I recently heard something that I thought was interesting and wanted to open it up for discussion.

Each thing we see resonates at a different frequency. Thus, if we could find the proper frequency and change our bodies to that frequency, we could put our hand through a piece of wood. If that's the case, what about heaven. The universe is so immense that the closest star is billions of miles away. If heaven is not out there, what about right here? What if it resonates at such a high frequency we just can't see it? Maybe it's here.

What do you think about that?

Supposing Heaven is for real, I've never thought of it as a place present in our 'reality', but rather an extra-dimensional realm only accessible by divine means and, more the case than not, only after dying.

So regarding your theory about resonance (which I too observe as a potentially great force) I am more for the idea that a door, or portal or gateway if you like, could be opened to Heaven by use of the right frequency or pattern of frequencies; though a frequency or pattern that might only be obtainable through mystical means.

Question remaining: Will God allow it or will he be most displeased?

I would imagine that he would probably not be too pleased about it since heaven is supposed to be for those who have accepted Christ as their Lord. Suppose some scientist figured out a way to change the frequency of resonance of his body and found heaven. I really doubt that he would even make it past the gates. Instead, he would probably die, don't you think?

Using that threore yes. I agree with you wildjedi.

Each thing we see resonates at a different frequency. Thus, if we could find the proper frequency and change our bodies to that frequency, we could put our hand through a piece of wood. If that's the case, what about heaven. The universe is so immense that the closest star is billions of miles away. If heaven is not out there, what about right here? What if it resonates at such a high frequency we just can't see it? Maybe it's here.

Oh yeah! Heaven is the only thing we can concede from this? Crap! Why always taking something rationally promising and perverting it with some baseless assumptions, both relatively to science and religion. I see no point at all.

Originally posted by Homuncul
Oh yeah! Heaven is the only thing we can concede from this? Crap! Why always taking something rationally promising and perverting it with some baseless assumptions, both relatively to science and religion. I see no point at all.

Woah, hold your horses there, Homuncul. I'm sure wildjedi was just doing some harmless speculating on a hot Summer's day; he was not posting a serious thesis. Have you never yourself just sat and mused on abstract and weird ideas just for the heck of it?

Coming back on subject, I too think that God would be most displeased if one were to resonate his way into Heaven - it would be equal to the ambitions of the Tower of Babel....He sure didn't appreciate that one.

I read too much on quanta and waves properties ( and superfluidity specifically) to understand that today science can say quite surely that heaven is perhaps somewhere else.

I'm getting angry because of such a thin specification as heaven used. If some kind of the "realm of god" was there, heaven (as biblically understood as a garden of Eden) is just too simple for taking in any consideration. The realm of god itself is highly unprobable there, it has many understanding flaws that science can't work upon. And these things can't be mixed.

And I thought that this thread was for serious discussions. If willdjedi just wanted to post his harmless idea and not to say: "How do you like this simple idea. Look, it acts on the edge of science and religion. It looks for compatibility of science and religion I might add." I must interfere and say that religion and science are yet incompatible.

I read some works on compatibillity, and although authors of these works knew some things on evolution, archeology, genetics and physics, theology their ideas were easily refuted, both from scientific side and religious side. Generally from scientific side as they all are based on wrong assumptions, on not understanding terminology, on satisfying their egoes by bashing the most prominent scientists and most talented writers of the bible itself. I don't know how such ideas can come to birth at all.

I know I'm hard, but these are not just harmless speculating, but rather contains a very serious points for deabte. If that was originally ment than why not just put it rightly and not veiling it in some other "harmless" form

Originally posted by Homuncul
I know I'm hard, but these are not just harmless speculating, but rather contains a very serious points for deabte. If that was originally ment than why not just put it rightly and not veiling it in some other "harmless" form

This is intent vs perception.

As you say, science and the realm of religion are not compatible, at least not with our current level of technology. And that may be the point exactly, like it has been for centuries, that in retrospective the technology of the future has always seemed magical and impossible. Tracing back through history the majority of each generation has always regarded their time as being the pinnacle of technology and civilization, yet the future has always shown them wrong. So therefor this speculation: What if we in the future through technology could discover and explain God? We would no longer have to credit it all to the mystical and divine - we would live it....As we do now compared to the past.

A serious forum should not exclude farfetched speculations unless they're clearly refutable. I'd like to think that some of the greatest minds through history possessed a healthy imagination.

EDIT: Typos :mad:

Homuncul, do you believe in evolution? If so, where did the first, and I mean the very first objects come from? And how did the universe come into existence? By chance? Millions of years ago? What proof do any of the evolutionists have of that? What about the scientists? What proof do they have that the universe came out of some big bang?

Even though you directed the questions at Homuncul, I'm gonna take a shot at answering them - not on his behalf of course.

Originally posted by wildjedi
.....where did the first, and I mean the very first objects come from? And how did the universe come into existence? By chance? Millions of years ago? What proof do any of the evolutionists have of that? What about the scientists? What proof do they have that the universe came out of some big bang?

Your questions assume there is a beginning (and I surmise they assume an ending) of time/events. Eternity and infinity are unfathomable, yet that is nothing to say the Universe isn't so in time and space.

I don't claim unquestioned adherence to any of the scientific convictions about the nature of the Universe, but the one I entertain the most is that of the Universe pulsating in a (eternal?) cycle of expanding and contracting. Big Bang -> Big Collapse -> Big Bang and so on.

As for proof of Big Bang, science have deducted it from observing the movement of stellar objects in relation to eachother.

like i posted in the other thread, about what that guy said, if we all evolved by chance, and randomness how do you know you evolved right? Your mind, how do you know your thinking right? If everything is an accident, and we just randomly appeared, then theres no point to anything at all, not even living. Thats one reason why christianity is accepted, it gives you a reason to live.

Anyways, the big bang theory is being disproven. Many astronomers say its false now. Either way, if it is true, then where did the first little atoms come from? An explosion needs fire to burn, wheres the fuel? And it breaks the scientific law that says matter cannot be created, nor destroyed. I sort of disagree with it, but who knows. I think just simply growing is an example of new matter being created.. isnt it?


Matter is something that takes up space, well, doesnt a tree take up more space than its seed did?

Originally posted by wildjedi
Each thing we see resonates at a different frequency. Thus, if we could find the proper frequency and change our bodies to that frequency, we could put our hand through a piece of wood.
...
What do you think about that?

Complete and utter poppycock. I assure you that, if I resonated two crystals of identical frequency, they will not merge into one, pass through one or the other, or any of that new age bull.

The new age crap is clouding your critical thinking ability, so why bother pondering things as esoteric as heaven.

There is no evidence to suggest that such a concept exists. The concept itself appears to be a construct of some of the societies of the human animal. Moreover, it appears to be based largely on hope and wishful thinking as well as the inability to accept that the likely outcome of 70 - 100 years of life is an end. Period.

Once we are deceased, there is no evidence to suggest with any conclusivity that there is any form of afterlife, heaven, reincarnation, or eternal .

Accepting the inevitable end would make our societies a lot more liveable. People would: live as if this were the most meaningful thing of their existances; take better care of their bodies; show more kindness and compassion to others; and try to leave behind better legacies (since this is the only way to "go on living" as it were).

Instead, we cling to the idea of second chances, salvation, forgiveness by a diety that will "love us forever" if we only "believe" in it, meet a set of minimum standards and have "eternal life," etc.

Still, there's a better chance of there being a heaven to go to than the idea that by simply modulating a frequency of one object to that of another object so as to "pass through" it.... That stuff doesn't even go over well in science fiction.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
like i posted in the other thread, about what that guy said, if we all evolved by chance, and randomness how do you know you evolved right? Your mind, how do you know your thinking right? If everything is an accident, and we just randomly appeared, then theres no point to anything at all, not even living. Thats one reason why christianity is accepted, it gives you a reason to live.

We know we've evolved right because our evolution is a direct response to our environment; we are of this existence, we're a part of it, not something cast in from somewhere else. Our mind and its thoughts are naturally included in this, ergo there is no right or wrong about it - there just is.

