Discussion:
OT -- What did the 'big bang' bang into?
(too old to reply)
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
2007-07-11 20:21:07 UTC
Permalink
- - -

Certainly, thinking outside the box can and
has led to many fascinating perspectives on
what, exactly, the nature of 'all' is.

The 'big bang', assumptions are that it banged
into a void, yet in the past 10 years, scientists
have discovered that bang isn't slowing down.
Instead, it's speeding up.

They refer to it as a force, the cause of the
speeding up, yet you rarely hear the question,
"What did the 'big bang' bang into?"

The standard presumption is that there was
nothing, a bang, and then everything. More
recently, scientists have theorized about
a before the big bang realm, and of many
dimensions possibly existing beyond the
-4- we're familiar with.

Multiple universes, also part of the possible
realm of the 'all'.

Cyclic universes, also part of the possible
realm of the all.

Infinite universes, infinite time, also part of
the possible realm of the all.

As for what the totality of 'all' that is natural
is, exactly, actualized human knowledge is
profoundly sparse, thus far, even though
theories abound.

Being that the investigation remains at a point
of unknowns and theory, along with occasional
enlightening discoveries like the accelerating
expansion of the particular universe we hap-
pen to reside in, it's no wonder that it's taken
so long to turn away from myths and religions
and to embark on a course in which science
is actively investigating the matter.

- - -

On another front ...

Humans, the only intelligent sentient cogni-
zant beings anywhere, anywhen, -or- one
of many?

Unknown, yet.

How, exactly, did chemistry result in replicat-
ing matter and complex beings like us, being
here?

Certainly, a lot more is known than what our
ancestors of the 18th century knew. Even
so, much remains to be discovered, and it's
science, not religion, that offers the most
estimable and provable path to the answer.

