this is prob a dumb question, but how do you qoute different senteces of a post as apposed to the whole damn post?
You start with the whole thing, but you can click into the quotation box and delete lines you don't want in there. You can copy the whole box itself, and paste it if you want to do interstitial comments, and then just take snippets you want to respond to and drop them in the separate boxes.
At this moment, the universe would literally be this ball, and the space surrounding it that's affected by its gravitation.
Since the universe expands WITH the matter, the very light wavelengths travelling through it expand as well. There would be no point that you could travel to tangentally to the edge of the universe - if you had unlimited time, speed and resources, you'd only ever succeed in circumnavigating it, not exceeding its boundary.
I listed to scientists and read current scientific news, others listen to priests and read ancient holy documents. There's absolutely no difference, really, since I personally can't prove any of it's true, and neither can the religious person.
You'll have to excuse me if my questions are repetitive or redundant,
So the universe in its begginning is a ball of near infinite mass, but where did ithe ball of near infinite mass come from? I can almost comprehend that the universe is expanding as a result of a 'big bang' but what baffles me is where did all the mass in the universe come from?
As far as the red shift and the expanding universe, the red shift implies that all galaxies are movie away from the earth at an accelerated speed, some faster than others. This would seem to imply though, that the earth is the center of the universe? shouldn't there be galaxies accelerating towards or own, and not just away?
as far as circumnavigating the universe, you could not exceed it's boundry but for the theory to be true there would have to be a boundry? My point being that what is ' the boundry' gravity? and even if it was impassible, there would still be something ' beyond' that boundry right?
and I agree that neither side can prove the other wrong or right, would be an excersize in futility, however, it's very interesting subject matter and I enjoy thinking / debating on it
1- So the universe in its begginning is a ball of near infinite mass, but where did ithe ball of near infinite mass come from? I can almost comprehend that the universe is expanding as a result of a 'big bang' but what baffles me is where did all the mass in the universe come from?
As far as the red shift and the expanding universe, the red shift implies that all galaxies are movie away from the earth at an accelerated speed, some faster than others. 2- This would seem to imply though, that the earth is the center of the universe? 3- shouldn't there be galaxies accelerating towards or own, and not just away?
1- I dunno lol
2- No. Next time you are blowing up a "happy birthday" balloon, before you start, look at the letters on it. Then blow it up. Look again. You'll notice the words on opposite sides have moved away each other, and the letters in each word have also moved away from each other. Pretend you were standing on the letter B. Every letter in the known balloon is moving away from you, but you are not in the centre. Admittedly, this is a very simplistic metaphor, because...
3- There are observable galaxies moving towards our own. Andromeda is "supposed" to collide with our galaxy in about 3 billion years. Saying it is 'accelerating towards' us probably isn't the right way to think of it though.
I'm not religious but I have faith. Faith doesn't need religion. Religion is just a way of expressing faith (like tithing and choir), and without faith religion is meaningless. Faith is all we need, everything else is just stuff man mixed in from his own ideas. Also I don't think you need a book to tell you right from wrong. No human being born alive is ignorant of pain and suffering. We all come to life screaming and hollering for a reason.
if the universe keeps expanding, that means it has to have a boundary, else it can not expand
that makes it theoretically possible to reach that boundary.. but what is beyond that?
in what ' space' does the universy ly?
To coolpapachiv and Xtinthed, this is the tough part where it takes some lateral thinking.
I know it's tough to imagine a "closed" universe, since our perception of space is that it's infinitely expansive. Think of it in terms of earth itself. We agree that it's a simple sphere, the form of least resistance; of symmetric forces. Something that has been created by the forces that exist in nothing. It seems like you could walk in one direction forever, perhaps going off the "end of the earth" when it ran out...a logical assumption based on direct personal evidence at hand...but eventually you'd wind up right back at your front doorstep if you maintained a perfectly straight line in any direction. Since this is impossible to test, we rely on those who have a flare for the enormous to provide us with mathematical observations.
It turns out infinity is a much tougher idea to grasp than a simple sphere, when you get down to it. It's just a convenient description for the universe because from where we're standing, it's so tough to conceive that we just say "yep, it's that big."
I understand your musing about what lies beyond that sphere, just like "outer space" exists beyond the sphere of our Earth. But space/time is a fabric, more tightly woven than something that is analogous to the Earth/"outer space."
Modern scientists consider this problem largely satisfied by Einstein's theories of general relativity (discarding Newton's simplistic views of the physical world - a good example of observable and testable evidence which winds up breaking down on extremely large, or extremely small scales), and we consider the "stuff" in which we exist to be other dimensions. They're not only mathematically proven to exist, but evidence has been seen in earlier versions of that LHC which has been in the news, lately.
At CERN and other older particle colliders, some very large unstable microparticles have been seen "winking" in and out of existence, sometimes along the same path (as if they were phasing out, then back in). Initially this was written off as test error, something to do with the measuring equipment. But after replicating the results again and again, it was realized that these high-energy near-fundamental particles may just have had enough energy because of the collisions to exist in our space-time before defaulting to their dimension of least resistance.
It's another "aha" moment when you can conceive alternate levels of existence within the same perceivable "space." On the surface of our sphere, with a little extra "potential energy" we can exist in the same place as another human. Ever heard of a second-floor apartment?
Also, about a geocentric universe - this is another "faith" thing because from our frame of reference, we really are the center of the universe. I mean yours and mine, not scientists with large telescopes. It's all up from where we're standing! But seriously, frame of reference is what it's all about. From any point in the universe, looking at another point, each of those might say "gee, everything else seems to be swirling and moving away from me, I must be the center of the universe" but those who have obvserved data on an outwarldly immense scale agree - really we're all on a cosmic speck of snot in a giant galactic sneeze.
For a more basic description of frame of reference, if you're driving in your spaceship at 55 mph in an asteroid belt, and I'm cruising alongside you at the same speed, we both look as if we're motionless to one another. The rocks are whizzing by, of course, but one cannot measurably tell whether it's the asteroids that are moving 55mph past both of us! Surely the ship doesn't work by making the universe move beneath it!