And yes, there is no point to our existence other than what we subjectively make for ourselves, Christianity being one such subjective point, and that's all it is, a subjective, not ultimate, reason to live.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Anyways, the big bang theory is being disproven. Many astronomers say its false now. Either way, if it is true, then where did the first little atoms come from? An explosion needs fire to burn, wheres the fuel? And it breaks the scientific law that says matter cannot be created, nor destroyed. I sort of disagree with it, but who knows. I think just simply growing is an example of new matter being created.. isnt it?

Again an assumption of time/events having a beginning. The Big Bang theory does not entail creation of matter, only dispersal. Just before the explosion all matter of this Universe was compressed into a single lump smaller than a pinhead. Growing is not new matter being created, it's matter being added.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Matter is something that takes up space, well, doesnt a tree take up more space than its seed did?

Indeed it does, for matter has been added in its growth.

I believe I only have one life, thus I eat what I wish I do what I wish(within reason:p) and I try to be happy no matter what.
the reason is because I don't want to spend my life be cautious about everything, I don't want to spend my life stuck in a confined building such as an office or a school but I do it with enjoyment by seeing my friends and avoiding doing tons of work, just enough to get by. if you watch the movie office space, the part where he says I don't believe humans were meant to spend their lives stuck in offices... (that whole thing), you'll understand kind of what i'm talking about.



P.S. I realize I'm slightly incoherent

oh and I live my life each day as though it is my last.

Jubatus:
As you say, science and the realm of religion are not compatible, at least not with our current level of technology. And that may be the point exactly, like it has been for centuries, that in retrospective the technology of the future has always seemed magical and impossible. Tracing back through history the majority of each generation has always regarded their time as being the pinnacle of technology and civilization, yet the future has always shown them wrong. So therefor this speculation: What if we in the future through technology could discover and explain God? We would no longer have to credit it all to the mystical and divine - we would live it....As we do now compared to the past.

I'm not against something that gives a breakthrough to science. But you see the "theory of divine" is more limitating than setting free. And I think wildjedi ment biblical god which I can't digest. We have to broaden our understanding of god before we can try our scientifically directioned imagination on him. Therefore it will not be god (as commonly understood) we would be talking about. Bible can not give any explanation rather than faithful. And here lies the flaw.

If there was a religion based not solely on faith, but also explained implicitly why it's basis is true, I would listen seriously to any idea such a religion would produce. But I guess such religion is restrictly impossible.

A serious forum should not exclude farfetched speculations unless they're clearly refutable. I'd like to think that some of the greatest minds through history possessed a healthy imagination.

Sure they did. But some ideas were truely absurd. I guess it will always be that relative. So you're saying that wildjedi is probably our messiah but noone would know of it till the right time comes. It's too much uncertainty with you again.:D

wildjedi:
Homuncul, do you believe in evolution? If so, where did the first, and I mean the very first objects come from? And how did the universe come into existence? By chance? Millions of years ago? What proof do any of the evolutionists have of that? What about the scientists? What proof do they have that the universe came out of some big bang?

Push. Push. I will not start another evolution/creation debate. I'd just say that what I think and believe doesn't matter. But I believe it's knowable and I'm convinced science can bridge it.

So where did the first bit of something that later became matter and energy come from? It came from singularity where our physics corrupt. (there is a chance in this decade that scientists would recreate singularity in the lab and study it. This will be the greatest thing ever).

As for other irrelevant questions, you have to question yourself first, what universe does Bible discribe to you? Is it autonomous, is it truelly complex, is it selfsustaining, is it promising, is it developing, and what justifyes it if not blind faith which is only a justification for not being able, not trying, not wanting to understand things deeper and wider.

Science forms structure of knowledge. Religion forms a structure of neglecting knowledge and dictatorship. Science enlightens, religion reduces and constricts.

And yeah Big Bang is proven, but not the way Jub pointed (lazerbrain :D), but with monitoring background radiation of the universe. Some time ago (in 2003) more accurate measurements were made and the age of our universe was determined, if I'm not mistaken - 13.7 billion of years. A good result I might add. Can't wait for the Crunch to start.

lukeskywalker1:
Anyways, the big bang theory is being disproven. Many astronomers say its false now. Either way, if it is true, then where did the first little atoms come from? An explosion needs fire to burn, wheres the fuel? And it breaks the scientific law that says matter cannot be created, nor destroyed. I sort of disagree with it, but who knows. I think just simply growing is an example of new matter being created.. isnt it?

1)Big Bang is disproven
2)Many astronomers say so
Therefore Big Bang is disproven, qed

Either way, if it is true, then where did the first little atoms come from?

They say it was a singugularity :p

An explosion needs fire to burn, wheres the fuel?

Burned out? Fire in space, are you mad? :D

And it breaks the scientific law that says matter cannot be created, nor destroyed.

Funny laws you got there. Matter/Energy can't be destroyed, that's true. Matter can be formed out of energy, and energy out of matter. E= mc^2, dude! And matter/energy wasn't ever created there (for singularity such terminology is invalid), it was of infinite mass and density.

Jubatus:
I don't claim unquestioned adherence to any of the scientific convictions about the nature of the Universe, but the one I entertain the most is that of the Universe pulsating in a (eternal?) cycle of expanding and contracting. Big Bang -> Big Collapse -> Big Bang and so on.

Oh yeah, you're beloved circularity, you should really try aikido. You'd probably gain success there or at least kill someone with your concept.:D

SkinWalker:
Instead, we cling to the idea of second chances, salvation, forgiveness by a diety that will "love us forever" if we only "believe" in it, meet a set of minimum standards and have "eternal life," etc.

Good point. Let's call this "desease" a theory of procrastination.

I can't remember any thread being so entertaining :p

Originally posted by Homuncul
I'm not against something that gives a breakthrough to science. But you see the "theory of divine" is more limitating than setting free. And I think wildjedi ment biblical god which I can't digest. We have to broaden our understanding of god before we can try our scientifically directioned imagination on him. Therefore it will not be god (as commonly understood) we would be talking about. Bible can not give any explanation rather than faithful. And here lies the flaw.

Indeed, if science were to discover God it would no doubt prove him greatly misinterpreted and misunderstood as concept.

Originally posted by Homuncul
Sure they did. But some ideas were truely absurd. I guess it will always be that relative. So you're saying that wildjedi is probably our messiah but noone would know of it till the right time comes. It's too much uncertainty with you again.

Duh, that was not an argument in the defence of wildjedi; he has proven himself of the intellectual level of lukeskywalker1, unfortunately. Once again you're putting words in my mouth, and I will ask you once again to not do that please. And I've never had too much uncertainty, it is you carrying too much faith in subjective knowledge.

Originally posted by Homuncul
And yeah Big Bang is proven, but not the way Jub pointed

Well, if my statement wasn't the proof it helped confirming it.

Originally posted by Homuncul
Oh yeah, you're beloved circularity, you should really try aikido. You'd probably gain success there or at least kill someone with your concept.

One can question why you're now resorting to base mocking :rolleyes:

So you're saying that wildjedi is probably our messiah

I, being wildjedi, strongly disagree with this statement. I am no messiah, especially since the Messiah has already come to earth. I'm just his servant waiting around until he comes back.

Getting a little more on track again, what is so difficult about God? What are you having a hard time figuring out?

Jubatus:
One can question why you're now resorting to base mocking

I just wanted some calambur here because one of the principles of aikido is circular movements, that you might like. I also wanted a bit irony on myself and abit of sarcasm towards you. It should have been a joke..... ah...... laugh.........hahaha.........comon people...... what's your problem...... I failed.:(

wildjedi:
Getting a little more on track again, what is so difficult about God? What are you having a hard time figuring out?

There is nothing to figure out that hasn't already been figured. I can understand how a man can believe blindly and how difficult it is to get rid of a bad habbit. I think faith is just a bad habbit.

And there is a mechanism of a habbit (and whole human perception). Different experiences have different neuron connections between them in the brain. Different situations in our life can associate much easier therefore with these experiences than with others. And everytime a religious person wants to elaborate a situation he would momentarily be directed to the experience of divine.That's why all religious people see everything as divine and total science freaks are such sceptics about anything. The problem here is that both sometimes are incapable to perceive the picture rationally (christians more often than others). The balanced situation is where the connection is similarly high in all regions, dealing with all experiences (this situation unprobable however). And probable solution for this is hard thinking and viewing everything from different angles.

