My Truden Life

I am only reminding you

50/50 (Part One)

A week ago I had interesting conversation with the atheists on Facebook until the topic was deleted.
Fine, I said, it is not first time to delete my topic or comment. Just a week before that they deleted my comment from the first page of Mr. Dawkins web site.
A day latter just before they ban me from the atheist group I received invitation to join Rational Responders and to get their rational respond to my ideas.
And so I did.

Here is the opening of the topic 50/50 posted in their Web Site.

***

The Universe

There were two theories about the nature of the Universe:

1) There is no moment of creation and the Universe is ever existent

2) There is moment of creation, therefore the Universe has beginning

The evidences do not support the first theory, because it is obvious that the Universe expands, which leads the science to the conclusion that there is a moment in which the expansion started.
That moment is considered to be the birth moment of the Universe.
That is how the Big Bang theory took place in the modern science.
However there is a weak point in the Big Bang theory.
Due to the quick cooling matter in the Universe we should not observe such equally distributed matter in the observed Universe.
There is also problem with the mass of the Universe and its gravitational force related to the speed of expansion and its eventual end.

Alan Guth came with new theory called Inflationary Universe which corrects three major points in the Big Bang theory one of which is: there wasn’t “explosion process” but the Universe inflated in “a fraction of a second”. According to the theory the inflation was possible thanks to the “repulsive gravitation”.

In both theories the Universe got its “birth” from a stage called Singularity.
Singularity is scientific taboo and the laws of physics are helpless for its explanation.
We can only say that Singularity is the Universal stage where is no time, space and matter.
Knowing that the matter is motion we can say that Singularity is Absolute Rest or NOTHING.
Mind the NOTHING word!
We use that word to express lack of presence but in an absolute meaning NOTHING is unexplainable notion, because it is not only lack of presence but also lack of space for any presence.

Now, as we all can see a scientific theory is making us to believe that the observed Universe appeared from NOTHING.
Actually we don’t really believe it, because we don’t think about it.
We have the evidence of an existence and we are happy with it.

We don’t notice the lack of evidence for the assumption of “repulsive gravitation”, because it makes sense in explaining evidence – equally distributed matter in expanding Universe.

We don’t also notice something very illogical:

Obviously the “repulsive gravitation” must be greater than the one we know; otherwise the expansion wouldn’t take place. If so, why the “repulsive gravitation” is not evidently present and working IN the Universe?
It can only be explained if it is placed outside (!) the Universe or to avoid the stupid “outside” word we can use the less stupid expression “the repulsive gravitation only applies to the Universal borders” (correct my English if wrong).

We know that the science uses highly sophisticated abstractions to fit the theory to our understanding; such as “the Universe expands in itself” which is suppose to explain the question “in what space the Universe expands?”

The above abstraction does not explain the NOTHING notion due to the fact that in NOTHING there are no borders.
What do I mean?
Imagine that the Universe did not start from NOTHING but from the possibly smallest particle or even fireball if you prefer so. I’m quite sure that this is much easier to imagine than the birth from NOTHING.
A material particle has properties one of which is “end” which end we call “border”.
If we have border we have space and time to travel in direction opposite of the border.
We need very abstract explanation to accept that a border is possible only from inside but never from outside of material volume (the Universe in this particular case)

We can only make sense in explaining all this if we assume that a border is possible only through observation or conscious understanding about it. That would mean that since there is no consciousness out of the Universe, no outside border exists even if the Universe has the size of a fireball or the size of the smallest known particle.

Now we can correct the theory by saying that the Universe needs consciousness in order to exist in itself even when it is as small as the smallest imaginable particle.

Let’s talk about this before we move forward.

- – -

Part Two
Part Three
Point of Exit
Clarification for Dummies

Richard Dawkins DELUSION

After I did my “Dawkins experiment” I decided to go back and have a real conversation with Mr Dawkins admirers (they wouldn’t like the “followers” word).
So I decided to tell them about my God – the One who I know. (you have to be registered for this forum)
I wasn’t impressed by their understanding but any way, it was expected.

Then I decided to show them their belief.
According to Richard Dawkins “there almost certainly is no God”.
I didn’t want to prove that “there almost certainly is God”, because I can imagine how difficult it would be for atheist to change their belief to such a degree.
So, my intent was to proof that the possibility for God’s existence or not existence is 50/50.

Following is my forum posting in Mr. Dawkins forum with small change made to cover my next posting.

[posting START]

The universe is described as matter, space and time.
I support the argument that Consciousness must be included too and I must prove it.
How can it be proved.
If I am right then the consciousness as component of the Universe must affect somehow the matter, the space or the time.
Only then we can agree that the Universe is consists of four (not of three) components.

You will not take any proof from the past because you haven’t seen it, but you will agree if the science has registered consciousness to affect matter.

1) According to the latest study of Dr. Jon-Kar Zubieta, person’s belief can make the brain to produce its own painkillers which is scientific proof that the mind can affect and control the matter.

2) All miracles where person is cured are argued with auto-suggestion (the person cured himself)
Still that is proof that consciousness affects the matter.