How about if we're flying away from one another, both of us moving at 55mph. If we measure one another with a radar gun, it looks like the other is moving away from our point at 110mph, and we're relatively stationary, no matter which ship you're shooting the radar gun from.
wow Dan, thats one big wall of text.. but i've read it all and am now trying to bend my brain around it to continue the discussion
what do you mean with that second-floor apartment thing? multi-dimensional beeings?
i've read about the superstrings and gravity-dimension theory's which give you the potential to travel time, is that what you're referring too?
i understand the whole abstractness of the universe, but still if you look at it very basic there are some assumptions you make coupled to the terminology used.
If something expands, regardless of how or in which direction, it needs a " free space" to fill up
the movement thing is fun tho, its like in super mario kart, where you dont control the car but the track beneath you (which really fucks with you the first times u play it)
but with that logic, everything can be seen as the middlepoint of existance because you can not see the big picture and see the action point of gravitation.
If you center yourself, everything either stands at a steady distance,moves towards you or moves away from you in an orb around you.
side-tracking: is there actual anti-material in excistance or only the highly instable material they witness apear and disappear?
what do you mean with that second-floor apartment thing? multi-dimensional beeings?
A sphere is a three-dimensional object. One can exist at many points along the surface of the sphere. A two-story apartment is just a very rough analogy to two bits of stuff being able to occupy the same point on a three-dimensional object. Of course, referring to a sphere as such, we're really only treating it as a curved 2D surface since we're only talking about the surface...which is why the analogy is very rough It's the closest thing we can come to actually visualizing the idea though.
As far as "beings" or life forms - who knows. No method of measurement has even been able to peek into these dimensions, so we don't know what kind of matter or energy even inhabits them yet.
Originally posted by: Xtincthed
i understand the whole abstractness of the universe, but still if you look at it very basic there are some assumptions you make coupled to the terminology used.
If something expands, regardless of how or in which direction, it needs a " free space" to fill up
This is a newtonian notion based on the observable world around you. No space is truly empty though. Even in the vacuum of a bell jar, there is "stuff." Radio waves, light, radiation, a vacuum is teeming with things going on...even some vibrations we can't yet describe. It's assumed that all of this "stuff" may even comprise the dark matter which makes up the lion's share of the matter we cannot detect in the universe yet. Actual "fabric" - not just empty space.
Keep in mind, before someone realized the wind indicated there was "stuff" around us in Earth's atmosphere, we thought we were all walking around in empty space as well.
On a side note, the universal background radiation is more circumstantial evidence of a big-bang event. But that's another wall-o-text
Originally posted by: Xtincthed
side-tracking: is there actual anti-material in excistance or only the highly instable material they witness apear and disappear?
Yes, and we use it everyday to treat people in progressive modern hospitals. PET scan stands for Positron Emission Tomography. Positrons are the antimatter equivalent to Electrons.
Scientists have been able to contain very small amounts of antimatter within electromagnetic fields for short durations in a stable manner. This is the groundwork for the next step in nuclear energy. Going back to "frames of reference" - an antiparticle colliding with a "normal" particle will produce at least twice as much energy, since all atomic motion is equal but opposite. A nuclear blast using a matter mass colliding with an antimatter mass would, in theory, release at least twice as much nuclear energy (because of the diametrically opposing forces), and probably an awful lot more. Quick search says 4x as much more. The extra "jolt" comes from the actual fundamental particles themselves being annihilated. This means the forces that bind an atom together are only half of the total energy within that atom, the rest lies within the subatomic particles themselves.
Regular nuclear blasts release gamma radiation, alpha particles, neutrons, electrons, and have other "larger" physical impacts such as heat and concussion. Antimatter would release all of its energy in the form of radiations of varying kinds, which means it's more efficient at producing raw energy, but can only be done in a vacuum (since it could collide with a matter air particle).
Dan hit it on the head, that matter DEFINES the universe, and there is, most likely, a finite supply of it, therefore the universe as we know it is finite. The void beyond the limits can't be entered or experienced because then it would no longer be void.
Coolpapa - the fact that you say there is an absence of something, does not make it something. It is void of anything. There is no way to visualize this, because it is completely alien to our experiences of the world and our perceptions. You probably envision an empty container...but that's not a void, it is still there and it still exists. With the void, we're talking about the lack of existence that surrounds our existing universe.
Really, if you could picture it, your head would probably explode
Also, I would propose that a "big bang event" does not preclude God having pulled the trigger on such, setting everything in motion according to His plan.
Dan hit it on the head, that matter DEFINES the universe, and there is, most likely, a finite supply of it, therefore the universe as we know it is finite. The void beyond the limits can't be entered or experienced because then it would no longer be void.
Coolpapa - the fact that you say there is an absence of something, does not make it something. It is void of anything. There is no way to visualize this, because it is completely alien to our experiences of the world and our perceptions. You probably envision an empty container...but that's not a void, it is still there and it still exists. With the void, we're talking about the lack of existence that surrounds our existing universe.
Really, if you could picture it, your head would probably explode
Not really that hard to coprehend really, beyond our universe lies complete emptyness, total blackness void of light, energy, mater, and existance. That is of course if you beleive the universe is finite, however, perhaps other universes exist outside the walls of our own, or perhaps they are merging together at the far reaches. Our universe could really be a small part of a collective of small bursts of mater, or mabye we are inside of a giant atom which is part of a larger structure. The posibilities are endless really, because so far we have a very limited view of the universe an its vastness.
Also, what about multiple dimensions, and all of the vast empty spaces in the universe void of life, if there is a god, why would he have created this small anomoly in the structured and ordered lifeless univerese. The universe seems very random and without any sort of planning or design, I tend to believe that if their is a god, the universe created god rather god creating the universe.
It's no more effort for God to have created an immense universe than a tiny world. Additionally, all of the other stuff out there is part of what makes our universe work the way it does. It's all interconnected.
God created the universe, not the other way around. That's what the concept of an eternal and omnipotent being means.
Well, that concept can be interpreted in other ways, I personally dont believe in an omnipotent being, I think if there is a god, God created life, and the univeres created god. I think god simply let his creation sit and evolve over time, without his influence. But thats only what i believe, I cant say I know anything, just a theory.
"Gimmick, once you know God in you heart, you don't consider that you may be wrong."
Thats the ultimate falacy of religion. You stop considering what may be right or wrong. It happens so many times in cults.. people drink the koolaide. I find most cults and religions to be nothing more than mass psychological dissorders, dependancies, or altercations due to second parties. You allow yourself to develope beliefs and mindsets based on other peoples beleifs.. you then trick your own brain into thinking you are having real interactions with powers or feeling of said religions. Christianity isnt the only religion where people interact with, or feel their faith. Therefore logically you should feel no more confident in your religion once you feel your faith. Its a psychological illusion, dating back to primitive times, before the christian god was even a thought in anyones head.
As for all this structure in the universe.. I dont see where it is.. There is no structure.. events keep occuring randomly.. energy keeps reshaping itself.. in one place there is something.. in another there is not.. in a few million years, something has become nothing, and nothing has become something. Nothing has flowed on a set path nothing has been structured, everything is randomly smashing into everything else, and randomy changing like a roll of the dice.
Dragon - you don't stop considering what may be right or wrong. If you actually serve God you endeavor to always do what is right. It's unfortunate that so many bad examples of people with good intentions doing bad things exist, but it's unfair to use that to characterize Christianity as bad or wrong.
There is quite a bit of structure in the universe. For instance, the ability to predict future astronomical observations from past alignments with pinpoint accuracy demonstrates a large system working in concert.
I'm sorry your views of the world we live in are so depressing. I would imagine life feels pretty pointless if you don't see the big picture.
When I was younger, I met a lot of very bad ambassadors of religious faiths - people who would relentlessly witness to me, people who were unduly judgmental, and people who just didn't even understand the current beliefs of their faith. I was also friends with nonreligious people, and religion hadn't been in my family for generations. I felt much like you, Dragon.
Now, I've married a catholic schoolteacher, and her family all not only goes to church twice a week, but also is actively involved in their church community and alternates running a bible study in their home with other families.
Once you meet a few truly good, truly enlightened people who understand their religion, for instance a Christian that actually knows what Vatican II is, or a priest who actually has spent more time working with real people than studying old texts in an ivory tower, you see how much good can really come from a community that shares a belief in a higher power.
The belief itself changes from religion to religion, but the ties that bind people together are similar, and in my mind, the most important part. Some religious people may disagree with me - saying that personally striving to live a good life and be saved is the goal - but I'm prone to deal with the here and now.
I'll be raising my kid in the Catholic school system because from what I've seen, I believe it's full of good people that all want to educate in the best tradition. And from the time they're old enough to choose, they'll have the choice whether to go to Church with mommy, or do something reflective and character-building elsewhere with daddy for an hour every Sunday morning. And maybe we'll all choose together and just take turns, because it's all unwritten for our family.
And that kid can change his or her mind whenever they want, because that's the most important thing about religion, at least Christianity - it's not a "lock" like Muslim.
It seems like you could walk in one direction forever, perhaps going off the "end of the earth" when it ran out...a logical assumption based on direct personal evidence at hand...but eventually you'd wind up right back at your front doorstep if you maintained a perfectly straight line in any direction.
But the problem I have with this is, the earths surface isn't just NSEW, there is also 'relatively speaking' up (into space) and down (into the crust of the earth). If I stay within the confines of earths gravity, I can walk circles around the globe, but If I go into a rocket and blast through earths gravity, I won't end up back on earth? Space is the same way? Then you might say the the confines of the universe can NOT be passed, but that again would be indication that our Universe has boundries? It would seem odd that 'nothing' would be beyond the confines of our universe, considereing that nothing doesn't exist in our universe? (that is a really fcked up sentence, how can nothing not exist? lol) again really sorry if this is redundant...
Originally posted by: dangevin
It turns out infinity is a much tougher idea to grasp than a simple sphere
I can't grasp either concept 'infinity' or 'nothing', neither make sense to me
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
With the void, we're talking about the lack of existence that surrounds our existing universe.
Really, if you could picture it, your head would probably explode
A 'void' or emptiness can't surround something though, can it? And my head is feeling like it might explode!
If I stay within the confines of earths gravity, I can walk circles around the globe, but If I go into a rocket and blast through earths gravity, I won't end up back on earth? Space is the same way?
You're actually on the verge of understanding it. Don't let your head burst yet, you're right there! Your rocket analogy is trying to break free of the confines of the surface. But as I said the surface is a 2D plane that looks 3D.
It's like making the leap of thinking to break free of 3D space into a fourth, or higher dimension. You're thinking to linearly, but just relax your concrete reasoning. Realize the universe is the sphere, the rocket is the gateway to a higher dimension, and what lies beyond the surface is another plane of existence.
Dan - I don't know that it's possible to actually picture what spatial dimensions beyond our own experience would be like. I'm sure people can hypothesize, but any construct that we come up with is limited by our own existence in 3 spatial dimensions. I'm certain that higher dimensions exist...but there is no mechanism to experience them, and no real method to picture them (just like there is no way to actually envision what a void really is...our concept of it is tainted by what we perceive as "empty space" which by definition as "space" isn't void at all).
Dragon - you don't stop considering what may be right or wrong. If you actually serve God you endeavor to always do what is right. It's unfortunate that so many bad examples of people with good intentions doing bad things exist, but it's unfair to use that to characterize Christianity as bad or wrong.
There is quite a bit of structure in the universe. For instance, the ability to predict future astronomical observations from past alignments with pinpoint accuracy demonstrates a large system working in concert.
I'm sorry your views of the world we live in are so depressing. I would imagine life feels pretty pointless if you don't see the big picture.