- - -

€ - € - € - € - € - € - € - € - € - € - € - €

~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman
Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality
~~~
c***@flapper.com
2007-07-11 21:25:35 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:21:07 -0500, "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER"
Post by Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
- - -
Certainly, thinking outside the box can and
has led to many fascinating perspectives on
what, exactly, the nature of 'all' is.
The 'big bang', assumptions are that it banged
into a void, yet in the past 10 years, scientists
have discovered that bang isn't slowing down.
Instead, it's speeding up.
I <snipped the rest> for wont of time.

Just a comment though. . .

What was there to go "bang" anyway? Where did this matter supposedly
originate?

Did it pop into being from nothing? Doesn't that violate physics?

Did it always exist? Then why didn't it "bang" before, and since the
universe is constantly expanding, why is the universe not fully
expanded, particles equally disbursed already? It isn't, of course.

OR

TADAAAAAAAA. . .!

Was the universe "created" by an intelligent being.
That doesn't defy physics since physics doesn't address it.
It doesn't defy logic since no better solution has been proposed.

And if it was "created," then why not call that "creator," GOD!!!!??

in the Name of Jesus,
Checker
Deathbringer
2007-07-12 01:46:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@flapper.com
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:21:07 -0500, "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER"
Post by Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
- - -
Certainly, thinking outside the box can and
has led to many fascinating perspectives on
what, exactly, the nature of 'all' is.
The 'big bang', assumptions are that it banged
into a void, yet in the past 10 years, scientists
have discovered that bang isn't slowing down.
Instead, it's speeding up.
I <snipped the rest> for wont of time.
Just a comment though. . .
What was there to go "bang" anyway? Where did this matter supposedly
originate?
Did it pop into being from nothing? Doesn't that violate physics?
Did it always exist? Then why didn't it "bang" before, and since the
universe is constantly expanding, why is the universe not fully
expanded, particles equally disbursed already? It isn't, of course.
OR
TADAAAAAAAA. . .!
Was the universe "created" by an intelligent being.
That doesn't defy physics since physics doesn't address it.
It doesn't defy logic since no better solution has been proposed.
And if it was "created," then why not call that "creator," GOD!!!!??
in the Name of Jesus,
Checker
That doesn't work. Our understanding of physics would still have t
change for that to happen, in fact it would have to change for a
omniscient being to exist at all. As for a better solution, no, but I d
have an equally bad solution...the problem is that neither energy no
omniscient beings are known to appear out of nothing on a regular basis
OK, there's vacuum energy, but I'm not going to pretend like tha
vindicates the plausibility of the Big Bang because its such a poorl
understood phenomenon.

As for what the big bang banged into, spacetime expanded. Visualize
cartesian graph that is progressively redrawn with more and more line
denoting more possible points. Imagine spacetime doing somethin
similar. There may be higher dimensions, but that's not relevant

--
Deathbringe
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Deathbringer's Profile: http://bbs.whatpissesyouoff.com/member.php?userid=275
View this thread: http://bbs.whatpissesyouoff.com/showthread.php?t=23408

Posted via Forum to Usenet Gateway at http://bbs.whatpissesyouoff.co
Midwinter
2007-07-12 08:26:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@flapper.com
What was there to go "bang" anyway? Where did this matter supposedly
originate?
Nobody knows. It's one of the Big Mysteries of science. Although it's
worth pointing out that prior to the HSK there, well, there wasn't any
'prior to' because there wasn't any time.
Post by c***@flapper.com
Did it pop into being from nothing? Doesn't that violate physics?
Does look like it, doesn't it? Although, it's worth pointing out that
physics is a model of how things are - so if something appears to violate
physics it's probably our understanding of physics that's wrong, rather
than the universe.
Post by c***@flapper.com
Did it always exist? Then why didn't it "bang" before
Yes, it always existed, because there was no time 'before' the Big Bang -
so the 'bang' occupied all the time before the 'bang'; just as it
occupied and continues to occupy all the space. It didn't 'bang' before
the 'bang' because there was no 'before' for it to 'bang' in.


, and since the
Post by c***@flapper.com
universe is constantly expanding, why is the universe not fully
expanded, particles equally disbursed already? It isn't, of course.
Well, technically it is - because it already occupies all the available
space. It's just it's still getting bigger. As to why the particles
within aren't equally disbursed, that would be gravity.
Post by c***@flapper.com
Was the universe "created" by an intelligent being.
That doesn't defy physics since physics doesn't address it.
You're right, it doesn't. But it still requires an answer as to where
the 'intelligent being' came from.
Post by c***@flapper.com
It doesn't defy logic since no better solution has been proposed.
Whether something's logically valid or not doesn't depend on whether
anyone has a 'better' solution. The 'logic' of the intelligent design
hypothesis runs:

Premise: the universe exists
Premise: we don't fully understand how or why
Conclusion: God did it.

That conclusion obviously isn't supported by the premises and it begs a
number of questions - not least of which is 'well, where did God come
from, then?'

Hence, your solution DOES in fact defy logic - or at least isn't
logically valid - although it is true to say that the hypothesis
(logically unsupportable though it is) cannot be proven false.

And yes, I consider myself to be religious.
--
Midwinter
c***@flapper.com
2007-07-12 14:16:29 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 03:26:19 -0500, Midwinter
Post by Midwinter
Post by c***@flapper.com
What was there to go "bang" anyway? Where did this matter supposedly
originate?
Nobody knows. It's one of the Big Mysteries of science. Although it's
worth pointing out that prior to the HSK there, well, there wasn't any
'prior to' because there wasn't any time.
Who says there wasn't any time? How do you figure?
Post by Midwinter
Post by c***@flapper.com
Did it pop into being from nothing? Doesn't that violate physics?
Does look like it, doesn't it? Although, it's worth pointing out that
physics is a model of how things are - so if something appears to violate
physics it's probably our understanding of physics that's wrong, rather
than the universe.
Or maybe your understanding of physics is so wrong that creation is a
more reasonable answer.
Post by Midwinter
Post by c***@flapper.com
Did it always exist? Then why didn't it "bang" before
Yes, it always existed, because there was no time 'before' the Big Bang -
so the 'bang' occupied all the time before the 'bang'; just as it
occupied and continues to occupy all the space. It didn't 'bang' before
the 'bang' because there was no 'before' for it to 'bang' in.
Did you make that "time" thing up yourself? WHO SAYS time didn't
exist? In science (as I understand it) time = the space between two
events. HOW WOULD YOU HAVE ANY CLUE as to what events did or did not
happen before the "bang" if such a "bang" ever happened?
Post by Midwinter
, and since the
Post by c***@flapper.com
universe is constantly expanding, why is the universe not fully
expanded, particles equally disbursed already? It isn't, of course.
Well, technically it is - because it already occupies all the available
space. It's just it's still getting bigger. As to why the particles
within aren't equally disbursed, that would be gravity.
Oh? And HOW do you know there is no more space? AREN'T YOU PRETTY
LIMITED AS TO HOW FAR YOU CAN SEE out there? What's at the edge of
that "limited space?" Or are you thinking along the line of the
flat-earthers only in a 3 dimensional model? LOL!
Post by Midwinter
Post by c***@flapper.com
Was the universe "created" by an intelligent being.
That doesn't defy physics since physics doesn't address it.
You're right, it doesn't. But it still requires an answer as to where
the 'intelligent being' came from.
Why? You can't seem to find an answer to the question "Where did the
original matter come from?" If it is acceptable not to worry about
THAT question, then why would it not likewise be acceptable to worry
about your question regarding where the intelligent being came from?

Or do you have some kind of double standard?
Post by Midwinter
Post by c***@flapper.com
It doesn't defy logic since no better solution has been proposed.
Whether something's logically valid or not doesn't depend on whether
anyone has a 'better' solution. The 'logic' of the intelligent design
Premise: the universe exists
Premise: we don't fully understand how or why
Conclusion: God did it
There are MANY more premises and MUCH more reasoning involved. Your
over-simplification is nothing more than a method of minimizing the
issue to make it look silly.
Post by Midwinter
That conclusion obviously isn't supported by the premises and it begs a
number of questions - not least of which is 'well, where did God come
from, then?'
In EXACTLY the same way as your "big bang" theory begs a lot of
questions - not the least of which is "well, where did the original
matter come from, then?'

Thus the idea of intelligent creation has exactly the SAME credence as
the "big bang" does.
Post by Midwinter
Hence, your solution DOES in fact defy logic - or at least isn't
logically valid - although it is true to say that the hypothesis
(logically unsupportable though it is) cannot be proven false.
And yes, I consider myself to be religious.
I'm glad you consider yourself to be religious. Do you consider
yourself to be CHRISTIAN as well?

And my solution holds just as solidly (or weakly) as your "big bang"
does, and for exactly the same reason. . .NO MEASUREABLE EVIDENCE CAN
BE SHOWN FOR THE ORIGINS OF THE ORIGINS.

in the Name of Jesus,
Checker
Midwinter
2007-07-12 23:12:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@flapper.com
Who says there wasn't any time? How do you figure?
Who says there was a Big Bang at all? People better qualified to say so
than me. The same people assure me that time is a consequence of the Big
Bang.
Post by c***@flapper.com
Or maybe your understanding of physics is so wrong that creation is a
more reasonable answer.
Possibly so. Personally, I don't rule out any hypothesis as to the
ultimate cause of the Big Bang, including that it was intentionally
triggered. That's one thing. If, on the other hand, if what we're
talking about when we say 'Creation' is the idea that God did it all in
six days a few thousand years back - well, that's nowhere even
approaching reasonable.
Post by c***@flapper.com
Did you make that "time" thing up yourself? WHO SAYS time didn't
exist? In science (as I understand it) time = the space between two
events. HOW WOULD YOU HAVE ANY CLUE as to what events did or did not
happen before the "bang" if such a "bang" ever happened?
Good question, isn't it? When you figure it out, let me know. Until
then, I'm just going to have to trust those very clever people whose
life's work is investigating this subject. For example, they've shown
quite clear evidence that the echo of the Big Bang can still be 'heard'
(after a fashion) - that the redshifted radiation from that explosion is
still arriving in our detectors. Of course, it might be that that
radiation has some other cause - but this, I suppose, is where Mr Occam
comes in. We already have a relatively straightforward (!) explanation
that accounts for all the data. If we reject it simply because we don't
like it (we think it goes against our religion, perhaps), then we have to
think up some other notion to account for that data.

Incidentally, it might be worth calming down a little, too. The Big Bang
wasn't made up just to annoy you, whatever you might think.
Post by c***@flapper.com
Post by Midwinter
Well, technically it is - because it already occupies all the
available space. It's just it's still getting bigger. As to why the
particles within aren't equally disbursed, that would be gravity.
Oh? And HOW do you know there is no more space? AREN'T YOU PRETTY
LIMITED AS TO HOW FAR YOU CAN SEE out there? What's at the edge of
that "limited space?" Or are you thinking along the line of the
flat-earthers only in a 3 dimensional model? LOL!
Ohhhh, dear. We're onto 'LOL', are we? Ah, well.

With regard to your question, we're limited in how far we can see only in
terms of the time it takes light to get to where we are from where it set
off. That said, a news report just two days ago told about a research
team who have found what appear to be galaxies existing 13 billion years
ago - which is about half a billion years short of the Big Bang.

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6292024.stm)

So yes, we can actually see pretty far. As to whether there's any more
space: where do you suppose it is, if not within the universe? And what
is it like?
Post by c***@flapper.com
Post by Midwinter
You're right, it doesn't. But it still requires an answer as to where
the 'intelligent being' came from.
Why? You can't seem to find an answer to the question "Where did the
original matter come from?" If it is acceptable not to worry about
THAT question, then why would it not likewise be acceptable to worry
about your question regarding where the intelligent being came from?