3) Although Time is a component of the Universe it is relative only to the consciousness.

4) Although Space is component of the Universe, it is related ONLY to the consciousness.

The last two (3 and 4) do not affect the matter but the way we observe it which makes matter related to the consciousness.

You can argue or accept the first two, but according to the science they are true.
That would make Consciousness the forth component of the Universe.

If you agree on that or can not argue it, I have the “none-preaching” right to place my statement against yours, and it is:

Matter is delusion of the Consciousness.

Now you can argue my statement by proving it wrong.
Let’s assume that I have no interest to prove it right.
The above supporting evidences are enough to reach at least 50/50.
That would make Dawkins very wrong.
I can only comfort him with the fact that my argument is given fore the first time in his web site.
(Hope I don’t sound sarcastic…)

I suppose that there is more to be said on all this, but let’s start from here.

[posting END]

And then the thread became a little boring…
There is not much to be said from atheist side.
Now they have the evidence which they are always asking for using that smile… you know…

And I have time now to have a thought about the self delusion which makes professors to mistake God with Religion.
Just imagine, to waste such a time for writing book like “The God Delusion” in which you prove that God doesn’t exist because the religion is wrong. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to name the book “The Religion Delusion”?
Because what on earth Religion has to do with God’s existence, professor!?

Just because you met few damn stupid pastors doesn’t make God a delusion.
Did you ever consider the possibility, Mr. Dawkins, that believing has nothing to do with the truth.
So if my granny tells you that God is white bearded old man in the heaven that has nothing to do with the truth, and you can not say that God doesn’t exist just because this belief doesn’t fit the science and the logic.

Did you ever asked yourself how a belief appears?
Some thousands years ago a tribe (in Europe let say) decided to belief in God.
Could happen.
They decided that God is spirit and only good people will go to Him.
They could belief that only the one who kills most enemies will go to God and that would serve their surviving best, but they choose the stupid belief to be good.
Then another tribe on the other side of the earth (Australia) decided to belief in the same God for the same reason.
Could happen. Science can prove it.
But then on the other side of the earth (Asia) another tribe started to belief in the same God for the same reason.
And then another tribe in Siberia did the same.
And then another tribe, somewhere else…
Hm… What science say about this?

If two (or even more) civilizations without any connections created the belief that this world is a dream, would that be a signal to look not only in the white bearded old man as a God?
Or you chose to oppose the most easiest God who can be rejected with your intellectual capabilities.

Come one dear professors, try to think like carpenters.
It might help more than your title degrees.

The Dawkins experiment

Yesterday (28.12.2007) I decided to do The Dawkins experiment
You might not see it as an experiment, but I call it like that, because if you set plan for research and study on a subject you are actually experimenting.
Do and observe.

So, what was the experiment?
I simply opened a topic in Richard Dawkins website forum
My intent was to examen the thinking and logical capability of the atheists.
I wanted to see if there is any difference between religious and atheist behavior in a discussion.
It is interesting to see how the EGO reacts when is flatter or insulted.
When EGO feels flattered and when insulted?
And again – what is the difference between religious believer and atheist believer.
Yes they both are believers and we know it very well.

A week ago I had a conversation on “Freedom” with Freemasons on Facebook.
You won’t believe it but after I offered my understanding that Freedom is lack of desire they just deleted the topic.
There was no offense or bad language from my side.
It was the way I brought them to the idea and made it irrefutable.
Their EGO broke.

The same happened with Dawkins friends.
Well the topic is not deleted.
It reached 273 answers in two days.
Most of them of course troll sounding, but some of them with serious attempts to defend the atheist belief.

A very interesting result from the experiment is that although atheists claim that religions are creating disrespect between people, based on religious belief, they are more aggressive and disrespectable than any religious opponents.
They fail to prove that atheist are better communicators and community partners.

I hoped that atheists, putting their belief on science will show higher intellectual level and logical capabilities.
Not at all.
Most of them are religiously defending their belief with the primitive request “Prove it”.
If you give them prove they dismiss it not with arguments but with accusations.

[Example]

Humans moral values are first recorded as enforced by God rules in the scriptures talking about God.
Humans accepted the rules but did not accept God who gave the rules.
The world is living under the moral values of God without recognizing (accepting) God.

This is “argued” with the accusation that the one who wrote the rules did lie that they come from God.

Any way, you can read the discussion for yourself.

I have to admit that I used “dirty” ego techniques.
They worked like they do with 99% of the people regardless their belief.
When you address them with “my friend” they take it as a patronizing.
If you argue their statement and make it indefensible with the first strike, they lose their ability to move on to another field of the discussion. The EGO wants victory before moving forward. EGO can not move on other rails but on its own.
They use sarcasm but when you use it on them they warn you with ban.

Twisting meanings is the best defence of the weak person.
Atheists use it all the time.

I gave three simple points as base for God’s existence.

1) Humans moral values are given (first records) in scriptures stating “God exist”. They were given to the humans as enforced law from God. It is not serious to argue it with “they did lie about God, to make humans obey the law”. Your arguments can not be based on assumptions.

2) The scientific impotence to prove present moment makes any material based request irrelevant in connection with God existence. It unfolds endless field for discussing the material observation as a conscious delusion.

3) It is against the Logic to hold the statement “God does not exist”. Such statement has no logical end, while “God exist” eventually (theoretically) goes to an end. In other words, existence can be proved by observation, while none existence can not be proved – there is always possibility for existence.

Three points, based on historical facts, science and logic.
None of them was refuted. Instead they defined them as “preaching”.

In the Psychology text book can be found the explanation that humans tend to like other humans by intellectuality along with all the other signs.
But(!) humans don’t like people that are far more intelligent or perfect.
They feel uncomfortable in the presence of such people.

I found out that they not only feel uncomfortable, but become highly aggressive, mentally unstable and openly manifesting their dislike.
That fully applies to Freemasons and atheists.

Unexpectedly for some of you, religious people are dealing away better with their EGO when meeting person with higher intellectual level.
Their belief in God gives them a moral value which covers the intellectual gap and comforts the EGO.

I observed many interesting psychological and intellectual issues in my experiment, but the most surprising for me was the intellectual impotence of the atheists to differentiate between belief and knowledge

Atheists like most religious people don’t really understand the idea of God.
Religious people are imagining God in as many ways as atheists use to reject Him.
Presenting new explanation about God meets the same nonacceptance in both groups.

God, the most personal thing

I’m glad I started to go more often on Facebook.
I meet there some interesting people who make my life even more enjoyable.

Today I stumbled in to an interesting book with a colorful name “Soul Graffiti” by Mark A. Scandrette

There is interesting conversation in the beginning of CHAPTER 5: DARKNESS AND LIGHT: THE SCANDAL OF ETERNITY.
It is chat about God. Although some of the personalities in the conversation sound rough or even ignorant, I’d say that these people are the best motors of humanity and human spiritual and cultural elevation.

A person is never a problem.
The problem comes from the personal ignorance put in the crowd and accepted as an idea to follow.

When a saint say “Jesus died because of humans sin”, the weak man hears “Jesus died for our sin” and the crowd which sees no power in itself to resist the sin, elevates a Saviour, not an example to follow through which the salvation comes.
The crowd doesn’t need a path. It needs a hope.
Then the greedy monsters made the crowd to accept the sin in order to accept the Saviour who comes ONLY through the rules of the church.

The problem is not in the person.
The problem is in the personalized need of the crowd to be saved.
The hope that I (the crowd) have a God who will save me no mater of my personal sin.
Just accept the sin and the Saviour.

There is no escape unless the cattle runs out of the herd.
There is precipice on the end.

God is the most personal thing in humans life.
If you have it, He is the One Who was born with you.
If you don’t have it, He is the One Who will die with you.
He is always present in one of the ends.
And for the present He is your life and you are His Life.

Get out of the herd.
Astray is the way to find.

Islam and The Torah

Facebook posting about the Torah and Islam.

—

OK Faaizan, I don’t like to put good people in the corner

Mohammad did never say that the Torah was corrupted.
He blamed the Jews for not following the Torah.
He proved that Torah was unchanged by saying:
“Bring then the Taurat and read it, if you are truthful.”

So, the need to give the Koran is in this verses:

[6.155] And this is a Book We have revealed, blessed; therefore follow it and guard (against evil) that mercy may be shown to you.
[6.156] Lest you say that the Book was only revealed to two parties before us and We were truly unaware of what they read.
[6.157] Or lest you should say: If the Book had been revealed to us, we would certainly have been better guided than they, so indeed there has come to you clear proof from your Lord, and guidance and mercy. Who then is more unjust than he who rejects Allah’s communications and turns away from them? We will reward those who turn away from Our communications with an evil chastisement because they turned away.

Arabs couldn’t read the Torah because wasn’t written in their language.

Now you can read it because it is translated.
Now you can follow it, because you can read it.

The Torah corruption is not mentioned anywhere in Koran.
It is Muslim interpretation and justification of not following the Torah.
It is a way to separate from the Jews belief.
But Mohammad clearly said that He gives you what is in the Torah.

On the contrary, Jesus brings New Law, which is verified by many prophets and which directly is proclaimed in Jeremiah’s prophecy as The New Covenant.

Muslims should not (MUST NOT) blame the scriptures for corruption.
God’s word can not be corrupted.
It is humans who twist and corrupt the meaning of God’s word (teaching).
Even now the Christian church corrupts the teaching of Jesus, but it stays clear and unchanged in the scriptures.

Don’t ever say that God’s word can be corrupted, my friend.
Say “Do not twist the meaning of God’s words”

And now it appears (if you agree with me) that Muslims received the Torah but in a way which is understandable for Arabs and covers their culture, habits, and needs.
The base is the same “The True Word of God”.
The details deffer.

Don’t keep spite and anger toward Jews, because they are your brothers in Faith.
Don’t keep spite and anger toward Christians, because they are followers of Isa. Try to understand Isa’s teaching, and say not that it is corrupted.
It is the church interpretation which is corrupted and Christians belief and actions (of course not all of them

Have in mind that corruption comes from humans.
Muslims are humans too