Thorugh time due to these unequal preferences we form our individual worldview (noones' perfect). Mine is realistic one, yours - christian. And this strong difference between us will stop us from convincing each other. That is really the thing we should think about as a problem and not the question of whether science is right and religion is wrong.

So strong preference to divine is symptom of a desease. We need to stop limitating us with only these associations, moving and developing in all directions. In the same way we must stop our sceptisism of classical science towards multiverse just because our brain has different preference, blinding us from the truth.

Belief in a heaven is a self defense mechanism used by those who are unable to face the reality that once we die, we blink out of existence.



Up side of not believing in heaven? you don't have to believe in a hell.


There is NO JUSTICE, JUST US.

We know we've evolved right because our evolution is a direct response to our environment; we are of this existence, we're a part of it, not something cast in from somewhere else. Our mind and its thoughts are naturally included in this, ergo there is no right or wrong about it - there just is.

hmm, i guess thats true, theres nothing to compare it anyways... whether our minds think correctly or not.


And yes, there is no point to our existence other than what we subjectively make for ourselves, Christianity being one such subjective point, and that's all it is, a subjective, not ultimate, reason to live.

Well, its good enough for millions of people.

Belief in a heaven is a self defense mechanism used by those who are unable to face the reality that once we die, we blink out of existence.


Then why are millions of christians willing to die for God?


The problem here is that both sometimes are incapable to perceive the picture rationally (christians more often than others).

The way i see it is no one in this forum cant (usually) look through different eyes. If you were to look and see things the way a christian would, with out actually believeing it, and the christians to see things the way you do, with out believing it, we would be able to possibly reach an understanding ;) I do this... somethimes.

So anyways, i dont think thats a fair statment, unless you can look through christian eyes.

Getting a little more on track again, what is so difficult about God? What are you having a hard time figuring out?

Heh, they base everything on what they see. If god would appear in front of them, then i bet anything they would believe it. They need something they can touch, see, smell, or hear.

If its not that, then they are simply scared its right, or they just dont want to change. Or maybe they just dont understand any of it, which is fine, you dont need to understand to become, only believe, the knowledge comes in time.


Read my convo's in that jediism thread, notice what i say, and compare it to now. All i could say was if its not in the bible, it isnt true (that depends on what we are talking about) just so you know, that convo took place before the senate forum was made, or at least before i checked this forum ;) Ive learned a lot sinse then about christianity, and other religions, cultures... and whatever.

Up side of not believing in heaven? you don't have to believe in a hell.

Hang on a sec, you post why its good not to, but you dont post why its good to believe.

There is nothing to figure out that hasn't already been figured. I can understand how a man can believe blindly and how difficult it is to get rid of a bad habbit. I think faith is just a bad habbit.

What do you know? I cant see you knowing too much about christianity, other than what you perceive. Im not talking about the basics (theres a god, creation, flood, jesus dying for us, stuff liek that) Im talking about what it means to be a christian, what it takes.

And everytime a religious person wants to elaborate a situation he would momentarily be directed to the experience of divine.

I dont ALWAYS. Remember my examples? they had nothing to do with God, unless God was the focus (or, i was trying to get you to understand something about God EX: the hell thing...)

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
So anyways, i dont think thats a fair statment, unless you can look through christian eyes.

What if one used to look through christian eyes? And then one became educated? Would not one's memory allow them to understand the christian perspective?

Not every agnostic and atheist you meet is ignorant of religious ideals and concepts. In fact, few are.

lukeskywalker1:
So anyways, i dont think thats a fair statment, unless you can look through christian eyes.

No problem here. I've been christened, and had a pretty good religious upbringing in a pretty religious and even superstitious family. Since the age 5 to 14 I was faithful. Or do you consider boy's faith to be insignificant? After that period I questioned faith, and not because I was pushed to it, on the contrary. I did it as a natural point in my development. I resolved the problem

Heh, they base everything on what they see. If god would appear in front of them, then i bet anything they would believe it. They need something they can touch, see, smell, or hear.

If its not that, then they are simply scared its right, or they just dont want to change. Or maybe they just dont understand any of it, which is fine, you dont need to understand to become, only believe, the knowledge comes in time.

I don't base my world view on what I see, hear and smell. I'm not an INDUCTIVIST. I'm for healthy competition. My world view is based on what gives better explanation for reality, on better fundamentality.

It's not the matter of being scared of what's right. I'm looking for what's right with a method that showed through 7000 years it's validity, rationality and gave such an enormous impact on all aspects of our existence

If biblical god would have appeared before me, I would have to question him as he would present a problem of unexpected and implicitly unexplained thing (both in Bible and in science). I would have to test him to know he's real and not some monkey in the corner sending radio translations into my brain making me believe in him standing before me and furthermore keeping faith in him (more important here is WHO THE HELL gave this monkey a translator???)

But all these conclutions hold no sense at all, cauze they are made with wrong assumptions, that god is what Bible or catholicism say is true. Superstition based on fear of death, elaborated and perverted by the structure of Holy Church to control it's worshippers.

In the end I would like to assure you that i believe in god, but not the biblical one. And I feel no need in Christ, The God, or Holy Church to keep my faith. I don't feel the need to be saved by some messiah. I can only save myself for myself, and it would matter only to myself and nobody else. As I posted before if god was a fish can I would believe in him, and if this fish can started our universe and I understood implicitly how it's possible and why, and there were no unsatisfying things about such theory (like for example in quantum theory and not only there the situation where a fish can is a beginner of a universe and holds all of its sectrets is highly absurd... did you know?) I would accept it as a better explanation for reality.

If you could convince me that your method of faith is better I would go whereever you want. But I guess you can't

You blamed us for a nonability to change. And now look at your stagnant faith.

I forgot one thing....

What do you know? I cant see you knowing too much about christianity, other than what you perceive. Im not talking about the basics (theres a god, creation, flood, jesus dying for us, stuff liek that) Im talking about what it means to be a christian, what it takes.

I'd say I always want to know more. But knowing is nothing without understanding. For some things you don't have to know much to understand. So tell me what it takes to be christian? Is it as difficult as reading books or training your muscles?

If god would appear in front of them, then i bet anything they would believe it.

I'm not so sure. In the bible, Jesus did many miracles, but many of the people still wouldn't believe. There was God in human form, but they couldn't see it. If that's the case, why would seeing him again make any difference? Are people more sensitive now? I'd say if anything, they are even more stone eared, thanks to science and other such things.

I'd say if anything, they are even more stone eared, thanks to science and other such things.