Or do you have some kind of double standard?
No - exactly the opposite. I'm applying your own standard right back at
you. IF you argue that the universe couldn't have simply come into being
from nothing - and hence required a Creator - then the same standard must
be applied to the Creator, which would Itself therefore require a
Creator, because It couldn't have come into being from nothing.

If, on the other hand, we accept that a Creator can exist without having
been created - that It simply exists, or that it appeared spontaneously -
then by the same measure we can allow for the spontaneous appearance of
the matter and energy that comprise the universe.

This is the trap that those Creationists depending on the 'Watchmaker'
argument invariably shoot themselves in the foot with: by arguing that
nothing so complex as life could possibly exist without having been
designed, they stipulate that the even-more-complex Creator could not
exist without having Itself been designed.
Post by c***@flapper.com
There are MANY more premises and MUCH more reasoning involved. Your
over-simplification is nothing more than a method of minimizing the
issue to make it look silly.
There's a lot more water-muddying and obfuscation involved, usually.
What you call 'over'-simplification here is essentially what Creationist
arguments boil down to, with everything else amounting to little more
than distraction tactics.
Post by c***@flapper.com
In EXACTLY the same way as your "big bang" theory begs a lot of
questions - not the least of which is "well, where did the original
matter come from, then?'
Thus the idea of intelligent creation has exactly the SAME credence as
the "big bang" does.
Not quite. The Big Bang happened - that's pretty much fact. The
varieties of Creationist who claim otherwise simply aren't willing to
face the facts. As to WHY it happened... Well, in THAT regard, the
possibility that it was triggered intelligently and deliberately can't be
ruled out as a possibility. But the difference is that someone taking a
scientific approach is willing to say "we don't know yet". Whereas, in
general, those advocating a religious Creationism model *tend* to assume
(though it's not always the case) that they already know WHO that Creator
was, HOW It did it, and WHY. And then they stop asking questions - which
is sad enough - and demand that others stop asking questions, too - which
is downright tragic. If God made us, then He made us with a brain. I
firmly believe He intended for us to use it.
Post by c***@flapper.com
I'm glad you consider yourself to be religious. Do you consider
yourself to be CHRISTIAN as well?
Nope. Although I have a number of Christian friends and family and was
raised within that faith. I've retained a great deal of respect for it.
But even I can't bring myself to have any particular respect for the
irrationality of inflexible fundamentalist Christianity.
--
Midwinter
Joe Bol
2007-07-14 04:42:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@flapper.com
What was there to go "bang" anyway? Where did this matter supposedly
originate?
You don't know.
Post by c***@flapper.com
OR
TADAAAAAAAA. . .!
Was the universe "created" by an intelligent being.
You don't know that either.
Post by c***@flapper.com
And if it was "created," then why not call that "creator," GOD!!!!??
Why assume that "creator" is the god you claim to represent? Why was
that creator not one of a hundred other philosophies?

The truth is, YOU DON'T KNOW. But in your arrogance, you think you
do.

SK
duke
2007-07-14 12:09:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Bol
Post by c***@flapper.com
And if it was "created," then why not call that "creator," GOD!!!!??
Why assume that "creator" is the god you claim to represent?
Why not?
Post by Joe Bol
The truth is, YOU DON'T KNOW. But in your arrogance, you think you
do.
SK
I believe.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Joe Bol
2007-07-14 14:16:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Joe Bol
Post by c***@flapper.com
And if it was "created," then why not call that "creator," GOD!!!!??
Why assume that "creator" is the god you claim to represent?
Why not?
That is not an answer.
Post by duke
The truth is, YOU DON'T KNOW. But in your arrogance, you think you
Post by Joe Bol
do.
SK
I believe.
So do the Hindi, so do Buddhists. Your version is no more legitimate
than theirs.

KS
duke
2007-07-14 18:29:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Bol
Post by duke
Post by Joe Bol
Why assume that "creator" is the god you claim to represent?
Why not?
That is not an answer.
Your question carried no validity.
Post by Joe Bol
Post by duke
The truth is, YOU DON'T KNOW. But in your arrogance, you think you
Post by Joe Bol
do.
I believe.
So do the Hindi, so do Buddhists. Your version is no more legitimate
than theirs.
Mine willed the universe into existence.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
c***@flapper.com
2007-07-14 19:38:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Bol
Post by duke
Post by Joe Bol
Post by c***@flapper.com
And if it was "created," then why not call that "creator," GOD!!!!??
Why assume that "creator" is the god you claim to represent?
Why not?
That is not an answer.
It is the answer I gave..
Post by Joe Bol
Post by duke
The truth is, YOU DON'T KNOW. But in your arrogance, you think you
Post by Joe Bol
do.
SK
I believe.
So do the Hindi, so do Buddhists. Your version is no more legitimate
than theirs.
KS
And no less. And science can't address it to be either true OR false.

Just as I have said all along.

Go figure.

Checker
c***@flapper.com
2007-07-14 13:30:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Bol
Post by c***@flapper.com
What was there to go "bang" anyway? Where did this matter supposedly
originate?
You don't know.
Post by c***@flapper.com
OR
TADAAAAAAAA. . .!
Was the universe "created" by an intelligent being.
You don't know that either.
Post by c***@flapper.com
And if it was "created," then why not call that "creator," GOD!!!!??
Why assume that "creator" is the god you claim to represent? Why was
that creator not one of a hundred other philosophies?
The truth is, YOU DON'T KNOW. But in your arrogance, you think you
do.
SK
Hello Joe,

I don't know the exact same amount as YOU don't know. And I didn't
say WHO that creator was, except that it is not illogical to call Him
God.

The only arrogance in this thread appears to be yours.

Go figure!

Checker
Joe Bol
2007-07-14 14:19:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@flapper.com
I don't know the exact same amount as YOU don't know. And I didn't
say WHO that creator was, except that it is not illogical to call Him
God.
To call him WHICH God?

It is not logical to call him "God" anymore than to call him "Bruce"
or to call him "Bible Bob" or "Micky Mouse."

EU
c***@flapper.com
2007-07-14 19:36:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Bol
Post by c***@flapper.com
I don't know the exact same amount as YOU don't know. And I didn't
say WHO that creator was, except that it is not illogical to call Him
God.
To call him WHICH God?
It is not logical to call him "God" anymore than to call him "Bruce"
or to call him "Bible Bob" or "Micky Mouse."
EU
The term "God" usually refers to a creator. The names you gve do not.

You just want to hack.

Go figure.

Checker
Joe Bol
2007-07-15 05:33:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@flapper.com
Post by Joe Bol
Post by c***@flapper.com
I don't know the exact same amount as YOU don't know. And I didn't
say WHO that creator was, except that it is not illogical to call Him
God.
To call him WHICH God?
It is not logical to call him "God" anymore than to call him "Bruce"
or to call him "Bible Bob" or "Micky Mouse."
EU
The term "God" usually refers to a creator.
Perhaps in your belief system. It is not true in all belief systems
that use the term "god."
c***@flapper.com
2007-07-15 14:35:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Bol
Post by c***@flapper.com
Post by Joe Bol
Post by c***@flapper.com
I don't know the exact same amount as YOU don't know. And I didn't
say WHO that creator was, except that it is not illogical to call Him
God.
To call him WHICH God?
It is not logical to call him "God" anymore than to call him "Bruce"
or to call him "Bible Bob" or "Micky Mouse."
EU
The term "God" usually refers to a creator.
Perhaps in your belief system. It is not true in all belief systems
that use the term "god."
Try looking the word up in Webster's or some other reputable
dictionary.

Sorry joey, but I don't subscribe to YOUR "special" language.

Checker
Joe Bol
2007-07-16 06:51:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@flapper.com
Post by Joe Bol
Post by c***@flapper.com
Post by Joe Bol
Post by c***@flapper.com
I don't know the exact same amount as YOU don't know. And I didn't
say WHO that creator was, except that it is not illogical to call Him
God.
To call him WHICH God?
It is not logical to call him "God" anymore than to call him "Bruce"
or to call him "Bible Bob" or "Micky Mouse."
EU
The term "God" usually refers to a creator.
Perhaps in your belief system. It is not true in all belief systems
that use the term "god."
Try looking the word up in Webster's or some other reputable
dictionary.
Sorry joey, but I don't subscribe to YOUR "special" language.
Checker
It isn't my special language. Many religions have a god or multiple
gods who are not considered a "creator" as in your religion. One
problem with Americans is most are ignorant of the fact that there is
a world outside the borders of the USA. One problems with many
Christians is that there are OTHER belief systems besides theirs. You
keep demonstrating that in this one thread.
c***@flapper.com
2007-07-16 14:32:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Bol
Post by c***@flapper.com
Post by Joe Bol
Post by c***@flapper.com
Post by Joe Bol
Post by c***@flapper.com
I don't know the exact same amount as YOU don't know. And I didn't
say WHO that creator was, except that it is not illogical to call Him
God.
To call him WHICH God?
It is not logical to call him "God" anymore than to call him "Bruce"
or to call him "Bible Bob" or "Micky Mouse."
EU
The term "God" usually refers to a creator.
Perhaps in your belief system. It is not true in all belief systems
that use the term "god."
Try looking the word up in Webster's or some other reputable
dictionary.
Sorry joey, but I don't subscribe to YOUR "special" language.
Checker
It isn't my special language. Many religions have a god or multiple
gods who are not considered a "creator" as in your religion. One
problem with Americans is most are ignorant of the fact that there is
a world outside the borders of the USA. One problems with many
Christians is that there are OTHER belief systems besides theirs. You
keep demonstrating that in this one thread.
Sorry joey, but I lived outside the USA for several years. Your claim
is simply lame.

Checker
Joe Bol
2007-07-16 15:59:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@flapper.com
Post by Joe Bol
It isn't my special language. Many religions have a god or multiple
gods who are not considered a "creator" as in your religion. One
problem with Americans is most are ignorant of the fact that there is
a world outside the borders of the USA. One problems with many
Christians is that there are OTHER belief systems besides theirs. You
keep demonstrating that in this one thread.
Sorry joey, but I lived outside the USA for several years. Your claim
is simply lame.
Checker
I made several claims and they are true.

Many religions have a god or multiple gods who are not considered a
"creator"

Most Americans act like there is no world outside of the borders of
their home town or their state or if the USA.

Many Christians are simply ignorant of any religion other than theirs.
They don't know the beliefs, they don't know or care about the history
or the beliefs of other religions and give no respect to them.

Heck, the average "Christian" doesn't even know the beliefs of their
own religious system. A couple of years ago I was discussing
Christianity with a lady I have known all my life. She is a member of
the "Church of Christ." We were discussing something about the
Catholic church actually believing that all non-Catholics were going
to hell.

I told her that her "church" believed the same thing, that their
religion was the only true religion and anyone else was going to hell,
which is literally what they believe.

She argued with me to the point where I had to spell it out to her.
The "Church of Christ" says the way to salvation, the way to avoid
hell, is to hear, believe, repent, confess and to be baptized.

If you don't do those things, you will go to hell. She agreed I was
correct in the doctrine of the "Church of Christ," but she still
didn't believe everyone else is going to hell.

That is why Chic's observation is a reality, that religion is a fringe
activity to the majority of folks who claim to be a follower of
Christ. We may want to claim our religious beliefs are the only true
beliefs and all others are going to Hell, but we don't want to admit
that our relatives who believe differently are going to hell.

My claims above are very true.

BTW, who is your neighbor on the left? Are they bound for Heaven or
Hell?

NC
c***@flapper.com
2007-07-16 18:09:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Bol
Post by c***@flapper.com
Post by Joe Bol
It isn't my special language. Many religions have a god or multiple
gods who are not considered a "creator" as in your religion. One
problem with Americans is most are ignorant of the fact that there is
a world outside the borders of the USA. One problems with many
Christians is that there are OTHER belief systems besides theirs. You
keep demonstrating that in this one thread.
Sorry joey, but I lived outside the USA for several years. Your claim
is simply lame.
Checker
I made several claims and they are true.
Many religions have a god or multiple gods who are not considered a
"creator"
That does not make it illogical to call the creator we see evidence
of, "God."
Post by Joe Bol
Most Americans act like there is no world outside of the borders of
their home town or their state or if the USA.
So what does that have to do with the price of onions?
Post by Joe Bol
Many Christians are simply ignorant of any religion other than theirs.
They don't know the beliefs, they don't know or care about the history
or the beliefs of other religions and give no respect to them.
Like you?
Post by Joe Bol
Heck, the average "Christian" doesn't even know the beliefs of their
own religious system. A couple of years ago I was discussing
Christianity with a lady I have known all my life. She is a member of
the "Church of Christ." We were discussing something about the
Catholic church actually believing that all non-Catholics were going
to hell.
I told her that her "church" believed the same thing, that their
religion was the only true religion and anyone else was going to hell,
which is literally what they believe.
She argued with me to the point where I had to spell it out to her.
The "Church of Christ" says the way to salvation, the way to avoid
hell, is to hear, believe, repent, confess and to be baptized.
WHICH church of Christ? The instrumental one? The non-instrumental
one? Which?
Post by Joe Bol
If you don't do those things, you will go to hell. She agreed I was
correct in the doctrine of the "Church of Christ," but she still
didn't believe everyone else is going to hell.
That is why Chic's observation is a reality, that religion is a fringe
activity to the majority of folks who claim to be a follower of
Christ. We may want to claim our religious beliefs are the only true
beliefs and all others are going to Hell, but we don't want to admit
that our relatives who believe differently are going to hell.
My claims above are very true.
BTW, who is your neighbor on the left? Are they bound for Heaven or
Hell?
NC
my neighbor on the left is a kindly old widow lady who worships at a
Lutheran church. Whether she will go to heaven or hell is up to God
to decide, not me.

I've wasted enough time on you joe, with no fruit to show for it. I
will likely killfile you today because rather than deal with issues,
you would rather just try (unsuccessfully) to slam me.
And that is a sad waste of time.

in the Name of Jesus,
Checker
Joe Bol
2007-07-16 19:31:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@flapper.com
Post by Joe Bol
Post by c***@flapper.com
Post by Joe Bol
It isn't my special language. Many religions have a god or multiple
gods who are not considered a "creator" as in your religion. One
problem with Americans is most are ignorant of the fact that there is
a world outside the borders of the USA. One problems with many
Christians is that there are OTHER belief systems besides theirs. You
keep demonstrating that in this one thread.
Sorry joey, but I lived outside the USA for several years. Your claim
is simply lame.
Checker
I made several claims and they are true.
Many religions have a god or multiple gods who are not considered a
"creator"
That does not make it illogical to call the creator we see evidence
of, "God."
I didn't say it was illogical. Your point was that it always means
the creator. Clearly it does not.
Post by c***@flapper.com
Post by Joe Bol
Most Americans act like there is no world outside of the borders of
their home town or their state or if the USA.
So what does that have to do with the price of onions?
Post by Joe Bol
Many Christians are simply ignorant of any religion other than theirs.
They don't know the beliefs, they don't know or care about the history
or the beliefs of other religions and give no respect to them.
Like you?
No, actually more liike you.
Post by c***@flapper.com
Post by Joe Bol
Heck, the average "Christian" doesn't even know the beliefs of their
own religious system. A couple of years ago I was discussing
Christianity with a lady I have known all my life. She is a member of
the "Church of Christ." We were discussing something about the
Catholic church actually believing that all non-Catholics were going
to hell.
I told her that her "church" believed the same thing, that their
religion was the only true religion and anyone else was going to hell,
which is literally what they believe.
She argued with me to the point where I had to spell it out to her.
The "Church of Christ" says the way to salvation, the way to avoid
hell, is to hear, believe, repent, confess and to be baptized.
WHICH church of Christ? The instrumental one? The non-instrumental
one? Which?
On that point, they agree. Yes, I know members of both groups.
Post by c***@flapper.com
Post by Joe Bol
If you don't do those things, you will go to hell. She agreed I was
correct in the doctrine of the "Church of Christ," but she still
didn't believe everyone else is going to hell.
That is why Chic's observation is a reality, that religion is a fringe
activity to the majority of folks who claim to be a follower of
Christ. We may want to claim our religious beliefs are the only true
beliefs and all others are going to Hell, but we don't want to admit
that our relatives who believe differently are going to hell.
My claims above are very true.
BTW, who is your neighbor on the left? Are they bound for Heaven or
Hell?
NC
my neighbor on the left is a kindly old widow lady who worships at a
Lutheran church. Whether she will go to heaven or hell is up to God
to decide, not me.
In other words, you don't care about her eternal security and don't
intend on witnessing to her at all.
Post by c***@flapper.com
I've wasted enough time on you joe, with no fruit to show for it. I
will likely killfile you today because rather than deal with issues,
you would rather just try (unsuccessfully) to slam me.
Irony!
Post by c***@flapper.com
in the Name of Jesus,
Checker
Now THAT is a sad thing for Jesus.

AD
duke
2007-07-16 21:17:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Bol
I didn't say it was illogical. Your point was that it always means
the creator. Clearly it does not.
There is no other God, so he's not half wrong.
Post by Joe Bol
Post by c***@flapper.com
I've wasted enough time on you joe, with no fruit to show for it. I
will likely killfile you today because rather than deal with issues,
you would rather just try (unsuccessfully) to slam me.
Irony!
Checker won't hang around long if you don't bow to his views.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
c***@flapper.com
2007-07-16 23:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Bol
Post by c***@flapper.com
Post by Joe Bol
Post by c***@flapper.com
Post by Joe Bol
It isn't my special language. Many religions have a god or multiple
gods who are not considered a "creator" as in your religion. One
problem with Americans is most are ignorant of the fact that there is
a world outside the borders of the USA. One problems with many
Christians is that there are OTHER belief systems besides theirs. You
keep demonstrating that in this one thread.
Sorry joey, but I lived outside the USA for several years. Your claim
is simply lame.
Checker
I made several claims and they are true.
Many religions have a god or multiple gods who are not considered a
"creator"
That does not make it illogical to call the creator we see evidence
of, "God."
I didn't say it was illogical. Your point was that it always means
the creator. Clearly it does not.
Post by c***@flapper.com
Post by Joe Bol
Most Americans act like there is no world outside of the borders of
their home town or their state or if the USA.
So what does that have to do with the price of onions?
Post by Joe Bol
Many Christians are simply ignorant of any religion other than theirs.
They don't know the beliefs, they don't know or care about the history
or the beliefs of other religions and give no respect to them.
Like you?
No, actually more liike you.
Post by c***@flapper.com
Post by Joe Bol
Heck, the average "Christian" doesn't even know the beliefs of their
own religious system. A couple of years ago I was discussing
Christianity with a lady I have known all my life. She is a member of
the "Church of Christ." We were discussing something about the
Catholic church actually believing that all non-Catholics were going
to hell.
I told her that her "church" believed the same thing, that their
religion was the only true religion and anyone else was going to hell,
which is literally what they believe.
She argued with me to the point where I had to spell it out to her.
The "Church of Christ" says the way to salvation, the way to avoid
hell, is to hear, believe, repent, confess and to be baptized.
WHICH church of Christ? The instrumental one? The non-instrumental
one? Which?
On that point, they agree. Yes, I know members of both groups.
Post by c***@flapper.com
Post by Joe Bol
If you don't do those things, you will go to hell. She agreed I was
correct in the doctrine of the "Church of Christ," but she still
didn't believe everyone else is going to hell.
That is why Chic's observation is a reality, that religion is a fringe
activity to the majority of folks who claim to be a follower of
Christ. We may want to claim our religious beliefs are the only true
beliefs and all others are going to Hell, but we don't want to admit
that our relatives who believe differently are going to hell.
My claims above are very true.
BTW, who is your neighbor on the left? Are they bound for Heaven or
Hell?
NC
my neighbor on the left is a kindly old widow lady who worships at a
Lutheran church. Whether she will go to heaven or hell is up to God
to decide, not me.
In other words, you don't care about her eternal security and don't
intend on witnessing to her at all.
I know she says the right things and I know she appears to live them.
I don't know her well enough to be able to read her heart though; that
is up to God.

But it is just that kind of trashy assumptions that you make that make
you worthless to talk to, so after I send this, *plonk* you go. . .

checker
Post by Joe Bol
Post by c***@flapper.com
I've wasted enough time on you joe, with no fruit to show for it. I
will likely killfile you today because rather than deal with issues,
you would rather just try (unsuccessfully) to slam me.
Irony!
Post by c***@flapper.com
in the Name of Jesus,
Checker
Now THAT is a sad thing for Jesus.
AD
Joe Bol
2007-07-17 03:13:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@flapper.com
Post by Joe Bol
Post by c***@flapper.com
my neighbor on the left is a kindly old widow lady who worships at a
Lutheran church. Whether she will go to heaven or hell is up to God
to decide, not me.
In other words, you don't care about her eternal security and don't
intend on witnessing to her at all.
I know she says the right things and I know she appears to live them.
I don't know her well enough to be able to read her heart though; that
is up to God.
But it is just that kind of trashy assumptions that you make that make
you worthless to talk to, so after I send this, *plonk* you go. . .
checker
Yes...run, run, run.

IU
duke
2007-07-16 21:14:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Bol
Many Christians are simply ignorant of any religion other than theirs.
They don't know the beliefs, they don't know or care about the history
or the beliefs of other religions and give no respect to them.
Heck, the average "Christian" doesn't even know the beliefs of their
own religious system. A couple of years ago I was discussing
Christianity with a lady I have known all my life. She is a member of
the "Church of Christ." We were discussing something about the
Catholic church actually believing that all non-Catholics were going
to hell.
That's totally wrong. The RCC believes no such thing. For those that join the
RCC after being baptized in a non-Catholic but Christian Church, no further
"Catholic" baptism is acceptable.

The words you are referencing state "(c)atholic" Church, not "(C)atholic"
Church.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Deathbringer
2007-07-16 15:37:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@flapper.com
Post by Joe Bol
Post by c***@flapper.com
Post by Joe Bol
Post by c***@flapper.com
Post by Joe Bol
Post by c***@flapper.com
I don't know the exact same amount as YOU don't know. And
didn't
Post by Joe Bol
Post by c***@flapper.com
Post by Joe Bol
Post by c***@flapper.com
Post by Joe Bol
Post by c***@flapper.com
say WHO that creator was, except that it is not illogical to cal
Him
Post by Joe Bol
Post by c***@flapper.com
Post by Joe Bol
Post by c***@flapper.com
Post by Joe Bol
Post by c***@flapper.com
God.
To call him WHICH God?
It is not logical to call him "God" anymore than to call hi
"Bruce"
Post by Joe Bol
Post by c***@flapper.com
Post by Joe Bol
Post by c***@flapper.com
Post by Joe Bol
or to call him "Bible Bob" or "Micky Mouse."
EU
The term "God" usually refers to a creator.
Perhaps in your belief system. It is not true in all belie
systems
Post by Joe Bol
Post by c***@flapper.com
Post by Joe Bol
that use the term "god."
Try looking the word up in Webster's or some other reputable
dictionary.
Sorry joey, but I don't subscribe to YOUR "special" language.
Checker
It isn't my special language. Many religions have a god or multiple
gods who are not considered a "creator" as in your religion. One
problem with Americans is most are ignorant of the fact that there is
a world outside the borders of the USA. One problems with many
Christians is that there are OTHER belief systems besides theirs.
You
Post by Joe Bol
keep demonstrating that in this one thread.
Sorry joey, but I lived outside the USA for several years. Your claim
is simply lame.
Checker
Actually, that just means you have no excuse for being astoundingl
ignorant

--
Deathbringe
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Deathbringer's Profile: http://bbs.whatpissesyouoff.com/member.php?userid=275
View this thread: http://bbs.whatpissesyouoff.com/showthread.php?t=23408

Posted via Forum to Usenet Gateway at http://bbs.whatpissesyouoff.co
duke
2007-07-14 12:08:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@flapper.com
Was the universe "created" by an intelligent being.
That doesn't defy physics since physics doesn't address it.
It doesn't defy logic since no better solution has been proposed.
And if it was "created," then why not call that "creator," GOD!!!!??
Come on checker - you're using my line. At least give me credit.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
James
2007-09-01 17:34:46 UTC
Permalink
Re: OT -- What did the 'big bang' bang into?
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:21:07 -0500, "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER"
Post by Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
- - -
Certainly, thinking outside the box can and
has led to many fascinating perspectives on
what, exactly, the nature of 'all' is.
The 'big bang', assumptions are that it banged
into a void, yet in the past 10 years, scientists
have discovered that bang isn't slowing down.
Instead, it's speeding up.
I <snipped the rest> for wont of time.
Just a comment though. . .
What was there to go "bang" anyway? Where did this matter supposedly
originate?
Did it pop into being from nothing? Doesn't that violate physics?
Did it always exist? Then why didn't it "bang" before, and since the
universe is constantly expanding, why is the universe not fully
expanded, particles equally disbursed already? It isn't, of course.
OR
TADAAAAAAAA. . .!
Was the universe "created" by an intelligent being.
That doesn't defy physics since physics doesn't address it.
It doesn't defy logic since no better solution has been proposed.
And if it was "created," then why not call that "creator," GOD!!!!??
in the Name of Jesus,
Checker
Hello,

Yes, some good logic. And actually physics does address a Creator,
even though they many not admit it.

Their law of conservation of energy basically states that energy
cannot be created or destroyed, but only change its form. One look at
the universe out there shows an amount of energy existing that is
unimaginable. If energy cannot be created, then that amount of energy
must have always existed. So where did it come from? The Bible gives
us the answer. Isa 40:26,

"Raise YOUR eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is
the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of
whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he
also being vigorous in power, not one [of them] is missing." (NWT)

Yes, all the "energy" of our universe came from a source of previous
tremendous energy; God.


Sincerely, James

**If you wish to have a discussion with me, please use email since I
do not follow ng threads

***********************************
Want a Free home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************

Midwinter
2007-07-12 08:16:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
They refer to it as a force, the cause of the
speeding up, yet you rarely hear the question,
"What did the 'big bang' bang into?"
Nothing. There wasn't even a void at that point.
Post by Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
The standard presumption is that there was
nothing, a bang, and then everything.
'Everything' already existed.
Post by Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
recently, scientists have theorized about
a before the big bang realm
No, they've hypothesised about it. More than that can't be done.
Post by Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
Humans, the only intelligent sentient cogni-
zant beings anywhere, anywhen, -or- one
of many?
Unknown, yet.
We're very unlikely indeed to be the only ones. However, that doesn't
equate to a belief that we've ever been visited by aliens, which is
frankly far less likely, separated as we may be by huge gulfs of time and
space.
Post by Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
How, exactly, did chemistry result in replicat-
ing matter and complex beings like us, being
here?
Certainly, a lot more is known than what our
ancestors of the 18th century knew. Even
so, much remains to be discovered, and it's
science, not religion, that offers the most
estimable and provable path to the answer.
Correct. The answer to your above question just isn't fully known.
While we don't know the answer, we might well say 'God did it', if we're
so inclined, and no-one would have the means to prove otherwise. But a
religion must be willing to incorporate what is known about the universe
- when science provides us with an answer to the question 'what is life'
then we must accept it (albeit we might still argue that God did it by
whatever means science has shown us). The alternative is to do what
Creationists do and spend our lives trying to discredit science in a
futile attempt to protect a simplistic fairy story.
--
Midwinter
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
2007-07-13 15:00:08 UTC
Permalink
Midwinter wrote ...
Post by Midwinter
Post by Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
[...]
How, exactly, did chemistry result in replicat-
ing matter and complex beings like us, being
here?
Certainly, a lot more is known than what our
ancestors of the 18th century knew. Even
so, much remains to be discovered, and it's
science, not religion, that offers the most
estimable and provable path to the answer.
Correct. The answer to your above question just isn't fully
known. While we don't know the answer, we might well say
'God did it', if we're so inclined, and no-one would have the
means to prove otherwise.
Thanks, for your well-reasoned com-
ments in this thread.

As for the "God did it" position that
so many adopt, a reflection of ancient
religious mind-traps, and here's one
way of looking at that:

Anyone can say "Allah did it", or "Joe
did it", or "Higher Powers did it", or
"Jinns did it", or "Little invisible friends
did it", or "Intelligent Aliens did it", or
"Whomever or whatever intelligence
one wishes to imagine up or concoct
did it", but as for evidence, that's an
entirely separate matter ...
Post by Midwinter
But a religion must be willing to incorporate what is known
about the universe - when science provides us with an answer
to the question 'what is life' then we must accept it (albeit we
might still argue that God did it by whatever means science
has shown us). The alternative is to do what Creationists do
and spend our lives trying to discredit science in a futile
attempt to protect a simplistic fairy story.
--
Midwinter
I've been fascinated by the topic of ultimate
origins for a good part of my entire life. Here's
a compilation with some excerpts and links to
some of my research on the matter:

- - -

Infinite Universes, Infinite Size,
No "In the Beginning", No End

Put another way, think of the all as always
existing, a circle of infinite size, with no
beginning, no ending, simply always there.

Any piece of that circle, simply part of
infinity, part of the all, and the all?

Always existent, always spawning universes,
always expanding.

Ramifications?

For me, personally, it's empowering, thinking
of oneself as being part of an infinity of pos-
sibilites, with no absolute ending, ever, and
no point at which naturalism ceases to be,
ever, just parts which begin and end.

Sure, a particular space-time continuum has
a beginning and end, and entities within each
continuum have beginnings and ends, but
being part of an infinite number of space-time
continuums that never began, and that never
end, that's the true measure of the all.

Certainly, the role each of us plays in such
unimaginably vast realms of space and
time, a very subjective one, but when one
opens one's mind up to the possibility that
there was really never nothing, that the all of
which we are a part had no absolute begin-
ning, and has no absolute ending, that the
infinity that spawned each of us is endless ...

I suppose one is faced with a paradox, to
either ...

... feel one's existence is validated, as
being an important part of an infinite and
never-ending and never-not-existing all ...

-or-

... to feel infinitely small and unimportant ...

-or-

... both, as it's simply just a matter of how
you look at it ...

- - -
January 31, 2007

Cosmological model rivals Big Bang theory

Science Daily
http://tinyurl.com/2mgsg6
- - -

Excerpt:

(UPI)

U.S. physicists have constructed a cosmo-
logical model that suggests the universe
can endlessly expand and contract.

That cyclic model ... has four key parts:

expansion,

turnaround,

contraction

and

bounce.

During expansion, dark energy -- the force
causing the universe to expand at an accel-
erating rate -- pushes until all matter frag-
ments into patches so far apart nothing
can bridge the gaps.

Everything from black holes to atoms dis-
integrates.

That, a fraction of a second before the end
of time, is the turnaround.

At the turnaround, each fragmented patch
collapses and contracts individually instead
of pulling back together in a reversal of the
Big Bang.

The patches become an infinite number
of independent universes, contracting and
then bouncing outward again, reinflating in
a manner similar to the Big Bang.

One patch becomes our universe.

"This cycle happens an infinite number of
times, thus eliminating any start or end of
time," Frampton said.

"There is no Big Bang."

...

- - - end excerpt - - -

- - -

Endless Universe
http://www.endlessuniverse.net/

Excerpt:

The Big Bang theory is widely regarded as the
leading explanation for the origin of the universe.

Yet, over the last three decades, the theory has
been revised repeatedly to address such issues
as how galaxies and stars first formed and why
the expansion of the universe is speeding up
today.

Furthermore, no explanation has been found for
what caused the Big Bang in the first place.

In Endless Universe, Paul J. Steinhardt and Neil
Turok, both distinguished theoretical physicists,
critique the Big Bang theory and recount the
remarkable developments in astronomy, particle
physics, and superstring theory that form the
basis for a groundbreaking alternative, the “Cyclic
Universe” theory.

According to this theory, the Big Bang was not
the beginning of time but the bridge to a past filled
with endlessly repeating cycles of evolution, each
accompanied by the creation of new matter and
the formation of new galaxies, stars, and planets.

The authors explain why the ensuing debate be-
tween these two, radically different theories will
profoundly affect the future of cosmology and
perhaps science, in general.

- - -

Universe(s) Origin(s) Preface
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/universes_origins_preface.htm

Universe(s) Origin(s) - 1 of 7
}}} String Theory / Infinities / Singularities {{{
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/universes_origins_1_of_7.htm

Universe(s) Origin(s) - 2 of 7
}}} No Origin of the Universe? {{{
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/universes_origins_2_of_7.htm

Universe(s) Origin(s) - 3 of 7
}}} Multiverse? {{{
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/universes_origins_3_of_7.htm

Universe(s) Origin(s) - 4 of 7
}}} Universes from Black Holes? {{{
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/universes_origins_4_of_7.htm

Universe(s) Origin(s) - 5 of 7
}}} Cyclic Universe? {{{
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/universes_origins_5_of_7.htm

Universe(s) Origin(s) - 6 of 7
}}} Einstein / Big Bang / Superstrings {{{
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/universes_origins_6_of_7.htm

Universe(s) Origin(s) - 7 of 7
}}} Nothing / Everything {{{
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/universes_origins_7_of_7.htm

- - -
11 July 2007

Massive Research Project Nearing Completion
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-07-11-voa28.cfm
- - -

Excerpts:

The world's largest particle physics laboratory
is under construction on the border between
Switzerland and France.

At the heart is the Large Hadron Collider Particle
Accelerator being built by the European Organi-
zation for Nuclear Research (CERN).

Its members hope it will reveal secrets of the
universe and its formation.

...

The goal of the project is to discover the origin
of matter by replicating conditions just after "the
big bang."

...

The particle accelerator and collider is a 27 kilo-
meter tunnel, about 100 meters underground.

...

"This is a discovery machine. It's built to make
discoveries and is going to tell us lots of new
things about the universe."

If all goes as planned, subatomic particles will
be accelerated around the tunnel next year,
eventually approach light speed, and smash
into one another.

...

"To me the most exciting thing is that we know
an awful lot about a small amount of the universe.
We understand the stars, the galaxies, the stuff
which makes up you and me, but we also know
from cosmology that is about four percent of
what must be out there, and this machine might
help us take steps in understanding the remain-
ing 96 percent of the universe."

...

- - - end excerpts - - -

€ - € - € - € - € - € - € - € - € - € - € - €

~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman
Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality
~~~
duke
2007-07-14 12:07:27 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:21:07 -0500, "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER"
Post by Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
The 'big bang', assumptions are that it banged
into a void, yet in the past 10 years, scientists
have discovered that bang isn't slowing down.
Instead, it's speeding up.
It didn't "bang" into a void. Void comes from the "bang". Think about that
and think God.

And, yes, it is speeding up, meaning that there was no former big crunch. Think
God.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
2007-07-14 16:52:13 UTC
Permalink
"duke" wrote ...
"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" wrote,
among many other comments, with
only the following selected for a
response by "duke" ...
Post by Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
The 'big bang', assumptions are that it banged
into a void, yet in the past 10 years, scientists
have discovered that bang isn't slowing down.
Instead, it's speeding up.
It didn't "bang" into a void. Void comes from the "bang". Think
about that and think God.
It banged into God? That had to hurt,
but seriously, many scientific theories
are in contention with the biblical pre-
sumption of nothingness (except God)
followed by everything the anonymous
biblical writers were aware of at the time
they wrote "In the beginning".
And, yes, it is speeding up, meaning that there was no former
big crunch.
Speeding up and former big crunch are
consistent, as presented by many of the
before bang theories. Former big crunch
is but one of the many before bang theories.
Think
God.
I prefer to exist within the realm of reason,
logic, evidence, and reality, but as for the
propensity of humans to "Think God", to
impose those beliefs on the vulnerable
and innocent, and to pass those beliefs
on to future generations, here's a way of
thinking about that likely differing from the
manner heretofore implemented by most ...

What if God exists ...
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/disbelief/what_if_god_exists.htm
... is a standard premise utilized by assorted
proponents of God as reality. Usually, the what
if God exists premise is followed by a presump-
tion of a particular version of God (Christian,
typically, in western thought).

However, for those of you who have bought the
God concept, unsure of the details, recognizing
all the versions, the conflicts, the contradictions,
the mysteries, the unknowns, the fact that faith
is requisite for your belief, have you ever given
any thought to the possibility that ...

... humans got the God as reality concept right
(a premise which I fail to see merit in, but given
that many see merit in it, that begs the following
question), but got what God is totally wrong?

Along those lines ...

What if God exists, -and-

1) is an admirer of the scientific method

2) disdains worship

3) disdains prayer

4) wants nothing from humans except respect
for life, in the here and now

5) is a non-intervener

6) has the potential for unimaginable gain for
humans deemed worthy by virtue of following
the tenets iterated in '1' thru '5', or worthy by
virtue of innocence

- - -

What if ... for those of you who like to exercise
thinking about God as a reality, perhaps it's worth
thinking about God in a manner differing from the
way our primitive unscientific evolved apes thought
about it ...

Perhaps thinking about God as something that, if
existent, might be radically different than what pre-
scientific evolved apes came up with in a day of
ignorance and fear and superstition. Perhaps an
alternate version of God, for those of faith, might
be worth some consideration in modern times ...

- - -

€ - € - € - € - € - € - € - € - € - € - € - €

~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman
Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality
~~~
Deathbringer
2007-07-14 17:22:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
"duke" wrote ...
"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" wrote,
among many other comments, with
only the following selected for a
response by "duke" ...
Post by Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
The 'big bang', assumptions are that it banged
into a void, yet in the past 10 years, scientists
have discovered that bang isn't slowing down.
Instead, it's speeding up.
It didn't "bang" into a void. Void comes from the "bang". Think
about that and think God.
It banged into God? That had to hurt,
but seriously, many scientific theories
are in contention with the biblical pre-
sumption of nothingness (except God)
followed by everything the anonymous
biblical writers were aware of at the time
they wrote "In the beginning".
And, yes, it is speeding up, meaning that there was no former
big crunch.
Speeding up and former big crunch are
consistent, as presented by many of the
before bang theories. Former big crunch
is but one of the many before bang theories.
Think
God.
I prefer to exist within the realm of reason,
logic, evidence, and reality, but as for the
propensity of humans to "Think God", to
impose those beliefs on the vulnerable
and innocent, and to pass those beliefs
on to future generations, here's a way of
thinking about that likely differing from the
manner heretofore implemented by most ...
What if God exists ...
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/disbelief/what_if_god_exists.htm
.... is a standard premise utilized by assorted
proponents of God as reality. Usually, the what
if God exists premise is followed by a presump-
tion of a particular version of God (Christian,
typically, in western thought).
However, for those of you who have bought the
God concept, unsure of the details, recognizing
all the versions, the conflicts, the contradictions,
the mysteries, the unknowns, the fact that faith
is requisite for your belief, have you ever given
any thought to the possibility that ...
.... humans got the God as reality concept right
(a premise which I fail to see merit in, but given
that many see merit in it, that begs the following
question), but got what God is totally wrong?
Along those lines ...
What if God exists, -and-
1) is an admirer of the scientific method
2) disdains worship
3) disdains prayer
4) wants nothing from humans except respect
for life, in the here and now
5) is a non-intervener
6) has the potential for unimaginable gain for
humans deemed worthy by virtue of following
the tenets iterated in '1' thru '5', or worthy by
virtue of innocence
- - -
What if ... for those of you who like to exercise
thinking about God as a reality, perhaps it's worth
thinking about God in a manner differing from the
way our primitive unscientific evolved apes thought
about it ...
Perhaps thinking about God as something that, if
existent, might be radically different than what pre-
scientific evolved apes came up with in a day of
ignorance and fear and superstition. Perhaps an
alternate version of God, for those of faith, might
be worth some consideration in modern times ...
- - -
€ - € - € - € - € - € - € - € - € - € - € - €
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman
Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality
~~~
The god you are describing might exist, but I would have made sure tha
science would point towards my existence

--
Deathbringe
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Deathbringer's Profile: http://bbs.whatpissesyouoff.com/member.php?userid=275
View this thread: http://bbs.whatpissesyouoff.com/showthread.php?t=23408

Posted via Forum to Usenet Gateway at http://bbs.whatpissesyouoff.co
duke
2007-07-14 18:38:29 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 11:52:13 -0500, "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER"
Post by Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
Post by duke
It didn't "bang" into a void. Void comes from the "bang". Think
about that and think God.
It banged into God? That had to hurt,
but seriously, many scientific theories
are in contention with the biblical pre-
sumption of nothingness (except God)
followed by everything the anonymous
biblical writers were aware of at the time
they wrote "In the beginning".
Yet it's science that says that some 14.5 billions years ago, an infinitely
small point of mass of infinite density appeared to then explode outward to form
our universe, including all mass, energy, void and time.

Science also agrees that the universe is "open", ie, it is expanding at an
increasing rate, hence no former big crunch because the mass/energy is the same.
Post by Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
Post by duke
And, yes, it is speeding up, meaning that there was no former
big crunch.
Speeding up and former big crunch are
consistent, as presented by many of the
before bang theories.
No, no former big crunch. It's can't be accelerating this time but decelerating
the previous time. The mass energy balance is the same by definition.
Post by Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
I prefer to exist within the realm of reason,
logic, evidence, and reality,
The existence of God as the creator of the universe is the only reality that
makes common sense.
Post by Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
What if God exists ...
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/disbelief/what_if_god_exists.htm
... is a standard premise utilized by assorted
proponents of God as reality. Usually, the what
if God exists premise is followed by a presump-
tion of a particular version of God (Christian,
typically, in western thought).
Christian is not a particular version of God.
Post by Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
However, for those of you who have bought the
God concept, unsure of the details, recognizing
all the versions, the conflicts, the contradictions,
the mysteries, the unknowns, the fact that faith
is requisite for your belief, have you ever given
any thought to the possibility that ...
... humans got the God as reality concept right
(a premise which I fail to see merit in, but given
that many see merit in it, that begs the following
question), but got what God is totally wrong?
Along those lines ...
What if God exists, -and-
1) is an admirer of the scientific method
2) disdains worship
3) disdains prayer
4) wants nothing from humans except respect
for life, in the here and now
5) is a non-intervener
6) has the potential for unimaginable gain for
humans deemed worthy by virtue of following
the tenets iterated in '1' thru '5', or worthy by
virtue of innocence
What if he wants you to gouge your own eyes out and dismember yourself, or burn
in the flames forever?

I'll take my chances with what I see he's given me.


duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
demibee
2007-07-16 08:13:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Christian is not a particular version of God.
Then "Christian" is a particular way of understanding God. If one
doesn't believe Jesus is divine and, therefore, worthy of worship, he
falls short of what Christianity demands of him. If, OTOH, one /does/
accept the divinity of Jesus and worships accordingly, he's saved...
according to Christianity. But according to Islam, he's blasphemed by
putting "another diety" ahead of God... as, while they believe Jesus
was the Messiah born of a virgin, they don't believe he has divine
status. To them, such a notion is incompatible with monotheism, and
trinities aren't seen as a solution.

Personally, I still find it a bit confusing as to why Christians
require not just the veneration, but the /worship/ of Jesus in the
first place. If a Christian were to pray to "God," would He fail to
respond? Or do worshippers absolutely /have/ to get Him through His
"Jesus" line? ;)

I suspect Christianity seems most reasonable to those who were born
into it, grew up with it, and so on. If people were denied any and
all information about world religions until the age of 20, it'd be
interesting to see which, if any, appealed to them when they finally
got to see the choices available.


db
duke
2007-07-16 10:55:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by demibee
Post by duke
Christian is not a particular version of God.
Then "Christian" is a particular way of understanding God. If one
doesn't believe Jesus is divine and, therefore, worthy of worship, he
falls short of what Christianity demands of him. If, OTOH, one /does/
accept the divinity of Jesus and worships accordingly, he's saved...
according to Christianity.
Uh, not quite true, for only God knows.
Post by demibee
But according to Islam, he's blasphemed by
putting "another diety" ahead of God... as, while they believe Jesus
was the Messiah born of a virgin, they don't believe he has divine
status. To them, such a notion is incompatible with monotheism, and
trinities aren't seen as a solution.
No putting "another deity" ahead of God

Islam - Allah, called Muslims, submissive to God
Hebrew - Jehovah, called Jews, ser vents of God
Christinaity - God almighty, called Christians, family of God
Post by demibee
Personally, I still find it a bit confusing as to why Christians
require not just the veneration, but the /worship/ of Jesus in the
first place.
He is God become man for the redemption from sin and to restore salvation to
souls previously tossed away by A&E.
Post by demibee
If a Christian were to pray to "God," would He fail to
respond? Or do worshippers absolutely /have/ to get Him through His
"Jesus" line? ;)
One God in 3 persons - Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
Post by demibee
I suspect Christianity seems most reasonable to those who were born
into it, grew up with it, and so on. If people were denied any and
all information about world religions until the age of 20, it'd be
interesting to see which, if any, appealed to them when they finally
got to see the choices available.
One can't beat being a part of the family of God.


duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
demibee
2007-07-16 22:39:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by demibee
But according to Islam, he's blasphemed by
putting "another diety" ahead of God... as, while they believe Jesus
was the Messiah born of a virgin, they don't believe he has divine
status. To them, such a notion is incompatible with monotheism, and
trinities aren't seen as a solution.
No putting "another deity" ahead of God
Islam - Allah, called Muslims, submissive to God
Hebrew - Jehovah, called Jews, ser vents of God
Christinaity - God almighty, called Christians, family of God
Most Mulsims wouldn't accept that. Nor would most Jews. For them,
Jesus is /not/ part of the Godhead. So, who's right, who's wrong, and
what method do we use to determine that?

Some might say prayer provides an answer; but the Jew will say he was
moved by God to believe in the Law; the Muslim will say he was moved
to submit to the will of God only... and a unitarian God at that.
That's the problem with exclusivist religions: which one is true?...
and how does one verify that *objectively*?
Post by duke
Post by demibee
I suspect Christianity seems most reasonable to those who were born
into it, grew up with it, and so on. If people were denied any and
all information about world religions until the age of 20, it'd be
interesting to see which, if any, appealed to them when they finally
got to see the choices available.
One can't beat being a part of the family of God.
If you didn't already believe in the divinity of Jesus, do you think
that at 20, never having previously heard the story, you'd be able to /
make/ yourself believe it?... i.e., that Jesus was /actually/ the one-
and-only God in the flesh?... and that all others who've made similar
claims have been frauds?

It's as difficult for a non-Christian to believe in the divinity of
Jesus as it is for a non-Mormon to believe that Jewish tribes lived
in, and Jesus preached in, North America. If a well-intended Mormon /
begged/ you to believe it for your own good, could you do it? Is it
a /choice/? Or would you be more inclined to say that you simply /
can't/ believe it?... that it doesn't jibe with what makes sense to
you?


Jews don't believe Jesus to be the Messiah, nor do they believe in his
divinity (these are two separate notions in Judaism, as the Jewish
Messiah was never expected to be divine). This is because, for them,
he didn't fulfill the necessary prophecies (building of the third
temple in Jerusalem, bringing in an era of peace, etc.)...

<http://www.aish.com/spirituality/philosophy/
Why_Dont_Jews_Believe_In_Jesus$.asp>

They also have a major problem with the Septuagint's translation of
Isaiah 7:14...

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_7:14>

In the original Hebrew, the word was "almah," which is almost always
translated as "young woman" or "maiden." Yet the Septuagint, with its
questionable Greek translation, is the basis for most English Bibles.
(The RSV/NRSV is one exception I can think of.)

Interestingly, Mark, which is believed to be the oldest of the
gospels, mentions no birth story. I suspect "Matthew" and "Luke"
created birth narratives to fit the mis-translation in the then
commonly-used Septuagint.


Muslims don't believe in Jesus' divinity because it violates their
notion of a single and indivisible unitarian God.


Christians /do/ believe it... But what makes their view the "right"
one?

I suspect the only true statement any person (religious or secular)
can make is, "I don't know... I /believe/, but I don't /know/."

Beyond that, the influence of Egyptian religions (i.e., Horus and
Isis) and Zoroastrianism (and Mithraism) are difficult to deny.
Personally, I see it all as an *enrichment* of the traditions -- a
record of the fact that people mixed, shared ideas, adopted ideas.
If /they/ were open to new ideas and interpretations of their own
traditions, doesn't it stand to reason that we should be too? Their
acceptance of new ideas seems to me (a) an admission that the *literal
truth* is ultimately unknown, and (b) a desrire to transcend ignorance
to get closer to that Truth, whatever it may be.


db
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...