Im not saying all religions are a bad thing.. im just saying they have their errors. I would say most major religions accomplish alot of good, and have good moral goals. Im pointing out the falacy of most all religions, is they brainwash you (im not saying this is intentional) into not even second guessing yourself. Im not saying that someone is going to do bad things because of this, but they will ignore many things, which is the opposite path of enlightenment. Most religions, Christianity one of them, are conviently structured to fight off any freedom of thought. IN Christianity you are taught the bibles word is final. Thinking impure thoughts (by the bibles standards) or gaining feelings twords another beleif structure is invalid, and you would be looked down upon in the eyes of your god. I have questioned many church leaders on many subjects, and their answers is always "because the bible tells us so and so." . Sir why do you belive that your religion is correct and another is not? "Well you see.. In this chapter.. this person said this..". Most Christian faiths will teach you, that if you dont accept Jesus as your savoir, then you will go to hell, or not be held highly in the eyes of god. That is why it has survived and thrived.. people are scarred to think diffrently. Scientology uses the same tactics.. it saw its major threat of survival, psycology. That is why in their religion psycology is looked down upon, and a somewhat evil are of science.
The ability to predict future astronomical observations, does not suggest structure or intelligent design. For every action there is a reaction. The wind blows a leaf into a pond and the pond ripples. We can obviously determine the pond will ripple. The leaf was blown chaotically through the air, there was no structure or intelligence behind it, but since it was heading in the general direction of a large body of water, we could tell the outcome. Just because you can predict the outcomes of chaos doesnt mean its structured. Chaos is simply something that is not under controll, it doesnt mean the outcome of the chaos is unknown.
I dont see the world as depressing at all. It is a natural animal instinct to fear death, and it is the nature of the brain to calm fears. Bring into the picture human intelligence and imagination, and its a wonder the percentage of religious peoples in this world isnt even higher. Happyness does not come from salvation. Happiness comes from ones own mind. Life does not seem pointless at all to me.. everyday is a new adventure, I love learning and growing.. if anything you enjoy and cherish life even more if you have in your head the possibility that it could end. The end is nothing to fear though.. If there was no life after life, it would not matter.. my memories and emotions would be erased, so who cares, I would have none of those things to cling to.. It wouldnt matter if anyone remebered me or not.. I am now nothing.
now all being said I have not dismissed life after death possibilities.. infact I have my own personal faiths and beliefs. And i very well may believe there was intelligent design. However I will not conform to others beliefs, or join some group of peoples.. I have my own brain, and my own personal feelings, which no group can compensate. I will not close my mind to the idea that there are no higher powers, and i will not convince it that there is a higher power.. I will leave my mind open always for enlightenment, learning and growth.
"Gimmick, once you know God in you heart, you don't consider that you may be wrong."
Thats the ultimate falacy of religion. You stop considering what may be right or wrong. It happens so many times in cults.. people drink the koolaide. I find most cults and religions to be nothing more than mass psychological dissorders, dependancies, or altercations due to second parties. You allow yourself to develope beliefs and mindsets based on other peoples beleifs.. you then trick your own brain into thinking you are having real interactions with powers or feeling of said religions. Christianity isnt the only religion where people interact with, or feel their faith. Therefore logically you should feel no more confident in your religion once you feel your faith. Its a psychological illusion, dating back to primitive times, before the christian god was even a thought in anyones head.
Amen brother!! Religion is around, and always has been around jsut to make people feel better. I believe in God, but ALL religions, especially christianity, are all shams. People seek acceptance in masses of like minded people.
BEST QUOTE EVER!
"Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people's business."
"Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people's business."
I'm not sure from whom that quotation came, but it's an example of why atheists are largely considered to be ignorant.
I find it to be bigoted (by referring to all faiths as simply "organized religion," and those who would be involved with it as "weak-minded") and obvious (humans survive because of our interdependancies - we're pack animals, and need each other - strength in numbers - whether in a church or a school or a supermarket).
And not all organized religion tells people to go out and stick...whatever you said.
That quote sounds awfully familiar, pretty sure it was from an existentialist writer, cant remember the name tho. I also have to disagree with that quote, I certainly dont believe that anyone who is part of an organized religion is weak minded. The point is we should all accept each others beleifs reguardless of what they may be.
If I stay within the confines of earths gravity, I can walk circles around the globe, but If I go into a rocket and blast through earths gravity, I won't end up back on earth? Space is the same way?
the rocket is the gateway to a higher dimension, and what lies beyond the surface is another plane of existence.
I imagine they have some kick ass video games there!! Time to start a new niche in my collection!
Originally posted by: dragonlunch
Im not saying all religions are a bad thing.. im just saying they have their errors. I would say most major religions accomplish alot of good, and have good moral goals.
WHat is moral? and who decides? I have a feeling that your perception of morality is based on the same view 'religious' cults prescribe their followers (including Christianity), and like you've stated you want no part of the religous institution...
I was raised in a cult, and I can't descibe how damaging it's been to me and my perception of reality... Thing is I was raised beleiving that faith is the most important thing, HOWEVER; the Islamic extremists that blow themselves to bits.. have more FAITH than anyone I've come across. They 'believe' that as a martyr, they will receive their 7 virgins or whatever in the afterlife.. I can't imagin the amount of faith it would take to strap a bomb to my gut and kill innocent people...but they do it, all the time. So I think to myself how could faith be so important, if those who have the most faith(as misguided as it may seem), commit such heinous acts, completely contrary to the strict standard of living that I was expected to abide by...
My faith was crushed trying to play semantics with what the Bible literally means. Considering it can be interpreted in so many ways, what exactly is the 'right' way. the Cult I was raised in claimed, and still claims that they are the only 'truth and the way' to heaven, but honestly I've felt more concern and love from peopl not associated with that faith than I ever felt from those who were a part of the religion... In fact now that I'm not practicing in that faith I'm deemed a lost soul, being manipulated by satan and most in that faith(one that I was a part of for 15-16 years of my susceptable youth) now won't have anything to do with me. That's confusing and quite frankly fucked up, espeically for a group that claims to live by a standard that Christ left for us all to follow...
But even still I beleive in God, Jesus said, those who 'know' and 'believe' in me are saved... What does it mean to know Jesus. I think the most impressing image is Christ being nailed to the cross, and after he's been beaten, bruised, ect and and stakes are being driven through his hands he utters a prayer " God forgive them for they know not what they do" he didn't pray to be relieved of the aweful torture he was being subjected to, he didn't pray for harm or retribution to those who were harming him, instead out of concern and love for there souls he prayed that God forgive them for this, that is unprecidented and unimaginable, but a true depiction of what God / Jesus are "love". To know Jesus, is to know Love, if you truly love than the semantics and rules that are impossible to interpret in the Bible are no longer so necessary. just my thoughts.