That's why I sometimes stand before the choice of bashing religion

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Well, its good enough for millions of people.
I've made this point before, but since when does more support = truth? China and India (together 2/3 of world population) could decide they believe that the sun revolves around us, but it wouldn't make it true.
Then why are millions of christians willing to die for God?
Reinforcement. Of habits, of beliefs, of a system that encourages you not to question it (or you'll burn in hell).
The way i see it is no one in this forum cant (usually) look through different eyes. If you were to look and see things the way a christian would, with out actually believeing it, and the christians to see things the way you do, with out believing it, we would be able to possibly reach an understanding ;) I do this... somethimes.
Well put. The problem is that it's most religious folk that often times have trouble understanding the opposite side. True science-minded people must admit to all possibilities and keep an open mind... even to religious explanations.
Heh, they base everything on what they see. If god would appear in front of them, then i bet anything they would believe it. They need something they can touch, see, smell, or hear.
That's simply not true. Science is based on what can be proven, and the 5 senses can be deceived quite easily (just go to any half-decent magic show).
If its not that, then they are simply scared its right, or they just dont want to change. Or maybe they just dont understand any of it, which is fine, you dont need to understand to become, only believe, the knowledge comes in time.
No one is scared of change. Being science-minded requires one to accept change quite often as new information comes along. "You don't need to understand," seems like a good Church policy. No one will question you, and they won't question their beliefs. Keeps everyone manageable.
"The knowledge comes in time." It sure did, but religion was a bit too narrow minded to answer the questions I had about that knowledge. They just kept telling me, "I don't need to understand, I just need to believe."
All i could say was if its not in the bible, it isnt true Automobiles aren't mentioned in the bible, yet i've seen quite a few of them that run just fine.
Ive learned a lot sinse then about christianity, and other religions, cultures... and whatever.
I'd be interested in hearing what you've learned about... whatever. Is whatever fascinating? What new insights did it award you about the world and your own beliefs?
What do you know? I cant see you knowing too much about christianity, other than what you perceive. Im not talking about the basics (theres a god, creation, flood, jesus dying for us, stuff liek that) Im talking about what it means to be a christian, what it takes.
It might surprise you to learn that many agnostics/atheists were religious (yes, even Christian) for years before refining their views. Many of the agnostics here are former Christians, myself included.
Besides, Christians can't even agree on what it means (and what it takes) to be a Christian. There are thousands upon thousands of Christian denominations and smaller sects around the world, some of which with extremely different viewpoints.
Some which don't even believe Jesus was the son of God - that he was just a regular man. Sounds crazy, but that's where we got the first big split in Christianity. Greek Orthodox Christians think he was a man, Roman Catholics think he was divine.
Protestants and Catholics continue to kill each other in Northern Ireland - perhaps we should ask them what it means to be a Christian? Because some of them think "what it takes" includes killing your fellow man (or woman).

All i could say was if its not in the bible, it isnt true

Automobiles aren't mentioned in the bible, yet i've seen quite a few of them that run just fine.

They weren't around during the time that the Bible was being written, were they?
Another thing that might interest people, is that there is another thing that some Christians believe, but it's not in the Bible. Some Christians believe that before the Creation recorded in Genesis, God used the earth for something else. THAT sure isn't in the bible, is it?

Originally posted by Homuncul
That's why I sometimes stand before the choice of bashing religion

I apologize for what I said, Homuncul. I was feeling a little bit discouraged and angry at the time that I wrote that. I'm not perfect. In fact, I'm nowhere near it and I get angry easily. The better way to state that is:

People would be less inclined to believe God if he showed up now than back when Jesus was here thanks to science.

Sorry that I got angry and I'll try to think about what I write next time.

Originally posted by wildjedi
THAT sure isn't in the bible, is it?
No, it sure isn't. But neither is anything on the laws of genetics, physics, gravity, etc. And those things did exist back then.
People would be less inclined to believe God if he showed up now than back when Jesus was here thanks to science.
Not true. If you'd read anything about what we said about science, you'd know that it's open to any and ALL new information.
A supposedly mythic deity descending to earth would obviously fall deeply into that category.

I, for one, am continually fascinated by the power that myth has over humans. I'm reminded of an anecdote I once heard Joseph Campbell offer during a talk he gave... it goes something like this:

There was once a tent at the Barnum & Bailey's circus that was for the Freak Show and everyone would line up to see the "freaks" for 50 cents and the tent itself would quickly fill to capacity. There was so much to see and people were so interested, that they wouldn't leave and the tent would just get more and more crowded. So someone got the idea to change the sign that read "Exit" to read "Grand Egress" instead. Then everyone went through to see what was there!

He went on to explain that this is what mythology does for humanity... it puts "Grand Egress" on the exit sign of our lives. Death will be wonderful and everyone will be playing harps and everyone will meet you there and so on.

Mythology endures in every society... typically only the mythology of others is recognized as such, however. One considers one's own mythology to be religion and factual.

Very true SkinWalker - very true.

Very often, fundementally religious people are clearly able to see the contradictions and illogicality of other faiths - but as soon as the spotlight is turned on their own faith, it is suddenly impossible for these same people to see the contradictions and illogicality in their own beliefs - as if the rational parts of the brain are suddenly powered down.

Of course - as soon as a different topic is discussed, the logical parts of the brain power right back up again...

...and I know this very well, as I was exactly the same way earlier in life.

This is what 'fundemental' religion does - it seeks to disable rational thought so that the ability of individuals to determine truth for themselves is impaired.

One clear example of this that was taught to me when I was younger:

If someone discusses your faith with you, and makes it appear to be unfounded though modern, or scientific thinking, they are actually either agents of the devil, or under his influence. You must not listen to their deceitful forked-tounge and simply walk away from the conversation

In other words - by all means listen to modern science, modern theories etc. UNLESS any of these bring your religious beliefs into question. At this point you must ignore all logical thinking...!!

Up side of not believing in heaven? you don't have to believe in a hell.

Not necessarily. There might be a hell and no heaven.

Sweet dreams everyone!

Point is, the Muslim/Christian belief in the afterlife (many Jews today do not believe in a literal afterlife, though some still do) is not the only belief about it.

Which is why there are problems with griff's statement (not to insult your personal beliefs of course) and Pascal's Wager.

And religion is not just about death, it's about birth and life as well. Perhaps a positive afirmation of religion is "how to live one's life." Perhaps it's more difficult in America because there are so many people who reserve religious observance to big occasions like weddings and funerals and one hour a week. In other parts of the world its often more integrated into the society or how the person lives (and not just in theocratic states either).

Anyway, on another point:

Besides, Christians can't even agree on what it means (and what it takes) to be a Christian. There are thousands upon thousands of Christian denominations and smaller sects around the world, some of which with extremely different viewpoints.
Some which don't even believe Jesus was the son of God - that he was just a regular man. Sounds crazy, but that's where we got the first big split in Christianity. Greek Orthodox Christians think he was a man, Roman Catholics think he was divine.

Sorry, but this is completely wrong. Not the part about denominations, there are 30,000+ Christian denominations in the world (including independent churches). The part you got wrong was in Orthodox vs. Catholic beliefs.

Catholics (both Roman and Eastern) believe that Jesus is the son of God, the second person of the Trinity, and thus divine, but also fully human, since he was born of a human woman (the Virgin Mary).

Orthodox Christians (Russian, Greek, African, etc) believe the SAME THING.

Where the two differ are on essentially these points:

-The authority of the Pope. Catholics believe that the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) should be in charge of the whole church. Orthodox are organized in smaller units under Patriarchs (sort of like Archbishops), and believe in a more "concilior" (council) type of government. You may have seen the Patriarch of Constantiople on TV talking with the Pope (together trying to smooth out centuries of misunderstanding) but he's really not "the" head of the Orthodox church, just a leader with a lot of prestige in it.

-Role of the Holy Spirit. In the creed that Catholics say, they say of the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son." Orthodox say "from the Father." Seems pretty minor, but it was a fiery debate at the time and some theologians still argue about it.

Other than that, the rest of the arguments tended to be cultural and stylistic. These are not reasons to break up a church, but simply added to the alienation they felt from each other.

For example Orthodox services are often in Greek. Roman Catholic masses were in Latin (this changed of course after Vatican II when local languages were allowed). I talked with a Orthodox cleric when I was in high school and he told me that he was very upset about the fact that a Catholic priest says mass "backwards" (meaning he's standing facing the people instead of how he should be, which is facing away from them). He also complained about the pews (he wanted to make people stand the whole time) but he allowed it because people couldn't handle it.

Orthodox also do the sign of the cross "backwards" (by Catholic standards). That is the horizontal part is reversed (right left instead of left right) IIRC (you can confirm this by watching Orthodox clerics on TV shown doing it this way).

Orthodox churches look different inside. In a Catholic church you'll usually see statues of various saints, whereas in an Orthodox church you usually see paintings with gold trim (called "icons"). They are really very beautiful, but an entirely different style. Behind the altar there is an "icon screen" a wall behind which the clergyperson will go to get the bread for communion that often features icons on it. The part about the priest facing the congregation was changed in the Catholic rite after Vatican II.

Interestingly, after the 1054 split between the Catholic and Orthodox, some of the Orthodox churches "came back to the fold" and apologized to the Pope, these became the (22 IIRC) "Eastern Rite" churches, that are fully Catholic, yet practice in the same "style" (see cultural examples above) as the Orthodox do. Also they have optional celibacey for their priests.

After the split, the Pope and the Patriarchs excommunicated each other, but recently in the 1960's they declared the excommunications null and void, in an effert at reconciliation. Sadly today many still oppose reconciliation, as evidenced by the fact that when the John Paul II visited the Patriarch of Constantiople, many clergy picket in the streets yelling at the Pope to go home and how he was unwelcome.

Okay, history lesson aside, there ARE some Christian denominations that believe Jesus was not divine+human but only human (or only divine). The Gnostic sect (which existed in the first and second centuries and has continued to exist as a minority to the present day with some new converts in recent years believed Jesus had no physical body, since they believed matter to be evil, trapping the "pure spirit" inside. To them he was fully divine, and probably simply "appeared" on earth, rather than being born. His death was also most likely an illusion.

Modern day Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus is God. I do not fully understand their view, but it runs something along the line of Jesus perhaps being angelic or semi-divine ("a god" but not "THE GOD"), though commonly people refer to their belief as "Jesus was just a good man/prophet."

Mormon belief allows for many gods (with little g's again, rather than the God with a big g), and to them Jesus was just one of these. A man who achieved divinity and was called "son", perhaps long ago, but not necessarily the ultimate deity.

There were dozens of smaller sects that had beliefs such as these, but most of them dwindled in popularity or were persecuted out of existence in the early years of Christianity.

Muslim beliefs about Jesus are pretty interesting as well, but I'll leave off on that for now, since I'm going way on a tangent here as it is...

Someone once said
"Religion is regarded by the common people as TRUE, by the educated as FALSE and by the rulers as USEFUL"

I think this is a very good sentence...

And a clarification about the so called big bang

In the theory it was not an explosion as we see them here but and expansion of space and time. Thus no fuel is/was needed.

The reason why people believe in gods/religion all in all is more often because they're taught to belive as children, and it's easy to make them believe stuff. Including that there are giant birds that feed upon seven year olds like I did to my sister when she was seven :P

And lastly I think there is no proof at all that a god of any kind would exist, or that the events in the bible (or any other holy book) are true.
Someone said to me "But the Bible is the proof!" once when I put this up on another forum with a similar subject.
How can this be? I ask myself. If the greeks, egyptians and romans had their sacred books that they said were true, and other religions (noone named, noone forgotten) now say they are false, how can we be sure these new writings aren't false too? I mean, anyone can write a book with gods and prophecies and say "This is true and a holy writing". The only thing he then needs is people who he can convince that it is true. When he's got enough followers he can shove this writing in the throats of others.
What's needed are someones to convince, and someone convincing who can convince them.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to convince you (pun not intended) that religion is wrong or that you can't believe what you want, I just don't see anything that can be proven and puts up my own point of view.
What I hate though are people shoving their beliefs into the throats of others. But on the other hand, if noone did that no new theories about anything would be presented... Bah, you get the idea (I hope...)

Ever been a victim of these people trying to make you follow another belief by coming to your door and giving you leaflets? Grrrrr.... Those should be put up on a line and be run over by an AT-AT or something....

"Religion is regarded by the common people as TRUE, by the educated as FALSE and by the rulers as USEFUL"

This person of course had never heard of religious social reformers. ; )

In America the civil rights movement, temperance movement (view that how you will, they won for awhile), women's movement, and many anti-war movements have been religious based or had religious leaders. People against the death penalty, against religious discrimination, against abortion, against drugs, etc.

Nobody is perfect, but I see people trying hard to deal with depressing social problems, and many of their approaches go against the grain. Just because our president says his hero is Jesus doesn't mean that religious people don't disagree with him.

I agree that people knocking on your door passing out leaflets is annoying. So are telemarketers. But so far, advertising like that is legal, so long as they don't break into your home or harass you constantly.

I had some Mormon's come to my door about 17 years ago (IIRC) and some Jehovah's Witnesses came to my door this year, but that's about all I've ever had. Sad because with my degree, I could probably give them an earful (though I am guessing they are looking for people who don't have much background).

In the theory it was not an explosion as we see them here but and expansion of space and time. Thus no fuel is/was needed.


I'm not an astrophysicist (if you are, I humbly apologize if I get this wrong), but there is still the question of "what caused this expansion"?

Because, okay, if time was created with the "bang" along with everything else from a compressed ball of "stuff" it wasn't just sitting there forever, but it still "spontaneously" became what it is today (over billions of years of course). How did it get there in the first place? What "set it off"?

If there was no time, then surely it couldn't have been "building up" because that would take time, and so it defies all explanation, right?

That doesn't mean there has to be a God, but there is still uncertainty there, enough uncertainty that a person could say "God" and how would you prove them wrong? It's not scientific, but that's not the point...

Perhaps in this way Agnostics at least are being honest with themselvs by saying they "don't know."

Religion is about faith. Some fundamentalists will say no, it's proven, but most of the time (sorry fundies) I find they don't even understand the history of their own religions, and they are thankfully a minority most of the time.

Religion is about more than dealing with death or explaining where the world came from of course, it is also about living your life. It's about ethics. Atheists of course have constructed their own ethical systems to live by, these are just other systems that people have accepted.

Science alone doesn't tell you how to live your life, it only tells how things appear to work. Thus the rest is up to you.

Originally posted by Kurgan
Because, okay, if time was created with the "bang" along with everything else from a compressed ball of "stuff" it wasn't just sitting there forever, but it still "spontaneously" became what it is today (over billions of years of course). How did it get there in the first place? What "set it off"?

If there was no time, then surely it couldn't have been "building up" because that would take time, and so it defies all explanation, right?

Why is it that we can generally accept that time goes infinitely forward but few people consider that it could go infinitely backward?

That doesn't mean there has to be a God, but there is still uncertainty there, enough uncertainty that a person could say "God" and how would you prove them wrong? It's not scientific, but that's not the point...

Perhaps in this way Agnostics at least are being honest with themselvs by saying they "don't know."

I for one consider the concept of god, if one exists, to be different than what we have so far been able to imagine. If you describe an old white guy with a beard and robe sitting somewhere being omnipotent... I have to disagree. But when people start suggesting that "god" is a culmination of all matter... that "god" is the big-bang, then I give some thought to it.... perhaps we are god. All of us. Everything.

To me, that is the only way something could feasibly be omnipotent or omniscent... to be everything.

Consider also, if it is possible for one deity to exist, then what limits the existance of additional deities? With that line of reasoning, polytheism would have more validity than monotheism. So if there truly is one deity, it must, by definition, be everything.

Atheists of course have constructed their own ethical systems to live by, these are just other systems that people have accepted.

People who proclaim themselves "atheists" often irritate me as much as fundamentalist theists. Many, however, are not actually atheists, but agnostic. Atheist and agnostic are often considered synonymous by theists and non-theists alike. I am agnostic as are many, if not most, scientists and intellectuals of critical reasoning. We admit only that it is an unknown.

Some atheists seem to go out of their way to "push their beliefs" in a manner similar to "witnessing," which I find all too ironic.

Science alone doesn't tell you how to live your life, it only tells how things appear to work. Thus the rest is up to you.

But the core tenents of science can tell us how to lead our lives: use critical thinking skills; question the validity of claims; seek evidence to support hypotheses; teach others what you have learned; keep an open mind balanced with skeptical reasoning; etc.

Spirituality need not be excluded from those who are not religious, however. It was you, Kurgen, that reminded us that religious texts have value to humanity whether they are factual or mythological. Consider this buddist proverb: To every man is given the key that opens the gates of heaven; the same key opens the gates of hell.

What I take from that proverb is not that there actually exists a heaven and hell, but that man has a free will that can be a miracle or a danger. We can create death with atomic bombs, or clean power for our cities. We can unleash bioweapons, or cure polio. We can build ballistic missiles, or rockets to the stars.

The spirituality I get from science is an understanding of the what is! A fundamentalist christian sees a miracle in the spontaneous remission of a cancer and calls it a wonder of god. What I see is the wonder of the human body and its DNA! Billions of cells, billions of billions, working in concert to sustain life even for a day is a wonder to me! The fact that we are all attracted to the center of the same sphere that has been floating in the vacum of space with a fragile bubble of gas also attracted to that same center is a Wonder.

Whether created by a god, a set of gods, or a complete fluke of the universe, I see it as a wonder and I'm greatful to have been in existance even if for a brief blip of time that this universe will be around. To share this wonder with others is spiritual indeed, regardless of whether you are theist, atheist, or agnostic.

I'd like to end this post with a poem by a famous atheist, who was perhaps only agnostic.
There are the rushing waves
mountains of molecules
each stupidly minding its own business
trillions apart
yet forming white surf in unison.

Ages on ages
before any eyes could see
year after year
thunderously pounding the shore as now.
For whom, for what?
On a dead planet
with no life to entertain.

Never at rest
tortured by energy
wasted prodigiously by the sun
poured into space.
A mite makes the sea roar.

Deep in the sea
all molecules repeat
the patterns of one another
till complex new ones are formed.
They make others like themselves
and a new dance starts.

Growing in size and complexity
living things
masses of atoms
DNA, protein
dancing a pattern ever more intricate.

Out of the cradle
onto dry land
here it is
standing:
atoms with consciousness;
matter with curiosity.

Stands at the sea,
wonders at wondering: I
a universe of atoms
an atom in the universe.

--- Richard Feynman, 1955

If I've learned anything in the Senate Chambers, I've learned that I don't know anything. (Another thing that helped that is that I have been attending a philosophy class.) I'm going to sit back, relax, and read in here now rather than post. Thanks for listening.

I'm glad you're sticking around, but please, don't stop posting! This place gets too dead sometimes.... I'm starting to feel all alone...

BTW, have you checked out the Multi-Thread sticky at the top of the list? The title might seem a bit technical, but the topics are to do with the paranormal and how it fits in with science. I'm told I could have done a better job naming it ;)

People concieve of God (if they concieved of God at all) in different ways, to be sure.

While I enjoy the "old man with a white beard sitting up in the clouds" story, it is, in truth, an example of the strawman fallacy.

Who believes in that? Yes, there are renessainse (IIRC) artists who portrayed "God" like that, but who honestly believes that is what God looks like? That's not to say that people don't have a tendency to anthropomorphize deities, but I hope you get what I'm saying...

Similarly, how many people actually believe that heaven is full of singing people wearing white robes and strumming golden harps for all eternity? Songs have been written, but again, how many actually believe this is literally how it is?

Anyway, no offense of course.

Why is it that we can generally accept that time goes infinitely forward but few people consider that it could go infinitely backward?

I'm just commenting on the idea of the Big Bang including time. One version (the one I'm referring to) says that time was CREATED at the point the big bang "blew" (for lack of a better term). So time did not exist "before" (there was no before, without time).

Saying that the universe is an infinite regression of past universes, etc, is really no better than a "god theory" as many atheists have pointed out, because it still posits and infinity as an answer to a singular reality. Of course, that doesn't mean it couldn't possibly be true just that it's not the simplest possible explanation.

There's the multiverse theory, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that either, and it's a controversial theory, one I don't know a whole lot about, to be honest.

I'm not saying the Big Bang is bunk, but I'm also not saying it doesn't prove God's non-existence either.

And yes, there are people who believe the universe is God, or something along those lines (not man, but all matter/energy, etc)... a sort of 'pantheistic naturalism.' I was at a religion conference last year where a man was speaking at a luncheon about his beliefs in that topic (he believed the universe is "god").

And as for science, it's a great thing, and we would still be fairly primitive without it, but it is seperate from ethics and philosophy and religion. Science seeks to learn and experiment and develope, it doesn't have a built in "safety valve" to say "maybe we shouldn't do this."

I know it's cliche, and don't get me wrong, many discoveries that seemed like bad ideas, turned out to be helpful, but the point is... using ethics one could say "well we CAN invent a better nuclear bomb, but maybe we SHOULDN'T. Of course someone will always be there to argue "well if we DON'T, somebody else WILL, and then where would we be?" But it's still an ethical choice, made apart from the scientific method.

And yes, I think there is wonder to be had. There are both religious and non-religious people who have missed it, who view the universe as nothing but cruelty, dreariness and pointlessness. There is that, but there is good to be found as well, as I and many others see it. It seems you see this too...


[ I'm sure there's plenty of misspellings in there, sorry in advance, it's late, but I just *had* to post. ]

I'm not saying the Big Bang is bunk, but I'm also not saying it doesn't prove God's non-existence either.


Absolutely Kurgan.
The evidence for the big bang theory is that it has been (fairly conclusively) shown that all matter in the universe all originated from one central point in space (a singularity).

..now, how this singularity appeared? Well, scientists may have great sounding theories (that may or may not be true), but the fact is that nobody knows for sure (except for fundemental religious types of course - who KNOW it was the work of God, without question!)

So, to me at least, the theory that the big bang was started by some kind of supreme being is just as 'sensible' as any other theory at this point. And I'm VERY doubtful mankind will ever actually solve this mystery with any reasonable amount of conclusiveness - and therefore at least the possibility of 'God' will always be present.

However - I don't think suddenly adding God to the equation suddenly fills in all the intellectual 'holes'. I mean, God had to come from somewhere too - right?! So the question just get's transferred from 'How did the Big Bang start' to 'How did God start?'

I guess a common concept to believe is that God has always existed, and therefore did not need to be created. So whether you believe in God or not, you STILL have to somehow grasp - as SkinWalker has already mentioned - the concept of infinite BACKWARDS time as well as forwards (A true mindf***, and a concept I do not pretend I can even get a hold on) - for both the theory of God, or say the idea of continous big-bang expansion -> contraction cycles...

In short, I would say the true origins of the universe are simply beyond our comprehension - whether God is involved or not is pretty irrelavent to that...


And as for science, it's a great thing, and we would still be fairly primitive without it, but it is seperate from ethics and philosophy and religion.


Yes - again spot on Kurgan. Science is only here to determine what is TRUE - nothing more, nothing less. How we as a species deal with that 'truth' is a seperate matter - and one that science itself cannot help us with.

However, I personally wouldn't bunch ethics, philosophy and religion together - they are quite different beasts. (I'm sure your aware of this, but just want to make this point clear)

Philosophy - I would argue - comes more under the 'science' bracket than ethics or religion. i.e. It is the exersise of trying to stretch the human ability of reasoning so as to help us detemine the 'truth', but I wouldn't say it directly helps us determine moral values or ethics.

Religion of course directly integrates moral and ethical values. But more often than not, these ethical values are 'hard-coded' so to speak. The ethics are decided by the word of God - and then that's pretty much the end of it!
In other words, the only discussion nessesary is to make sure you have the interpetation of God's word correct, and of course exactly which words do actually come from God!

Ethics (on it's own) is really the purist way of determining a moral code (as far as I'm concerned anyway)
It involves simply determining what is right and wrong based on the avaliable evidence.
Of course this works on many levels - from individual values and ethics, to the ethics of large groups of people (Greenpeace etc.), to the ethics of nations - which is where politics comes in. (Or at least it's suppost to! :) )

Kurgan:
There's the multiverse theory, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that either, and it's a controversial theory, one I don't know a whole lot about, to be honest.

It is PROVEN but the way it is proven is quite new to us and many sceptics are not yet to understand it's explanation. Emotional preference to their classical physics stop them from considering multiverse the way it should be. That is the only problem of accepting it that only time can fix. And it will be fixed, I promise you.

Science seeks to learn and experiment and develope, it doesn't have a built in "safety valve" to say "maybe we shouldn't do this."

I honestly believe you're not serious. Instrumentalism is false.

The matter with nuclear bomb is it's EXPLOTATION and not whether it should have been invented at all. Science didn't blow the atomic bomb, people did. Science has no other purpose rather than understanding things. What other pseudo goals people invent for it are reflected in their false conceptions as reductionism, instrumentalism, positivism, "ethics should be involvism" and others.

CloseTheBlastDo:
And I'm VERY doubtful mankind will ever actually solve this mystery with any reasonable amount of conclusiveness

In short, I would say the true origins of the universe are simply beyond our comprehension - whether God is involved or not is pretty irrelavent to that...

