This has been a great thread with all the various opinions on the thought of the poster. I'm still trying to decide which of the two schools of thought I should make my religion. I did recently read an interesting book on this subject, it's call "Biocentrism" by Robert Lanza, MD. I also just finished the Hawking book "The Grand Design." What to believe in? I decided to do my own study and posted my results at: http://nephilehi.blogspot.com/2011/1...d-religion.htm No, I'm not a Mormon, I just liked the name Nephi from reading their material. I am wondering about one thing and that is the process of reproduction seems to be most frequent throughout existence, from biological to the making of stars, etc. Maybe, just maybe, if there is a God, we are just in the process of how He reproduces. I guess we'll all have to wait to see (or not see) what the reality is when we die. But, until then, I'm sure the Universe is pleased with all this dialouge.

Read John Polkinghorne.

Well, I see that my post which included my blog on my study into cosmology & religion does not work. But, this one does if you want to take a journey along with a lay person in this matter. Somehow this made me believe in a probabilistic intelligent design process. http://nephilehi.blogspot.com/

In what connection? Does he support Rees's view on quantum state reduction?

Oh the mods deleted another one of my posts when it made a valid point albeit a side one.

I hope theists stop posting on here soon. The moderators are dictators on 2+2 now.

Excellent. So good to see RGT pick up a poster with an open mind.

I recommend Christian Universalism. It's probable we're not done evolving but something as complex as a human being has to be guided.

In some of the esoteric teachings I’ve run across, the cross is used to symbolize the seeming opposing views, where the horizontal bar denotes the quantitative aspect of existence and the vertical bar the qualitative aspect. So when a naturalist/scientismist like Lawrence Krauss states, “We’re just a bit of pollution . . . If you got rid of us, and all the stars and all the galaxies and all the planets and all the aliens and everybody, then the universe would be largely the same. We’re completely irrelevant,” while that’s true in a quantitative sense, that view hardly expresses what most feel about life, or their life, in a qualitative sense. That, in contrast to the emphasis on spirituality or spiritual growth of the individual that theists, mystics et al place, which has to due with the qualitative aspect of existence.

So I think people just fall in different places in that schema based on the significance, or lack thereof, placed on the objective or quantitative realm of existence compared to the subjective or qualitative realm of experience. But I think just looking at these varying worldviews in such a context removes the polemic, (at least in one’s own thinking, not necessarily with discourse).

Yeah, thanks, but I’d need the less formal version. At any rate I get stuck in line of thought where if the universe is all there is and the universe was ‘one’, then the universe and hence all there is (still) is one. (‘One’ in a holistice, non-numerical sense, whereby all there is, was and will be is right here, right now.)

To me the processess we observe happening in the cosmos and on earth taken as a whole look like reality is "trying" to drive itself toward greater and greater complexity and consciousness...the Omega point if you will. But there doesn't have to be an Omega point...that is there doesn't have to be a point where maxium complexity and consciousness have been reached because that point can be kept just off the horizon so to speak by continually creating and adding new facets and landscapes of reality.

If God exists, maybe he didn't create us so much as means of reproducing himself. Maybe God created us so that He could increase total complexity, consciousness, and knowledge. Perhaps continual creation is the means by which God exceeds all limitations. Your existence is an artifact of God being God.

Stu, I like the idea of an eternity of existence which never reaches the maximum of complexity or consciousness. For to know all there is to know or to experience would eventually lead to an existence of boredom. Unless, we Omega Beings receive love and joy in assisting others in this long journey of their development to their Omega Point and then they do the same, on and on forever as the number of new beings are infinite and we will never run out of them to love and assist. Also, I wonder if it is really possible to understand the trials and pain of others unless we have personally experienced this same specific pain or their joy for that matter. If this is so, then true eternal knowledge is not vicarious but experential. Thoughts?

On the face of it I agree with you. Would you say God's knowledge is subject to this requirment? There are some serious implications in assuming It is. With this premise an atheist can build a quite a powerful argument against many peoples conception of God.

Stu, I don’t mean to lower or degrade the power or attributes of God by saying eternal knowledge is not vicarious but experiential. I however struggle with the concepts of sin, eternal suffering, the purpose and meaning of our brief earthly life, and a God who knows the beginning to the end of all things. I do believe in free agency and a God who takes joy in His unknown knowledge of the future choices I make because of His gift of this agency to us. I also believe our minds are not wired, yet, to understand the concept of how an Unconditioned Being can exist and that we exist because of a condition. I did this extensive study of cosmology and religion and came away believing more firmly in a God with infinite love, mercy, forgiveness, and a God who will do nothing that is not in our best interest, even if that means allowing us to suffer during this earth life because of probability. Here is the results of my study: http://nephilehi.blogspot.com/ As I said prior, I’m not a Mormon nor do I belong to any church, I used NephiLehi because I just liked the names in my studies of the various religions. I could have used names from the Urantia or concepts from Process Theology. m

You got it. I get the love for the names of the hierarchy. I'm partial to Seraphiel myself.

I'm certainly no fan of Christianty, and prefer Islamic feminism approaches to the 21st. Always in pairs, right...

See, without Fatima, he`d probably have starved to death, lol.

As for fiction, Anne Rice`s Angel Time and Of Love and Evil is pretty decent fwiw.

Followup:

Consider Taoism. One is not necessarily singular. One, one hundred, one thousand, one million, so forth. Hope that helps.

-Time Traveler's Husband. (Splendour, it's nice to see your maturity and eloquence where it is now. You really have flourished.)