own GA. Lol. I completely agree with you; death, in reality, is non-existent. It only looks real because we focus on the body that no longer has energy within it rather than focusing on the energy that continues.

SkarletRae wrote:

Steven Matrix wrote:
And yes, I believe as well that there is an intelligence behind everything. You don't need science or religion to prove that. We didn't create ourselves; neither did the animals, trees, plants, or fish.

IMHO (because naturally I hardly EVER have an opinion *wink* lol), I want to throw something into the mix here.....

Recently, science (and you science guys can explore this further), found that the Universe seems finite. It was thought to be infinite, but lo-and-behold, it seems to have an end, as a contianed unit and they're not sure, of course where the worm holes lead, but the seem to lead out of the containment of the Universe.

For me, personally, it affirms the Creation theory. The looking up when talking to God or about heaven, theory. I just think it's SOOOOO COOL!!!

What do you guys think about that?

Also...(and agree with CC that I don't totally go for what is being said), I do though, TOTALLY see where your coming from, Steven, and I thoroughly applaud your approach. Good for you! How very needed it is in our world, or so "i" think.

Have a great day, guys.

Lol. I'm no science guy Skarlet, but Crystal is. I'm just beginning to see life from a scientific standpoint and rethinking everything once getting out of the church several years ago. As I was telling Crystal, I think Victor was giving a short video on how he believes that quantum physics proves the existence of a being who is responsible for all things better than religion does.

Man has given him/her the title of "God" and as such I think that his/her identity has been tainted by irrelevant beliefs from people who said "God spoke to me, this is the way, follow me."

A very good response Skarlet and I thank you for commenting.

P.I. Christophe Kay wrote: You have just gained karma my good man

Why thank you sir, I appreciate your comment and am glad you responded.

I've always been very clear that our "survival" after death, or the possible existence beyond the astral plane we know, has nothing to do with what some have called "god." The man from the beginning of time has documented that "survival" has always had "something" as evidenced by the rituals and paintings can be seen in many parts of the earth. I do not think that has anything to do with God, but rather the existence of other planes different from ours. The most basic theories of quantum physics and forward it to us: "matter is neither created nor destroyed, only transformed" ... our friends are matter in a pure state and as such, to die, we only change our state of existence ...

Thank you and apologies as always if my English is not very good, hug friends

Steven Matrix wrote:
And yes, I believe as well that there is an intelligence behind everything. You don't need science or religion to prove that. We didn't create ourselves; neither did the animals, trees, plants, or fish.

IMHO (because naturally I hardly EVER have an opinion *wink* lol), I want to throw something into the mix here.....

Recently, science (and you science guys can explore this further), found that the Universe seems finite. It was thought to be infinite, but lo-and-behold, it seems to have an end, as a contianed unit and they're not sure, of course where the worm holes lead, but the seem to lead out of the containment of the Universe.

For me, personally, it affirms the Creation theory. The looking up when talking to God or about heaven, theory. I just think it's SOOOOO COOL!!!

What do you guys think about that?

Also...(and agree with CC that I don't totally go for what is being said), I do though, TOTALLY see where your coming from, Steven, and I thoroughly applaud your approach. Good for you! How very needed it is in our world, or so "i" think.

Have a great day, guys.

crystalcross wrote:
Sorry, didnt mean to go off on a rant...

The Science Dude

CC

Ranting? You? Never. Lol. In my humble opinion, I think that Victor is stating that the universe is governed by its own laws that the universe itself knows; not based on the current observations of today's best minds.

And yes, I believe as well that there is an intelligence behind everything. You don't need science or religion to prove that. We didn't create ourselves; neither did the animals, trees, plants, or fish.

I added Victor's info for those who have reached a point in their journey which has gone beyond what they believed and they need more than what religion ever gave them. For those who are a part of religion [my wife and I spent a combined time of nearly 50 years in the church] and like being there; it's just as fine as someone who leaves; we'll all end up at the same destination in the end anyway.

You brought up some great points CC.

Steve,

Although I would have to agree with the overall theory that Victor Zammit presents, there are countless flaws in his logic and the assumpsions which he uses to get there. I can agree with the outcome (only by reason of personal belief, and "Faith") but the building blocks used to build that house are brittle. Just in the first few minutes of the video I heard countless areas in which conclusions were drawn on incorrect or instable reasoning.