Welcome to agnosticism. Another one! On No! It becomes an infection desease. :p

And about philosophy. It's pretty much clear that philosophy as a separate thing can live without science but science just CAN"T live without philosophy. It is perhaps the only explanational string in science. What has physical substance to do with physics, or an abstraction with mathematics if it is not defined (by philosophy)? All these fundamnetal issues science work upon are defined only by philosophically: time, abstraction, matter, space, reality and others.

Let's say that science is unseparable from philosophy but it doesn't agree with ethics.

P.S. I wanted to post something on the topic of this thread but everything's been said. God is not what we think, it's extremely more complex entity, if such words can be used. Although I don't think it's out of our comprehension (only at the present moment)

It is PROVEN but the way it is proven is quite new to us and many sceptics are not yet to understand it's explanation.


Woah!
Homuncal - I think your going to have to provide some supporting links and / or other evidence to support this claim.
Sure - I have heard the theories (although I must admit I'm not overly familiar with the detail), but if your trying to say that the theory of 'Multi-verses' is PROVEN, then your going to need to convince me of that - because I simply haven't heard anything of the sort.
I'm fairly sure you should have actually said:
'The theory of multiverses makes sense to me, and I for one believe it is the case...'


Welcome to agnosticism. Another one! On No! It becomes an infection desease.


Yes - you may have a point!
I certainly shouldn't put artificial limits on what we human beings can achieve. And if we do manage to unlock the secrets of the TRUE origins of the universe, no-one is going to be more pleased than I!

But honestly - these are MASSIVE questions we are talking about.

Let's go with the constant expansion / contraction theory and pretend that this is the case for arguments sake. So the big bang wasn't the beginning of the existance of anything:
The big-bang happens, the universe expands and then after billions upon billions of years it starts to slow down, stop, and then all the matter starts to contract back into the central point again.

(I'll ignore the fact for now that I think the current evidence seems to point towards the universe not contracting at all, but continuing to expand for eternity - albeit at a slower and slower rate)

So anyway, all the matter all meets back at the singularity where it came from, and I guess the sheer energy caused by the mashing together of ALL the matter in the universe causes another big bang. Or (another variant of the theory I've heard), all (most / some) of the matter JUST misses all the other matter - i.e. the matter just flies by, and so the expansion happens all over again, but in opposite directions.

OK - so let's say we PROVE that. OK - fine, that would be an AMAZING discovery...

BUT that still wouldn't answer the question of when the whole cycle started - if it started at all.

If it never started - i.e. it has happenned for infinity in backwards time, then - well - that creates ALL kinds of paradoxes. I mean, if infinite backwards time TRULY is a reality, then that effectively means that there is an infinite amount of time before ANY given event. In other words, it takes an infinite amount of time for ANYTHING to happen, including our own existance!!

So, at least for me, I cannot accept the principle of infinite backwards time as a PRACTICAL idea unless I can somehow satisfy the paradoxes I see with the concept.

So then that leaves only one other possibility (as far as I can see), that the expansion / contraction cycles started at some point. So - How did they start?! How the hell did anything start?!!

Put it this way, I don't think I'm really saying anything THAT shocking if I state that science / human reasoning probably won't actually unlock EVERY SINGLE unknown in the universe - including it's actual origin. I think it's slightly arrogant to simply assume this is going to be the case.

One example of this actually, is the fact that science will NEVER - and I mean NEVER - disprove the existance of God. (I'll stand by that statement...)

'heavan can wait'

'life is a heaven or hell, depends what you make of it'

'all dogs go to heaven'

'Good Omens is a book worth reading'

'better to serve in somehwhere...get this mixed up all the time'

'at least religion produces some really nice artwork'

'god made just enough religion
so that man could hate each other,
but not enough so that man could love each other'

'every day i go to sleep hoping to wake up in play in the fields of the lord' and every waking moment I am 'waiting for god'

and religion, like science & para-science, well it is hard to take any of them seriously these days.

CloseTheBlastDo:
Woah!Homuncal - I think your going to have to provide some supporting links and / or other evidence to support this claim.
Sure - I have heard the theories (although I must admit I'm not overly familiar with the detail), but if your trying to say that the theory of 'Multi-verses' is PROVEN, then your going to need to convince me of that - because I simply haven't heard anything of the sort.
I'm fairly sure you should have actually said:
'The theory of multiverses makes sense to me, and I for one believe it is the case...'

I donno how people here feel about it, but I always prepose one book about multiverse to read: Fabric of Reality by David Deutsch 1997. And the topic itself I think is mostly hated because of me:D . I prepose this book because it is very simple for understanding and doesn't contain abusing formulas although if you're interested in some math I can point you to some(although it's quite hard to read what's written their in pdf files but nothing out of comprehention for normal person

I can hear the thoughts of members of SC: "Oh no, not again! Let's ban this word!"

Put it this way, I don't think I'm really saying anything THAT shocking if I state that science / human reasoning probably won't actually unlock EVERY SINGLE unknown in the universe - including it's actual origin. I think it's slightly arrogant to simply assume this is going to be the case.

One example of this actually, is the fact that science will NEVER - and I mean NEVER - disprove the existance of God. (I'll stand by that statement...)

This could be another "unknowable" debate which would lead nowhere. :D The problem here is mostly with relativity and terminology. Even relativity of terminology. Like Newtonian gravity is only a terminology of that specific time and not where and when we live now. The result also would be different considering what goals we put. If saying science is only an instrument for making predictions and experimental testing then we wouldn't be able to say anything to be a bit certain. But in reality we are justifyed to say that some things are certain. One of them is that biblical god doesn't exist.

Experimental testing is revolved around percieving every aspect of itself (which is the essence of experimental tesing that we control that every parameter was true). But some events are just intracktable which doesn't mean they are not real: like teleportation, wave function or multiverse computation. And that doesn't mean that what's intracktable is unpredictable or furthermore isn't real or that what can not be put to experimental testing (as commonly understood) doesn't sustain itself. And of course we don't need any experimental testing to disprove god, only to prove something bigger than him. After that god is irrelevant. And now... GOD IS IRRELEVANT. BIBLICAL GOD DOESN"T EXIST

I honestly believe you're not serious. Instrumentalism is false.

The matter with nuclear bomb is it's EXPLOTATION and not whether it should have been invented at all. Science didn't blow the atomic bomb, people did. Science has no other purpose rather than understanding things. What other pseudo goals people invent for it are reflected in their false conceptions as reductionism, instrumentalism, positivism, "ethics should be involvism" and others.

Well, to be honest, wasn't the whole manhattan project started because the government told the scientists "we need a big bomb to smash the axis powers"?

Everybody was racing to develop it because it would be the "ultimate weapon" to beat their enemies with. So are you saying the scientists were like Qwi Xux (in the EU) building the Death Star and the Sun Crusher, not for one second thinking "gee, this is going to be used to kill huge numbers of people and destruction on an unprecendented scale?" (and didn't Oppenheimer quote the Bhagavad Gita after the first bomb was detonated when he said "I am become death.. the destroyer of worlds."?)

That's ludicrous. The governments of the world are heavily invested in building weapons of mass destruction and weapons meant to cause death and human suffering. That is fact. I'm sure they don't delude themselves that these weapons have any other purpose (except to cause fear from the threat of violence, aka MAD).

That alone is cause to say that science does work apart from ethics. I'm not saying halt all scientific progress because it might be wrong, and you can't put the genie back in the bottle, but there are compelling reasons to limit certain things.

Note how we have nuclear test bans, chemical weapons bans, and bans on human cloning for example.

And science, like religion, is made up of people, people who make mistakes. I'm not saying science is bad and wrong because of the atom bomb, I'm saying that obviously, bad things have also come from science and that will likely always be true.

As to the multiverse theory, again, in science theories are rigorously debated and tested for years. Every new fringe theory that comes out doesn't get accepted by mainstream science (cold fusion, zero point fields, tachyons, etc). For right now, multiverse is very controversial. Saying that it's just emotionalism may or may not be true, but I think the fact that most scientists don't accept it says something. It may be accepted one day, who knows.