Im in a hurry to get to work, so I cant read all youve said yet. I can however give you the core of my morals. My morals are to try to live life without damaging another life physically or psycologically in any manner, unless that damage would save them from even greater damage. Being grounded on what is visible facts from surrounding evidence and not faith.
Example.. Commiting murder, psycologically damages others. The reason I would never commit murder has nothing to do with my consiquences, with wether or not I make a gain, wether or not I make a profit, wether or not I advance to an after life, wether or not im deemed worthy to a higher being, wehter or not I go to jail.. the thing stopping me from murder is saving other people from pain I myself would not want to endure. A cause for me comitting a murder, may be for me to stop someone from commiting hundreds of murders.
Wow...lots of misconceptions here regarding Christianity, and religion in general. Following God and sharing my spiritual journey with other Christians does not come from some kind of need for conformity. If anything, those seeking conformity would become atheists, since it's so fashionable to persecute Christians for their religious beliefs. Christianity involves a personal relationship with God. It is not a cult and doesn't brainwash you. I'm always intrigued by the amount of energy some people expend trying to tear down those who have faith in God. I would think that energy could be put to much better use being constructive in their communities instead of trying to disparage or destroy the communities of others.
Dan is correct that quotes like those saying that we're all weak minded for partaking in religion make atheists sound like ignorant bigots.
Comments
this is prob a dumb question, but how do you qoute different senteces of a post as apposed to the whole damn post?
You start with the whole thing, but you can click into the quotation box and delete lines you don't want in there. You can copy the whole box itself, and paste it if you want to do interstitial comments, and then just take snippets you want to respond to and drop them in the separate boxes.
Was hoping youd get back into the discussion!
Like this. And thanks!
At this moment, the universe would literally be this ball, and the space surrounding it that's affected by its gravitation.
Since the universe expands WITH the matter, the very light wavelengths travelling through it expand as well. There would be no point that you could travel to tangentally to the edge of the universe - if you had unlimited time, speed and resources, you'd only ever succeed in circumnavigating it, not exceeding its boundary.
I listed to scientists and read current scientific news, others listen to priests and read ancient holy documents. There's absolutely no difference, really, since I personally can't prove any of it's true, and neither can the religious person.
You'll have to excuse me if my questions are repetitive or redundant,
So the universe in its begginning is a ball of near infinite mass, but where did ithe ball of near infinite mass come from? I can almost comprehend that the universe is expanding as a result of a 'big bang' but what baffles me is where did all the mass in the universe come from?
As far as the red shift and the expanding universe, the red shift implies that all galaxies are movie away from the earth at an accelerated speed, some faster than others. This would seem to imply though, that the earth is the center of the universe? shouldn't there be galaxies accelerating towards or own, and not just away?
as far as circumnavigating the universe, you could not exceed it's boundry but for the theory to be true there would have to be a boundry? My point being that what is ' the boundry' gravity? and even if it was impassible, there would still be something ' beyond' that boundry right?
and I agree that neither side can prove the other wrong or right, would be an excersize in futility, however, it's very interesting subject matter and I enjoy thinking / debating on it
1- So the universe in its begginning is a ball of near infinite mass, but where did ithe ball of near infinite mass come from? I can almost comprehend that the universe is expanding as a result of a 'big bang' but what baffles me is where did all the mass in the universe come from?
As far as the red shift and the expanding universe, the red shift implies that all galaxies are movie away from the earth at an accelerated speed, some faster than others. 2- This would seem to imply though, that the earth is the center of the universe? 3- shouldn't there be galaxies accelerating towards or own, and not just away?
1- I dunno lol
2- No. Next time you are blowing up a "happy birthday" balloon, before you start, look at the letters on it. Then blow it up. Look again. You'll notice the words on opposite sides have moved away each other, and the letters in each word have also moved away from each other. Pretend you were standing on the letter B. Every letter in the known balloon is moving away from you, but you are not in the centre. Admittedly, this is a very simplistic metaphor, because...
3- There are observable galaxies moving towards our own. Andromeda is "supposed" to collide with our galaxy in about 3 billion years. Saying it is 'accelerating towards' us probably isn't the right way to think of it though.
if the universe keeps expanding, that means it has to have a boundary, else it can not expand
that makes it theoretically possible to reach that boundary.. but what is beyond that?
in what ' space' does the universy ly?
if the universe keeps expanding, that means it has to have a boundary, else it can not expand
that makes it theoretically possible to reach that boundary.. but what is beyond that?
in what ' space' does the universy ly?
To coolpapachiv and Xtinthed, this is the tough part where it takes some lateral thinking.
I know it's tough to imagine a "closed" universe, since our perception of space is that it's infinitely expansive. Think of it in terms of earth itself. We agree that it's a simple sphere, the form of least resistance; of symmetric forces. Something that has been created by the forces that exist in nothing. It seems like you could walk in one direction forever, perhaps going off the "end of the earth" when it ran out...a logical assumption based on direct personal evidence at hand...but eventually you'd wind up right back at your front doorstep if you maintained a perfectly straight line in any direction. Since this is impossible to test, we rely on those who have a flare for the enormous to provide us with mathematical observations.
It turns out infinity is a much tougher idea to grasp than a simple sphere, when you get down to it. It's just a convenient description for the universe because from where we're standing, it's so tough to conceive that we just say "yep, it's that big."
I understand your musing about what lies beyond that sphere, just like "outer space" exists beyond the sphere of our Earth. But space/time is a fabric, more tightly woven than something that is analogous to the Earth/"outer space."
Modern scientists consider this problem largely satisfied by Einstein's theories of general relativity (discarding Newton's simplistic views of the physical world - a good example of observable and testable evidence which winds up breaking down on extremely large, or extremely small scales), and we consider the "stuff" in which we exist to be other dimensions. They're not only mathematically proven to exist, but evidence has been seen in earlier versions of that LHC which has been in the news, lately.
