you say no because you hold this preconceived notion that, as in science, to find evidence of something to exist, it should have location, presence [or trace of it], etc., for it to be verifiable, etc., [fill in the conditions of scientific proof here]. but see, science is forcing the issue of materiality for what is held as something spiritual. and for that, you say god does not exist in scientific term. [aha, but then again, how well have you exhausted this search, knowing the expanding infinitude of the universe?]

no, i was not referring to god as nothing to come out from nothing. i meant our existence having to come from nothing. while you may argue that this very argument will lead back to the god of the gaps solution, i will not even invoke that. still, it is a question that is worth reflecting, for then you will realize the limits of science in explaining things: only at the material level. it could not explain why our very materiality can proceed from nothing, unless one holds the view of a big-bang-big crunch model of the universe, where the universe is in perpetual existence, and therefore one has to forego explaining the “beginning of things”.

However, to believe that there is God, and that God materialized out from nothing and therefore the answer to your question is “yes” contradict the scientific axiom that “nothing can come out of nothing” so that, to insist that there is God could not possibly be scientific but ‘psychic’, am I wrong?

I hope my question is a fair question, if not, my apology.

That’s a very interesting statement you made and quite baffling to me since you are, I think, is a believer.

Are you implying that a non-believer is more scientific in his/her stand, while the believer more psychic in her/his belief?

Sorry if I’m not talking sense with this question.

We remain aligned, especially the learning part. You ask your questions and I, on occasion, write outlandish things meant to provoke, and we stir up the new ideas.

Actually, some times you provoke with your questions, too. heh

Cheers.

Joe

Do you know the reason why I preferred to stick it out here in Nick’s blog, Joe? Because I want to learn. Lot’s of bright dudes here in FV whose wisdoms I can learn from, you included.

Well, the lead singers I can learn from also. But, the tseware-warewaps? Well, they’re entertaining.

Not to worry, Joe, I’m not encroaching, no, no, no, not at all, please.

Mine are just questions that need answers, because I want to be enlightened. Oh, I love asking questions, and my head is not closed to rational thinking I can assure you, though the irrational most times bounced off it.

Are arguments always win lose for you? Ryan provokes thought. It’s what he is paid to do here, eh? One with whom you disagree need not be thrown in a barrel, heaped with scorn.

Joe

“I believe, therefore it’s true.”

Well, I’d just append a “to me” on the end of the sentence and tell you that you are not authorized to define my reality for me. My reality is mine to define. Do you have any idea of the limits of the human brain? It only knows what it knows, which is infinitesimal in the total sum of all worldly knowledge, but it convinces you that you know best, better, more than the guy over there who has a different idea. Eh, and you haven’t even gotten to the part where brains and trees share some kind of cosmic ether. How you gonna get there? You are trying to draw too many rational limits.

Open your mind, don’t close it with rational thinking.

Joe