Lets start at the beginning. Right in the beginning he lays out the groundwork and states that in physics and in the universe all things are governed by orders or set laws. Although at first glance that is correct, you really must look at the definition or the laws of physics. Also you have to look at their history. The phrase "Laws of Physics" is one of the most over used and incorrect statements ever made. Because in fact they are not laws, and they are not unchanging. But rather they are a collection uniform observations founded on sum of current knowledge. Let me give you an example. You look at the Sun, and you see a bright yellow light coming from it. For years you accept this, and say that the sun shines yellow. To the sum of your current knowledge that is a fact, and you can base other measurements on it and it will always be true. Now suddenly you have an epiphany and you come to the realization that there are 3 primary emitive colors. Red, Green and Blue and everything else is a combination of that. So now you come to change the definition of the suns emmissions to Green and Red, or some mixture there of, with perhaps some blue component. So, now the "Laws" have changed, although they have stayed the same. As observations become more detailed, the laws change to meet the collective of knowledge and observations. Given the same example, years down the road you come to a new epiphany and realize that all colors are mearly a collection of EMF radiating at different frequencies and wavelengths. So now the definition of the Sun's light changes again into an entire array of spectral wavelengths. Same light, new definition. The laws of physics are only as good as the depth of observation which we are currently able to base them on. And if you look at it as that, the order we see is not really order at all but simply our attempt to arrange observations into ordered sets, and logical unchanging definitions based on our current knowledge. So the question I would pose to you is this. Are we finding order in the universe, or are we injecting our order into the observations we've made? Sounds a lot like matrixing doesn't it? Creating order out of observations.

I have to admit as I'm watching his video I keep pausing to digest when he says. But also as it goes on I get a bit annoyed at how he's taking the buzz words and then skimming the outline of the theories of quantum phyics and completely ignoring their basis or meat. If you wish I can take each point that he makes and elaborate on it, although that will make this a VERY lengthy and dry message. For instance the scientists that he mentions who believe in a universal intelligence based on observations in the quantum particles. What they are talking about is that during the initial phases of particle splitting and "Atom Smashing" they observed several things. One of these is that seamingly independant particles when acted upon by an outside force react on this force. For instance lets take this example. You and a friend of yours live in Kentucky and you both decide to take a vacation. One of you decides to go to Yellowstone in WY, the other wants to go to Newark, NJ. So you both set out driving in opposite directions. After a few hours of diving one of you hits a road block and is slowed down to 5 MPH for almost 3 hours. Strangely though, the other friend for no apparent reason also slows down to 5 MPH at the same instant also for 3 hours. This is essentially the type of behavior which sparked the various theories by some physicists, also this is what changed Einsteinian quantum mechanics forever. However, since then there have been many advances in observations and theories and proofs. Based out of this has come strings theory, super string theory, and then later 11 dimensional M theory and 13 dimensional Two-Time M theory. Each of these mathematically explain (since our brains can only conceptualize 4 dimensions, height, width, depth, and time) how all particles are linked in alternate dimensions which we can not see because we ourselves are only projections or collections of these particles in our own dimensions.

He then goes into how there is intelligence behind the fact that light travels at a given speed so that we can see it. For one, the speed of light being a set speed really is a misnomer. Again we go back to observation and relativity. I'm sure many have heard of the the famous theory of relativity. It has nothing to do with your uncle coming to visit, but rather is a hint that nothing is as clear and unchanging as to be set in stone. One common argument which I've heard for so many years is: "If nothing can go faster than the speed of light, then what happens if you are in a spaceship going near the speed of light and you shine a light forward, isn't it then going twice the speed of light." The definition of the speed of light is that it is the maximum speed that something can travel relative to the two objects measured, when you exceed that speed time, length and mass start to do strange things. So is it really the fastest speed? Or is it just that the standards which we use to measure the speed start to bend as you approach that speed which means that as you get close to it, our definition of speed is no longer relavent. That's really one of the most difficult principals to grasp because the standards which we use to measure everything with start to change. But back to the point, there is no real intelligence in the speed of light relative to us being able to see something, actually it has absolutely no baring at all on our ability to "see".

Anyway, I'm starting to ramble and its getting very long and dry. So in closing for now I'll say again. Although I do believe that there is divine intelligence in the universe around us. That is and always will remain a manner of faith, and although there are some proofs in the sum of things which can steer you towards the conclusion. The reasons that he is using, and trying to find that proof in quantum physics just is not going to work. If you want to find a reason to believe in universal intelligence, look at the diversity of life all around us. And then tell me that years and years of accidental mution and natural selection can randomly create the abundance of life that exists all around us.

Sorry, didnt mean to go off on a rant...

The Science Dude

CC

Hey folks, thought I would post a website that I mention from time to time; AFTERLIFE: A LAWYER PRESENTS THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR THE AFTERLIFE | WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DIE

Victor is very good at presenting the case for the afterlife, including his very good argument that religion has nothing to do with the afterlife and is not needed as such.

I thought I would post this as we are on this site discussing spirits and investigating the same. Here are a couple of videos where Victor talks about God without religion: