Jesus Camp

[cybercoma]

Hmmm......Well ok you dont believe in God, Cybercoma. I do. The fact that people have killed in God's name is not God's fault. If you think things should be abolished because people could use them for ill, then we might as well have it all out and ban everything. That is a ridiculous position Cybercoma.

Actually, abolishing religion is stupid. I was getting the carriage before the horse on that one. The world would be better served by a consciousness raising where people voluntarily cast away the deceptions of religion.

Using Christianity as an example, I find it absolutely insane that educated adults could beleive that a fatherless child grew up to raise a man from the dead, walk on water and mysteriously come back from the dead himself. Each religion ultimately believes that it is the only truth and the rest are wrong, so how do we satisfy all these different religions? I mean, what about religions that believe in multiple gods and goddesses?

It's all scientifically and rationally impossible, and I also don't believe it is the skeptics' responsiblity to disprove God. Bertrand Russell's teapot in space analogy explains why:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Richard Dawkins, a well-known religious skeptic and scientist, had the following to say on the teapot theme:

The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first.

Ultimately, if that much torment and misery arises out of the belief in an obvious myth, someone needs to stand up and justify it with a reason that far outweighs, "because I do".

[cybercoma]

Darwinism is a load of assumptions built upon other assumptions. That's it. It may seem to a be a rational answer to you, but not to me. I don't believe consciousness arises naturally from cold dead matter. If you wish to abolish this belief then in your society I will be a criminal.

And religion is something more than assumptions stated as fact? You won't believe in Darwinism because you assume it's assumptions (it's not and anyone with any training in science understands this); however, you accept the assumptions of religion as an unquestionable truth?

[cybercoma]

Perhaps I should step back from this topic. I think I've made it abundandtly clear that I'm disgusted that children, who are far too young to understand what they're getting into, are being taught to have unquestioning belief or faith in something so ridiculous. Something that, unless their consciousness is raised, will cloud their judgement for the rest of their lives.

I apologize to anyone I may have offended with my own beliefs.

[Riverwind]

The reality is that we're simply not made up of two parts. We are physical, that's it. Chemical reactions in the brain explain moods and thoughts, etc.

I bet you can't prove that statement. Science cannot explain everything about the world today, however, you have faith that there is a scientific explanation for everything even if we don't know what it is. That blind faith in the power of science is really no different from a blind faith in a deity since it is impossible to 'prove' that a rational scientific explanation exists for everything.

Personally, I do not believe any religion knows the 'truth', however, I am not arrogant enough to presume that I know what the truth is either. Maybe we are all just a bag of chemicals and nothing more. Maybe I will be in for a nasty surprise when I die and meet Allah. Who knows? Who cares? I don't really care myself but I think that Pascal or Descartes had something really wise to say on this topic. It goes something like:

"If the atheists are right and there is nothing more then we lose nothing by believing in a diety while we are living. If the atheists are wrong and there actually is a diety then we risk losing everything by refusing to believe in this diety while living. Therefore, the most rational thing to do is beleive in a diety while living."a

Frankly, there is enough scientific evidence in the placebo effect and prayer that I can see a benefit in having faith while living even if there is nothing other than the physical world.

[DarkAngel_]

i like the tea pot, it is very funny, and also, i am scientific as well, this mind hood of reason does not make me believe science can prove everything, but that i with science can help explain things, it just takes longer, it is a way of seeing that does not require faith.

let me explain: today i saw that as a finger pointed up goes down forward, it becomes smaller, as in distance, so i presumed that the arch of an objects movement is the image of size, that matter is in fact a complex string of points that are only visible in a falling arch. i experimented by throwing a ball, it too had an arch, but i noticed it was of gravity, so in fact the distance was a change in matter, in that it moved so in effect had the energy to land at a velocity = or greater to the arch angle.

i did not expect this, and asked many if this was so, but i was proven wrong and today am at it again, i qeustion to the end, i expected no one result, while faith is more hope to a result, that is fortold, read below to see some quotes i made and got from various places.

remember that in the cerebral cortex, the imagination has a separate part to you calculation and deduction, though they are not limited to their bounds.

[DarkAngel_]

"it is not that i am truthful, but that i prefer truth" this is the priest that claims vision.

"every event is proceeded by prophecy, but without the hero, their is no event..." this is for the individual, who as fluidity fills the cup of destiny, "a destiny fulfilled is 1 less empty cup." And this is the will to destiny, not to me but all that search for things greater then themselves!

"truth is true, not to be as reality painted dry, the only way to truth is to see it for yourself!"

that is what the father of a god teaches him, and is reason for belief.

their is no hero for this passing, no destiny to fill, no gloom to overcome or unknown truth we must uncover, we choose too. that which is here is what is seen in our realm and is our only stand, our only perception. "we stand in awe before that which is not seen." that's what is greater then us.

at last this is the human mind, the phantom... in all reality 1 rule applies, we cannot trust ourselves, so why then call yourself the seer and knower? "to ME" is your claim, "to US" you all say together, but you have no proof, you see that is the divination of faith, to believe without proof, that is not always truth.

But judgment.

all that could have been. the world, about to speak, although... what to say?

we hesitate...

we crave an ending, there is more glory in an end then the pride of a life, even once a life fails.

years back i had a mental break down, i was hopeless, where as with faith you receive hope.

my reason for wanting death was diffrent... but the feeling is the same.

[betsy]

I do not believe in any way that there is a God, nor would I use God as metaphor for nature. I do not believe in "spirits" or a "soul" that exits the body upon death. Dualism is uneducated and childish and those who believe in it would benefit from having their consciousness raised. The idea that the steam rising from the wounds of those who die in battle was their spirit would be looked upon as nonsense nowadays since science can explain what is happening. There is no soul within our bodies, we are simply made up of complicated chemical processes. The soul is no more real than the toothfairy and the ghosts that fiction writers come up with. How adults can believe in an entity living within us that escapes when our physical bodies die is beyond me.

Some call it "soul", others call it "aura," and some refer to it as "essence"...but this is the first time I heard it referred to as "steam."

But again, cybercoma....how can you possibly dismiss its possibility when the human brain still holds a lot of mysteries yet to be discovered? Understanding of the human psyche...it's chemical processes...still unravelling?

Drawing a definite conclusion upon an "on-going" study or experiment, especially when technology as it improves every hour offers the possibility of unlocking mysteries, does not make any sense.

[betsy]

Let's presume for a moment that there is a divine being that has created all of this. What then created the creator? Many people feel all of nature is too complex to have happened by chance and that's why there is a divine creator. Unfortunately, that complicates things even further since something that created all of this must then be vastly more complicated than we are. Since something so complicated can't exist by chance, there must be a creator to the creator....and so on ad nauseum.

Why do you think someone had to have created the Creator?

And why do you assume the Creator is more complicated than we are, just because nature is too complex?

[betsy]

Darwinism, which progressively builds upon life, is the only rational answer to these questions.

Darwin is under attack!

JUNE 1996 NBC PRESS RELEASE:

"Controversy exploded in the academic community with the telecast of The Mysterious Origins of Man last February. Professors of science and anthropology from some of the nation's most prestigious colleges and universities voiced strong opinions about the validity of the special, which challenged long-accepted beliefs about man's beginning.

The program presents evidence suggesting that man may have made the climb from Stone Age to civilization more than once; that present-day man is just the latest in this cycle; and that Darwin's Theory of Evolution has some serious flaws.

"We expected some controversy when we produced this show," says producer Bill Cote, "but were not prepared for the enormous cry of outrage from some members of the scientific community."

http://www.mcremo.com/mysterious.htm

"The movement’s main positive claim is that there are things in the world, most notably life, that cannot be accounted for by known natural causes and show features that, in any other context, we would attribute to intelligence. Living organisms are too complex to be explained by any natural—or, more precisely, by any mindless—process. Instead, the design inherent in organisms can be accounted for only by invoking a designer, and one who is very, very smart.

All of which puts I.D. squarely at odds with Darwin. Darwin’s theory of evolution was meant to show how the fantastically complex features of organisms—eyes, beaks, brains—could arise without the intervention of a designing mind. According to Darwinism, evolution largely reflects the combined action of random mutation and natural selection. A random mutation in an organism, like a random change in any finely tuned machine, is almost always bad. That’s why you don’t, screwdriver in hand, make arbitrary changes to the insides of your television. But, once in a great while, a random mutation in the DNA that makes up an organism’s genes slightly improves the function of some organ and thus the survival of the organism.

Advocates of intelligent design point to two developments that in their view undermine Darwinism. The first is the molecular revolution in biology. Beginning in the nineteen-fifties, molecular biologists revealed a staggering and unsuspected degree of complexity within the cells that make up all life. This complexity, I.D.’s defenders argue, lies beyond the abilities of Darwinism to explain. Second, they claim that new mathematical findings cast doubt on the power of natural selection. Selection may play a role in evolution, but it cannot accomplish what biologists suppose it can."

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050530fa_fact

"SEATTLE--In an ironic greeting to the seven-part public television series "Evolution" that begins tonight, 100 scientists have declared that they "are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." The signers say, "Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based public policy center, compiled the list of statement signers (attached). Among other things, the long list may help to answer the contention of designated spokespeople for the series "Evolution" that "virtually all reputable scientists in the world" support Darwin's theory. Institute officials charge that officials of WGBH/Clear Blue Sky Productions have used that contention to keep any scientific criticism of Darwinism from being acknowledged or examined in the eight-hour series. "They want people to think that the only criticism of Darwin's theory today is from religious fundamentalists," said Discovery president Bruce Chapman. "They routinely try to stigmatize scientists who question Darwin as 'creationists'."

Discovery Institute commissioned the Zogby poll, though the survey itself was designed by the Zogby organization. It also included questions on education and "intelligent design," a theory that some scientific critics of Darwin support. (That theory makes no religious claims, but says that the best natural evidence for life's origins points to design rather than a process of random mutation and natural selection.) Discovery Institute last week also opened a special website (www.reviewevolution.org) to critique the WGBH/Clear Blue Sky series in a scholarly "Viewer's Guide." Discovery officials say that the website analyzes all program segments in the series and has uncovered numerous scientific and historical errors, exaggerations and omissions. Full results of the Zogby poll also are available on the website.

"The numbers of scientists who question Darwinism is a minority, but it is growing fast," said Stephen Meyer, a Cambridge-educated philosopher of science who directs the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture at Discovery Institute. "This is happening in the face of fierce attempts to intimidate and suppress legitimate dissent. Young scientists are threatened with deprivation of tenure. Others have seen a consistent pattern of answering scientific arguments with ad hominem attacks. In particular, the series' attempt to stigmatize all critics--including scientists--as religious 'creationists' is an excellent example of viewpoint discrimination."

http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/press...0Scientists.php

[DarkAngel_]

moved

[Remiel]

Don't get me wrong, cybercoma, I think that the Jews have the right idea, even if in practice they perhaps aren't that different from anyone else. Religion is a choice for adults, or maybe teenagers, but not for children. I mean, the original point of this topic was Jesus Camp, where they do exactly the kind of stuff both of us would find disgusting.

As for the endless loops of creators, I do not think that is really true. As it stands, there is no scientific reason for the universe, or existence, to exist. If, as the big bang theory and others theories hold, the universe started out as nothing, then why exactly does that nothing exist? Empty space is still something. It is (without resorting to n-theory dimensions or whatever, not something I have really explored yet) three dimensions. The fourth dimension, time, is supposedely a property related to matter, from what I understand. So, if there is nothing, presumably there is no time.

So, as opposed to the endless line of creators that came before, it may be that only one divinity is needed, that trascends scientific existence, that doesn't have to have a reason to exist. Perhaps that divinity becomes scientific existence as we know it, but the important thing is that it does not dependant on our reality.

[DarkAngel_]

As for the endless loops of creators, I do not think that is really true. As it stands, there is no scientific reason for the universe, or existence, to exist. If, as the big bang theory and others theories hold, the universe started out as nothing, then why exactly does that nothing exist? Empty space is still something. It is (without resorting to n-theory dimensions or whatever, not something I have really explored yet) three dimensions. The fourth dimension, time, is supposedely a property related to matter, from what I understand. So, if there is nothing, presumably there is no time.

nothing cannot exist... that is 1 fact me and several scientist types can agree with...

[Remiel]

Well, depends on which nothing you mean.

Empty three-dimensional space is still something, even if there is normal nothing occupying it. Real nothing would have to be normal nothing without any dimensions or defining factors. Or something like that.

[betsy]

Using Christianity as an example, I find it absolutely insane that educated adults could beleive that a fatherless child grew up to raise a man from the dead, walk on water and mysteriously come back from the dead himself.

Hey, maybe something was lost in translation along the way....or maybe those who'd written the bible missed out on something...overlooked another message from Christ.

Did it ever occur to you that Jesus was actually showing us an example, thus His famous words, "I am the Way."

That when He walked on water, and healed the sick, and mysteriously come back from the dead Himself....He's actually showing us "the way!" Giving a live demo...saying: "Look folks! This is what you can do!"

If some can move objects through telekinesis....who knows what else we can do! Faith-healing is already occurring in some places!

[cybercoma]

Don't get me wrong, cybercoma, I think that the Jews have the right idea, even if in practice they perhaps aren't that different from anyone else. Religion is a choice for adults, or maybe teenagers, but not for children. I mean, the original point of this topic was Jesus Camp, where they do exactly the kind of stuff both of us would find disgusting.

As for the endless loops of creators, I do not think that is really true. As it stands, there is no scientific reason for the universe, or existence, to exist. If, as the big bang theory and others theories hold, the universe started out as nothing, then why exactly does that nothing exist? Empty space is still something. It is (without resorting to n-theory dimensions or whatever, not something I have really explored yet) three dimensions. The fourth dimension, time, is supposedely a property related to matter, from what I understand. So, if there is nothing, presumably there is no time.

So, as opposed to the endless line of creators that came before, it may be that only one divinity is needed, that trascends scientific existence, that doesn't have to have a reason to exist. Perhaps that divinity becomes scientific existence as we know it, but the important thing is that it does not dependant on our reality.

I told myself I'd step away from this thread because these conversations make it hard for me to think rationally. I get worked up when I see grown adults believing in nonsense. But what you're explaining is the idea that God and science don't overlap and therefore you can't use science to disprove God. Most people who believe this would be the first to point to 'miracles' God has done on earth (which absolutely can be investigated through science), which breaks this idea of them existing on seperate plains.

Now that I read your post again, perhaps you're actually expressing a pantheistic view which is that God IS science, nature, the universe and all of its phenomena. Unfortunately, this is not religious belief in the sense that there is a sentient being in the sky that created everything, listens to and answers prayers, and makes miracles happen in our physical world.

Another thing, look at betsy's post:

"Living organisms are too complex to be explained by any natural—or, more precisely, by any mindless—process. Instead, the design inherent in organisms can be accounted for only by invoking a designer, and one who is very, very smart."

That designer is invoked because living organisms are 'too complex to be explained'; the designer is also too complex to be explained. Instead of answering the question about how complex organisms arrive, it further aggravates the question by invoking an even more complex being. Saying that 'the designer doesn't have to be designed' counters the argument, since the same could be said for complex living organisms -- they don't have to be designed. Indeed, science has shown that living organisms are not designed, they're built upon and as improbable as sentient life starting out of primordial soup is, the idea of an all powerful creator that we must worship being the answer is even more improbable.

[cybercoma]

If some can move objects through telekinesis....who knows what else we can do! Faith-healing is already occurring in some places!

James Randi.

[betsy]

If some can move objects through telekinesis....who knows what else we can do! Faith-healing is already occurring in some places!

James Randi.

Mind you, I wasn't talking about those slap-on-the-forehead kind of faith-healing. I'm thinking along the lines of holistic healing...which are being used now, although I don't know how well they do.

[DarkAngel_]

If some can move objects through telekinesis....who knows what else we can do! Faith-healing is already occurring in some places!

James Randi.

Mind you, I wasn't talking about those slap-on-the-forehead kind of faith-healing. I'm thinking along the lines of holistic healing...which are being used now, although I don't know how well they do.

oh i know! i saw a documentery on this, the hole: "i will take the sickness of the devil out a ya!" thing.

or are you talking about the "all faith" church at the hospital, or the death morning by rejoice.

i saw about a year back a disterbing event, in the hospital a preist trying to convert a islam family.

so the hole holy healing thing is very bright, but it divides us...