But saying that multiverse theory means God is irrelevant is also an assumption. Who's to say that God doesn't exist outside of time and space and simply create an infinite system? Atheists don't need the multiverse theory to not believe in god either. And if free will doesn't exist, a lot of people would have to change their belief systems, not just Christians.

Science does not tell us what is morally right or wrong. Some say that morality doesn't exist, that it's just an irrelevant human construction. Is that what you're saying? In any case, science doesn't tell us what's right or wrong, only what "is."

I have heard of the book you mention, I have no read it, but that guy seems to be the primary proponent of the theory. He is a controversial figure in scientific circules to be sure.

But saying that multiverse theory means God is irrelevant is also an assumption. Who's to say that God doesn't exist outside of time and space and simply create an infinite system? Atheists don't need the multiverse theory to not believe in god either. And if free will doesn't exist, a lot of people would have to change their belief systems, not just Christians.

No, assuming God's irrelevancy out of multiverse wasn't my point. It's just the thread was about heaven and I felt my permanent spamming should be doped with something fit. And I'm much more for free will myself (you have to remember that there are a lot many interpretations of "many worlds", with and without free will)

And biblical God doesn't need any multiverse to be disproved, cauze he can make it quite by himself :)

I have heard of the book you mention, I have no read it, but that guy seems to be the primary proponent of the theory. He is a controversial figure in scientific circules to be sure.

And so, so. He's quantum physicist. His works on quantum computation are widely accepted. What more. Is he fallible? I'm sure he is (just like everybody else). So then his world view doesn't worth any attention? On the contrary it's a challenge to view things from different angles. And remember your own post about people watching TV news and concluding all muslims are terrorists (or something like that). Isn't it just the same thing? I'm sure that you can find in that book much much more then TV says about it. If you're not for the multiverse there's no big deal about it cauze the book is not solely about it. I found clearence , let's see what others can find.

Science does not tell us what is morally right or wrong. Some say that morality doesn't exist, that it's just an irrelevant human construction. Is that what you're saying? In any case, science doesn't tell us what's right or wrong, only what "is."

And how that contradicts with what I say? And I don't consider morality irrelevant. And it's because of science's inability to say right or wrong makes it our only source of objectivity.

And if free will doesn't exist, a lot of people would have to change their belief systems, not just Christians.

I doubt it will ever concern them. Or they will find some justification for that too.

Who's to say that God doesn't exist outside of time and space and simply create an infinite system?

Who's to say otherwise. It's irrelevant. I guess this is a typical agnostic thinking. This word (agnostic) might soon become a curse or something:)

I Start to think I'm the only one here not implemented to a "strong" group, whether it is christian, atheist or agnostic.

I'm going to educate myself properly before I comment more on the theory of multi-verses. I dont' want to speak from a position of ignorance.

However, I think you may be making more of the difference between your philosophy and 'agnostic' thinking than is really nessesary or deserved.

I - as an Agnostic - accept that the concept of something like God (omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient) is fundementally impossible to dis-prove.
I believe it would actually be impossible to 'prove' too - technically! Even if an angel WERE to appear in front of me this very second and start bringing fire and brimstone down upon me from the skies - that still would not prove 'infinite' power! (How could you PROVE infinite power?!)

I don't believe there is a God - biblical or otherwise - but I accept that is belief - not knowledge. Since I don't see the need for a creator, I CONCLUDE that there is not one.


I personally believe you can prove the God described in the Bible as certifiably insane by any modern human standards!! But this is a different matter. It still wouldnt' mean he wasn't all-powerful, all-seeing and all-present (whatever the hell that means in practical terms).

So you say you KNOW (biblical) God doesn't exist - I say I believe God doesn't exist. I don't see a MASSIVE difference in those view-points at the end of the day...

btw - doesn't this statement...

GOD IS IRRELEVANT. BIBLICAL GOD DOESN"T EXIST

...make you an athiest by definition? (At least in the biblical sense ;) )
Or am I missing something about the meaning of athiest?

Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo
btw - doesn't this statement...

GOD IS IRRELEVANT. BIBLICAL GOD DOESN"T EXIST

...make you an athiest by definition? (At least in the biblical sense ;) )
Or am I missing something about the meaning of athiest?

Being an atheist means that you are in belief that a god or gods do not exist.

Being a theist refers to the belief that one or more gods exist. Monotheism = 1 god; polytheism = 2 or more gods.

Being agnostic refers to the idea that one acknowldedges the possibility of a god, but not that the probability is sufficient enough to warrant belief.

Then you get into "soft" and "hard" agnostics, gnostism, etc.

The main three definitions are the most relevant as far as I've always been concerned.

I - as an Agnostic

It's like you're throwing knife into my heart. I bleed...

I don't believe there is a God - biblical or otherwise - but I accept that is belief - not knowledge. Since I don't see the need for a creator, I CONCLUDE that there is not one.

So do I for the present. And I know it is my weakness to try to resamble the atmosphere in which I grew. That's why I feel the need to believe in god (that doesn't mean I have to put it straight - god exists while at present it is not). Faith is highly personal thing I think and I would be sorry to see a person without faith in something. Atheism is a religion too after all. But my faith was never interrupting with rational thinking (at least I'd like to think so, which is also a matter of belief If you're not that good at thinking rationally ;)).

So you say you KNOW (biblical) God doesn't exist - I say I believe God doesn't exist. I don't see a MASSIVE difference in those view-points at the end of the day...

Biblical god is a self contradicting entity. Furthermore it does not discribe anymore clearly the reality we live in and is not confirmed to have any impact on it. There are better alternatives and judgements of reality rather than biblical god. Therefore he doesn't exist.

If you're to say that we need experemental testing to prove that I'm gonna find you and examine your intestines :)

I personally believe you can prove the God described in the Bible as certifiably insane by any modern human standards!! But this is a different matter. It still wouldnt' mean he wasn't all-powerful, all-seeing and all-present (whatever the hell that means in practical terms).

But he would have existed if bible could have discribed and explained that god. Since it could have not, then such god doesn't exist. What you are refering to by saying "it still wouldn't mean" is different concept of god, which of course you might try to proof. In any case your concept would be better anyway, cauze you have already admitted the absurdity of biblical god.

I believe it would actually be impossible to 'prove' too - technically!

And I believe it would be possible so it's not really the matter for arguing.

(How could you PROVE infinite power?!)
I see...

The model of proof changed throughout history. And you have to think broadly than this. For example, let's take knowledge which is limited to our experience and therefore uncertain and therefore incapable of being understood implicitly as agnostics claim. We've got 5 or 6 senses to provide data to be interpreted by our brain. Above just pointing to us our location, whether we should have a shower or eat some fruit, it says to us that the world that surrounds us works on some principles, and therefore if we know principles we can at least make predictions, not to mention that we can better understand our world. We see others of our kind and try to convince them of these principles, which they can't yet undertsand. We think hard and invent mathematics and try to discribe things in terms of abstractions. Than we think on how there understanding might differ from ours. And we understand that it can't (which I guess every agnostic would argue with immense structure of causality which is ultimately unknown and ultimately unknowable) cauze 2+2 would still mean 2 fingers being put near with other 2 fingers and therefore becoming 4 fingers. We go further, we understand that world is much bigger than we thought and some lifeforms on earth percieve it differently. We invent electronic microscope, and infra red vision and now we can understand how can frog see that clear and how can snake sense heat of a victim. Our best models of spacetime say that there are much more than 4 dimentions of our world that could be imagined, that there are different ways of perception other than seeing, smelling or hearing, that our capabilities are virtualy infinite. That we still have a lot of questions unanswered and those theories "uncompetentially" pointing at other dimentions or multiverse are probably the only solution for those questions.

We are tangibly able to understand everything of our reality, and it's not only a matter of belief.

If you're to say that we need experemental testing to prove that I'm gonna find you and examine your intestines


...we need experimental testing to prove that...

...no - no - Homuncul - I didn't mean it - NOOOO!!
[has intestines ripped out and examined]