At CERN and other older particle colliders, some very large unstable microparticles have been seen "winking" in and out of existence, sometimes along the same path (as if they were phasing out, then back in). Initially this was written off as test error, something to do with the measuring equipment. But after replicating the results again and again, it was realized that these high-energy near-fundamental particles may just have had enough energy because of the collisions to exist in our space-time before defaulting to their dimension of least resistance.
It's another "aha" moment when you can conceive alternate levels of existence within the same perceivable "space." On the surface of our sphere, with a little extra "potential energy" we can exist in the same place as another human. Ever heard of a second-floor apartment?
Also, about a geocentric universe - this is another "faith" thing because from our frame of reference, we really are the center of the universe. I mean yours and mine, not scientists with large telescopes. It's all up from where we're standing! But seriously, frame of reference is what it's all about. From any point in the universe, looking at another point, each of those might say "gee, everything else seems to be swirling and moving away from me, I must be the center of the universe" but those who have obvserved data on an outwarldly immense scale agree - really we're all on a cosmic speck of snot in a giant galactic sneeze.
For a more basic description of frame of reference, if you're driving in your spaceship at 55 mph in an asteroid belt, and I'm cruising alongside you at the same speed, we both look as if we're motionless to one another. The rocks are whizzing by, of course, but one cannot measurably tell whether it's the asteroids that are moving 55mph past both of us! Surely the ship doesn't work by making the universe move beneath it!
How about if we're flying away from one another, both of us moving at 55mph. If we measure one another with a radar gun, it looks like the other is moving away from our point at 110mph, and we're relatively stationary, no matter which ship you're shooting the radar gun from.
To fully understand, right now we all are moving, relative to other things, at sickening speeds. 300 km/sec anyone? http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/planets/earth/Speeds.shtml - but it "feels" like we're stationary.
what do you mean with that second-floor apartment thing? multi-dimensional beeings?
i've read about the superstrings and gravity-dimension theory's which give you the potential to travel time, is that what you're referring too?
i understand the whole abstractness of the universe, but still if you look at it very basic there are some assumptions you make coupled to the terminology used.
If something expands, regardless of how or in which direction, it needs a " free space" to fill up
the movement thing is fun tho, its like in super mario kart, where you dont control the car but the track beneath you (which really fucks with you the first times u play it)
but with that logic, everything can be seen as the middlepoint of existance because you can not see the big picture and see the action point of gravitation.
If you center yourself, everything either stands at a steady distance,moves towards you or moves away from you in an orb around you.
side-tracking: is there actual anti-material in excistance or only the highly instable material they witness apear and disappear?
what do you mean with that second-floor apartment thing? multi-dimensional beeings?
A sphere is a three-dimensional object. One can exist at many points along the surface of the sphere. A two-story apartment is just a very rough analogy to two bits of stuff being able to occupy the same point on a three-dimensional object. Of course, referring to a sphere as such, we're really only treating it as a curved 2D surface since we're only talking about the surface...which is why the analogy is very rough
As far as "beings" or life forms - who knows. No method of measurement has even been able to peek into these dimensions, so we don't know what kind of matter or energy even inhabits them yet.
i understand the whole abstractness of the universe, but still if
you look at it very basic there are some assumptions you make coupled
to the terminology used.
If something expands, regardless of how or in which direction, it needs a " free space" to fill up
This is a newtonian notion based on the observable world around you. No space is truly empty though. Even in the vacuum of a bell jar, there is "stuff." Radio waves, light, radiation, a vacuum is teeming with things going on...even some vibrations we can't yet describe. It's assumed that all of this "stuff" may even comprise the dark matter which makes up the lion's share of the matter we cannot detect in the universe yet. Actual "fabric" - not just empty space.
Keep in mind, before someone realized the wind indicated there was "stuff" around us in Earth's atmosphere, we thought we were all walking around in empty space as well.
On a side note, the universal background radiation is more circumstantial evidence of a big-bang event. But that's another wall-o-text
side-tracking: is there actual anti-material in excistance or only
the highly instable material they witness apear and disappear?
Yes, and we use it everyday to treat people in progressive modern hospitals. PET scan stands for Positron Emission Tomography. Positrons are the antimatter equivalent to Electrons.
Scientists have been able to contain very small amounts of antimatter within electromagnetic fields for short durations in a stable manner. This is the groundwork for the next step in nuclear energy. Going back to "frames of reference" - an antiparticle colliding with a "normal" particle will produce at least twice as much energy, since all atomic motion is equal but opposite. A nuclear blast using a matter mass colliding with an antimatter mass would, in theory, release at least twice as much nuclear energy (because of the diametrically opposing forces), and probably an awful lot more. Quick search says 4x as much more. The extra "jolt" comes from the actual fundamental particles themselves being annihilated. This means the forces that bind an atom together are only half of the total energy within that atom, the rest lies within the subatomic particles themselves.
Regular nuclear blasts release gamma radiation, alpha particles, neutrons, electrons, and have other "larger" physical impacts such as heat and concussion. Antimatter would release all of its energy in the form of radiations of varying kinds, which means it's more efficient at producing raw energy, but can only be done in a vacuum (since it could collide with a matter air particle).
My head hurts.... and I actually enjoy this stuff.
My reasoning on the creation of our Universe is simple, God said let there be light, and bang....The Big Bang or whatever they're calling it now..
Coolpapa - the fact that you say there is an absence of something, does not make it something. It is void of anything. There is no way to visualize this, because it is completely alien to our experiences of the world and our perceptions. You probably envision an empty container...but that's not a void, it is still there and it still exists. With the void, we're talking about the lack of existence that surrounds our existing universe.
Really, if you could picture it, your head would probably explode
Dan hit it on the head, that matter DEFINES the universe, and there is, most likely, a finite supply of it, therefore the universe as we know it is finite. The void beyond the limits can't be entered or experienced because then it would no longer be void.
Coolpapa - the fact that you say there is an absence of something, does not make it something. It is void of anything. There is no way to visualize this, because it is completely alien to our experiences of the world and our perceptions. You probably envision an empty container...but that's not a void, it is still there and it still exists. With the void, we're talking about the lack of existence that surrounds our existing universe.
Really, if you could picture it, your head would probably explode
Not really that hard to coprehend really, beyond our universe lies complete emptyness, total blackness void of light, energy, mater, and existance. That is of course if you beleive the universe is finite, however, perhaps other universes exist outside the walls of our own, or perhaps they are merging together at the far reaches. Our universe could really be a small part of a collective of small bursts of mater, or mabye we are inside of a giant atom which is part of a larger structure. The posibilities are endless really, because so far we have a very limited view of the universe an its vastness.
Also, what about multiple dimensions, and all of the vast empty spaces in the universe void of life, if there is a god, why would he have created this small anomoly in the structured and ordered lifeless univerese. The universe seems very random and without any sort of planning or design, I tend to believe that if their is a god, the universe created god rather god creating the universe.
God created the universe, not the other way around. That's what the concept of an eternal and omnipotent being means.
Thats the ultimate falacy of religion. You stop considering what may be right or wrong. It happens so many times in cults.. people drink the koolaide. I find most cults and religions to be nothing more than mass psychological dissorders, dependancies, or altercations due to second parties. You allow yourself to develope beliefs and mindsets based on other peoples beleifs.. you then trick your own brain into thinking you are having real interactions with powers or feeling of said religions. Christianity isnt the only religion where people interact with, or feel their faith. Therefore logically you should feel no more confident in your religion once you feel your faith. Its a psychological illusion, dating back to primitive times, before the christian god was even a thought in anyones head.
As for all this structure in the universe.. I dont see where it is.. There is no structure.. events keep occuring randomly.. energy keeps reshaping itself.. in one place there is something.. in another there is not.. in a few million years, something has become nothing, and nothing has become something. Nothing has flowed on a set path nothing has been structured, everything is randomly smashing into everything else, and randomy changing like a roll of the dice.
There is quite a bit of structure in the universe. For instance, the ability to predict future astronomical observations from past alignments with pinpoint accuracy demonstrates a large system working in concert.
I'm sorry your views of the world we live in are so depressing. I would imagine life feels pretty pointless if you don't see the big picture.
Now, I've married a catholic schoolteacher, and her family all not only goes to church twice a week, but also is actively involved in their church community and alternates running a bible study in their home with other families.
Once you meet a few truly good, truly enlightened people who understand their religion, for instance a Christian that actually knows what Vatican II is, or a priest who actually has spent more time working with real people than studying old texts in an ivory tower, you see how much good can really come from a community that shares a belief in a higher power.
The belief itself changes from religion to religion, but the ties that bind people together are similar, and in my mind, the most important part. Some religious people may disagree with me - saying that personally striving to live a good life and be saved is the goal - but I'm prone to deal with the here and now.
I'll be raising my kid in the Catholic school system because from what I've seen, I believe it's full of good people that all want to educate in the best tradition. And from the time they're old enough to choose, they'll have the choice whether to go to Church with mommy, or do something reflective and character-building elsewhere with daddy for an hour every Sunday morning. And maybe we'll all choose together and just take turns, because it's all unwritten for our family.
And that kid can change his or her mind whenever they want, because that's the most important thing about religion, at least Christianity - it's not a "lock" like Muslim.
It seems like you could walk in one direction forever, perhaps going off the "end of the earth" when it ran out...a logical assumption based on direct personal evidence at hand...but eventually you'd wind up right back at your front doorstep if you maintained a perfectly straight line in any direction.
But the problem I have with this is, the earths surface isn't just NSEW, there is also 'relatively speaking' up (into space) and down (into the crust of the earth). If I stay within the confines of earths gravity, I can walk circles around the globe, but If I go into a rocket and blast through earths gravity, I won't end up back on earth? Space is the same way? Then you might say the the confines of the universe can NOT be passed, but that again would be indication that our Universe has boundries? It would seem odd that 'nothing' would be beyond the confines of our universe, considereing that nothing doesn't exist in our universe? (that is a really fcked up sentence, how can nothing not exist? lol) again really sorry if this is redundant...
Originally posted by: dangevin
It turns out infinity is a much tougher idea to grasp than a simple sphere
I can't grasp either concept 'infinity' or 'nothing', neither make sense to me
With the void, we're talking about the lack of existence that surrounds our existing universe.
Really, if you could picture it, your head would probably explode
A 'void' or emptiness can't surround something though, can it? And my head is feeling like it might explode!
If I stay within the confines of earths gravity, I can walk circles around the globe, but If I go into a rocket and blast through earths gravity, I won't end up back on earth? Space is the same way?
You're actually on the verge of understanding it. Don't let your head burst yet, you're right there! Your rocket analogy is trying to break free of the confines of the surface. But as I said the surface is a 2D plane that looks 3D.
It's like making the leap of thinking to break free of 3D space into a fourth, or higher dimension. You're thinking to linearly, but just relax your concrete reasoning. Realize the universe is the sphere, the rocket is the gateway to a higher dimension, and what lies beyond the surface is another plane of existence.
Dragon - you don't stop considering what may be right or wrong. If you actually serve God you endeavor to always do what is right. It's unfortunate that so many bad examples of people with good intentions doing bad things exist, but it's unfair to use that to characterize Christianity as bad or wrong.
There is quite a bit of structure in the universe. For instance, the ability to predict future astronomical observations from past alignments with pinpoint accuracy demonstrates a large system working in concert.
I'm sorry your views of the world we live in are so depressing. I would imagine life feels pretty pointless if you don't see the big picture.
Im not saying all religions are a bad thing.. im just saying they have their errors. I would say most major religions accomplish alot of good, and have good moral goals. Im pointing out the falacy of most all religions, is they brainwash you (im not saying this is intentional) into not even second guessing yourself. Im not saying that someone is going to do bad things because of this, but they will ignore many things, which is the opposite path of enlightenment. Most religions, Christianity one of them, are conviently structured to fight off any freedom of thought. IN Christianity you are taught the bibles word is final. Thinking impure thoughts (by the bibles standards) or gaining feelings twords another beleif structure is invalid, and you would be looked down upon in the eyes of your god. I have questioned many church leaders on many subjects, and their answers is always "because the bible tells us so and so." . Sir why do you belive that your religion is correct and another is not? "Well you see.. In this chapter.. this person said this..". Most Christian faiths will teach you, that if you dont accept Jesus as your savoir, then you will go to hell, or not be held highly in the eyes of god. That is why it has survived and thrived.. people are scarred to think diffrently. Scientology uses the same tactics.. it saw its major threat of survival, psycology. That is why in their religion psycology is looked down upon, and a somewhat evil are of science.
The ability to predict future astronomical observations, does not suggest structure or intelligent design. For every action there is a reaction. The wind blows a leaf into a pond and the pond ripples. We can obviously determine the pond will ripple. The leaf was blown chaotically through the air, there was no structure or intelligence behind it, but since it was heading in the general direction of a large body of water, we could tell the outcome. Just because you can predict the outcomes of chaos doesnt mean its structured. Chaos is simply something that is not under controll, it doesnt mean the outcome of the chaos is unknown.
I dont see the world as depressing at all. It is a natural animal instinct to fear death, and it is the nature of the brain to calm fears. Bring into the picture human intelligence and imagination, and its a wonder the percentage of religious peoples in this world isnt even higher. Happyness does not come from salvation. Happiness comes from ones own mind. Life does not seem pointless at all to me.. everyday is a new adventure, I love learning and growing.. if anything you enjoy and cherish life even more if you have in your head the possibility that it could end. The end is nothing to fear though.. If there was no life after life, it would not matter.. my memories and emotions would be erased, so who cares, I would have none of those things to cling to.. It wouldnt matter if anyone remebered me or not.. I am now nothing.
now all being said I have not dismissed life after death possibilities.. infact I have my own personal faiths and beliefs. And i very well may believe there was intelligent design. However I will not conform to others beliefs, or join some group of peoples.. I have my own brain, and my own personal feelings, which no group can compensate. I will not close my mind to the idea that there are no higher powers, and i will not convince it that there is a higher power.. I will leave my mind open always for enlightenment, learning and growth.
"Gimmick, once you know God in you heart, you don't consider that you may be wrong."
Thats the ultimate falacy of religion. You stop considering what may be right or wrong. It happens so many times in cults.. people drink the koolaide. I find most cults and religions to be nothing more than mass psychological dissorders, dependancies, or altercations due to second parties. You allow yourself to develope beliefs and mindsets based on other peoples beleifs.. you then trick your own brain into thinking you are having real interactions with powers or feeling of said religions. Christianity isnt the only religion where people interact with, or feel their faith. Therefore logically you should feel no more confident in your religion once you feel your faith. Its a psychological illusion, dating back to primitive times, before the christian god was even a thought in anyones head.
Amen brother!! Religion is around, and always has been around jsut to make people feel better. I believe in God, but ALL religions, especially christianity, are all shams. People seek acceptance in masses of like minded people.
BEST QUOTE EVER!
"Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people's business."
"Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people's business."
I'm not sure from whom that quotation came, but it's an example of why atheists are largely considered to be ignorant.
I find it to be bigoted (by referring to all faiths as simply "organized religion," and those who would be involved with it as "weak-minded") and obvious (humans survive because of our interdependancies - we're pack animals, and need each other - strength in numbers - whether in a church or a school or a supermarket).
And not all organized religion tells people to go out and stick...whatever you said.
If I stay within the confines of earths gravity, I can walk circles around the globe, but If I go into a rocket and blast through earths gravity, I won't end up back on earth? Space is the same way?
the rocket is the gateway to a higher dimension, and what lies beyond the surface is another plane of existence.
I imagine they have some kick ass video games there!!
Im not saying all religions are a bad thing.. im just saying they have their errors. I would say most major religions accomplish alot of good, and have good moral goals.
WHat is moral? and who decides? I have a feeling that your perception of morality is based on the same view 'religious' cults prescribe their followers (including Christianity), and like you've stated you want no part of the religous institution...
I was raised in a cult, and I can't descibe how damaging it's been to me and my perception of reality... Thing is I was raised beleiving that faith is the most important thing, HOWEVER; the Islamic extremists that blow themselves to bits.. have more FAITH than anyone I've come across. They 'believe' that as a martyr, they will receive their 7 virgins or whatever in the afterlife.. I can't imagin the amount of faith it would take to strap a bomb to my gut and kill innocent people...but they do it, all the time. So I think to myself how could faith be so important, if those who have the most faith(as misguided as it may seem), commit such heinous acts, completely contrary to the strict standard of living that I was expected to abide by...
My faith was crushed trying to play semantics with what the Bible literally means. Considering it can be interpreted in so many ways, what exactly is the 'right' way. the Cult I was raised in claimed, and still claims that they are the only 'truth and the way' to heaven, but honestly I've felt more concern and love from peopl not associated with that faith than I ever felt from those who were a part of the religion... In fact now that I'm not practicing in that faith I'm deemed a lost soul, being manipulated by satan and most in that faith(one that I was a part of for 15-16 years of my susceptable youth) now won't have anything to do with me. That's confusing and quite frankly fucked up, espeically for a group that claims to live by a standard that Christ left for us all to follow...
But even still I beleive in God, Jesus said, those who 'know' and 'believe' in me are saved... What does it mean to know Jesus. I think the most impressing image is Christ being nailed to the cross, and after he's been beaten, bruised, ect and and stakes are being driven through his hands he utters a prayer " God forgive them for they know not what they do" he didn't pray to be relieved of the aweful torture he was being subjected to, he didn't pray for harm or retribution to those who were harming him, instead out of concern and love for there souls he prayed that God forgive them for this, that is unprecidented and unimaginable, but a true depiction of what God / Jesus are "love". To know Jesus, is to know Love, if you truly love than the semantics and rules that are impossible to interpret in the Bible are no longer so necessary. just my thoughts.
Example.. Commiting murder, psycologically damages others. The reason I would never commit murder has nothing to do with my consiquences, with wether or not I make a gain, wether or not I make a profit, wether or not I advance to an after life, wether or not im deemed worthy to a higher being, wehter or not I go to jail.. the thing stopping me from murder is saving other people from pain I myself would not want to endure. A cause for me comitting a murder, may be for me to stop someone from commiting hundreds of murders.
Dan is correct that quotes like those saying that we're all weak minded for partaking in religion make atheists sound like ignorant bigots.