[betsy]

Mind you, I wasn't talking about those slap-on-the-forehead kind of faith-healing. I'm thinking along the lines of holistic healing...which are being used now, although I don't know how well they do.

oh i know! i saw a documentery on this, the hole: "i will take the sickness of the devil out a ya!" thing.

or are you talking about the "all faith" church at the hospital, or the death morning by rejoice.

I'm talking about this. And if I'm not mistaken, our healthcare cover this now, or there was a petition to have it recognized and covered.

"A. Holistic Healing is a term that can be easily interchangeable with many other names commonly used in the healing community such as:

• Alternative Medicine

• Complementary Medicine

• Holistic Health

• Integrative Medicine

Holistic or "wholistic" Healing approaches all parts of the individual, not just the physical aspect of a person where manifested illnesses are often most apparent. Although it may very well be the physical component of a person that people more easily recognize when problems arise through its discomfort or PAIN signals; the mental, emotional, and spiritual aspects of ourselves also indicate imbalances and dis-ease . No aspect (mind, body, spirit, or emotions) of a person is overlooked when an holistic treatment is sought.

Types of Holistic Healing Therapies and Treatments

Aromatherapy, Ayurveda medicine, natural diet, exercise, counseling, herbal remedies, homeopathy, acupuncture, naturopathic medicine, bodywork, energy-based therapies, prayerful intention, and traditional Chinese medicine. Explore the Holistic Therapies Index to learn about these therapies and others."

http://healing.about.com/od/faq/f/holistic.htm

In your previous posts, you have advocated strongly to question...not to be "mindless." Cybercoma had talked of his truth, his belief being in the scientific field...and his contempt for religious beliefs. All I did was address both your points together.

I guess if some people can accept psychology, including some psycho-babbles that come along with it, why would their mind be closed to something like faith?

Dark Angel, you urge us to question. Well, I'm sort of questioning....or contemplating...that there could be something more that Christ was telling us.

If He came as a man, then why would He be giving demonstrations of god-like feats such as walking on water, or healing the sick?

I never did know much of holistic healing, but in that link...there is also a therapy that's called "radical forgiveness." Forgiveness is one of the big message of Christ. Forgiving us as we forgive others.

When He said, "I am the Way." Maybe it means MORE THAN JUST the way to gain the entry to heaven.

Anyway, what about your chiropractor? Or those massage therapist? Can they not be called your modern-day "healers?" Look ma, no instruments! Just my bare hands!

Science and faith seem to be merging. There is nothing conclusive...we cannot just dismiss religious faith as balderash! We'll have to fully understands our own selves, our inner selves, our minds....what the human's FULL potential can be.

i saw about a year back a disterbing event, in the hospital a preist trying to convert a islam family.

so the hole holy healing thing is very bright, but it divides us...

What's so disturbing about that? At least the attempt at conversion was happening in a hospital...not in the middle of a football field. Aren't you, yourself, attempting to "convert" us?

I wouldn't call that a "division." In fact...the priest was attempting at unification.

[betsy]

When He said, "I am the Way." Maybe it means MORE THAN JUST the way to gain the entry to heaven.

He was big on FISH and WINE! In fact, He MULTIPLIED THEM BOTH!

What does science tells us today? EAT A LOT OF FISH and DRINK RED WINE!

[Remiel]

Hmmm...

Part of the original evolution of my views came from an analogy I read in, of all things, a fantasy novel. The analogy I beleive was of marbles. If you are playing marbles, and you aim and shoot, you know, or generally know, what is going to happen.

So say there is an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-seeing, deity. That deity creates the rules of the game, and sets the pieces and motion, but after that, no more intervention is required. The rules of the game (science) dictate what unfolds.

To me, to say God started the Big Bang, or whatever the prime event was, if that theory is wrong, is infinitely more elegant and beautiful than the Pop! It's there! theory. To me, it is much more in line with what a limitless being might do.

Now, perhaps where many would be offended by my theory is that it gives the illusion that there is in fact fate. Since I believe time would be a meaningless concept for something that has existed independant on this reality, it would be impossible for such a being to NOT know everything that willever come of its actions, for it exists simultaneously in all of those times at once. What is more happening is not exactly that everything is forced, but that everything happens as the natural sum of everything that happened before it. Similarly, that deity would be everywhere because it has existed independant of space.

If say, per chance, that God did want to guide his creation, there is perhaps a way to do it invisibly and undetecably. In quantum mechanic, or one of the other kinds of advanced physics, as near as we can tell, probability guides the universe. This I believe is the source of Einstein's famous quote about God and dice. Now, if God wanted to change something, perhaps all he would need to do is change the result of all those random occurences, and as long as they stayed within expected probabilities, it would be effectively invisible.

I'm not sure if the probability/randomness has been disproved recently, but if it was, further medling was hardly a required element anyway based on the rest of my hypothesis.

Perhaps that swings a little too close to " magical being " for you, cybercoma, but I do think it is as valid a theory as any other on how our " science " and the divine are -completely- compatable concepts.

[Riverwind]

To me, to say God started the Big Bang, or whatever the prime event was, if that theory is wrong, is infinitely more elegant and beautiful than the Pop! It's there! theory. To me, it is much more in line with what a limitless being might do.

Or you could imagine that the big bang was a result of a random collision between multi-dimensional objects floating through space we cannot percieve.

[Remiel]

But that still begs the question of why and how those extra-dimensional objects exist. Why do those extra dimensions exist? Why do any dimensions exist?

Actually, I suppose the extension would be that God creating the rules by which those multi-dimensional objects were governed and interacted, and so on and so on and so on.

[cybercoma]

Hmmm...

Part of the original evolution of my views came from an analogy I read in, of all things, a fantasy novel. The analogy I beleive was of marbles. If you are playing marbles, and you aim and shoot, you know, or generally know, what is going to happen.

So say there is an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-seeing, deity. That deity creates the rules of the game, and sets the pieces and motion, but after that, no more intervention is required. The rules of the game (science) dictate what unfolds.

To me, to say God started the Big Bang, or whatever the prime event was, if that theory is wrong, is infinitely more elegant and beautiful than the Pop! It's there! theory. To me, it is much more in line with what a limitless being might do.

Now, perhaps where many would be offended by my theory is that it gives the illusion that there is in fact fate. Since I believe time would be a meaningless concept for something that has existed independant on this reality, it would be impossible for such a being to NOT know everything that willever come of its actions, for it exists simultaneously in all of those times at once. What is more happening is not exactly that everything is forced, but that everything happens as the natural sum of everything that happened before it. Similarly, that deity would be everywhere because it has existed independant of space.

If say, per chance, that God did want to guide his creation, there is perhaps a way to do it invisibly and undetecably. In quantum mechanic, or one of the other kinds of advanced physics, as near as we can tell, probability guides the universe. This I believe is the source of Einstein's famous quote about God and dice. Now, if God wanted to change something, perhaps all he would need to do is change the result of all those random occurences, and as long as they stayed within expected probabilities, it would be effectively invisible.

I'm not sure if the probability/randomness has been disproved recently, but if it was, further medling was hardly a required element anyway based on the rest of my hypothesis.

Perhaps that swings a little too close to " magical being " for you, cybercoma, but I do think it is as valid a theory as any other on how our " science " and the divine are -completely- compatable concepts.

The idea your speaking about is called deism and it is no better than theism in the sense that it uses 'God' to fill in the gaps. This lazy God is not a part of the lives of people, doesn't answer prayers and has a completely hands off approach beyond the original creation. Darwinism is a far better answer to the origins of life, than any deist God.

Don't get me wrong, I will not say with absolute certainty that there is no God. I very well could be wrong, but as history goes it is no longer probably that there is a God. Science has provided many answers to questions that were attributed to God in the past. If people were content with that answer, we wouldn't understand half the things we do nowadays. Like I said earlier, the truth is beautiful; the magnificence of the universe is much more beautiful to me than God or religion.

[cybercoma]

But that still begs the question of why and how those extra-dimensional objects exist. Why do those extra dimensions exist? Why do any dimensions exist?

Actually, I suppose the extension would be that God creating the rules by which those multi-dimensional objects were governed and interacted, and so on and so on and so on.

I think you'd truly be interested in the book The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Although he is staunchly atheist, the book provides a lot of great information along the lines of the things you're touching on in this thread.

I highly recommend it. All these theories you have, they have been analyzed intensely by philosophers and scientists. Richard Dawkins talks about these things extensively in the book.

Check it out, let me know what you think.