God / Life After Death

[Jimmy Chitwood]

Bart's example of the eye is an intriguing one. because, contrary to what i've said about entropy (the second Law of Thermodynamics), life creates order from disorder.

or (more accurately) as Nobel Prize winner Ilya Prigogene put it, "... the second law of thermodynamics [states that] energy tends to dissipate and organized systems drift inevitably towards entropy, or chaos. In seeming violation of that law, biological systems tend to become increasingly complex and efficient."

sorry for name dropping.

i've started studying permaculture (which is where i stumbled across the quote). and though i disagree with much of the philosophical stance put forth by its founder Bill Mollison, system energy is a big part of permaculture. seeing as how economic things are becoming more strained (to put it mildly), i thought it'd be pretty handy to know how to feed myself in perpetuity. and permaculture is a very cool way to do that.

 

[Observer]

One of the problems with trying to explain the unexplainable is that time is a man-made construct used to help us make sense of things.  It may be that the universe always existed because there is no such thing as "time" that applies to it.

Not sure I follow/understand. If there is physical matter involved, then it can change forms ("before losing 35 lbs...after"), and then there would be time in the sense of "before" and "after", even though this could extend indefinitely.

A college class on basic science would not use a textbook written 400 years ago; the material contained therein would be laughable even though at the time it was presented as "fact."  In the year 2408, today's scientific knowledge will be just as laughable in how wrong and primitive it is.

This is so true! I help edit, translate, and publish books on a [very] small scale, and it is quite amazing what we swallow as fact. Even Einstein's General Relativity. Part of the reason General Relativity was necessary was to try to make sense out of the Michelson-Morley experiments (late 1800's) showing that no difference in the speed of light was measurable as the Earth made its yearly orbit around the Sun. By the time Michelson finished further experiments (late 1920's), Einstein was famous. But how many of us have heard that Michelson's later experiments DID show that there is a difference in the speed of light when the measurement is made as the Earth's spins daily on its axis (rather than on a yearly orbit)? This was certainly no secret experiment, and has been repeated many times (in fact, as I understand, the principle is used in commercial instrumentation) but I am not aware that this observation has been reconciled with General Relativity.

Maybe even a better example is our very own home territory, the solar system. I can't say too much because the books are not ready to be published yet --- but I assure you that many of the notions of modern "science" on the formation of the solar system are fairly tales. An example, the large-scale "cosmic bombardment" of the Moon will look ridiculous in about 2 minutes study when we are given a chance to look at this in a better light.

Fairy tales are OK, I think, because even fairly tales can help us better grasp reality or constructively stimulate the imagination. But rigorous logic is absolutely necessary to enable science to advance; maybe technology can advance experimentally, but I don't think science itself can because it ends up gathering in too many wives' tales and superstitions (such as the idea that matter can be generated out of a "true" vacuum, mice spontaneously generating from wheat, etc.). The theories about galaxies and the distant bodies are entirely art, not science. In our small publishing venture, we even post an extra bonus reward for astrophysical works, but they must meet one pre-requisite: they have to contain a preamble with a plausible explanation of our home location, the solar system. Big Bang CANNOT do this with only matter and energy; there would need to be another bang or some other force to cause the exploding dust to accumulate. Twisting gravity (making it weaker or stronger by whim) to fit one's own particular pet theories invalidates it as science, in my opinion, although it may still shed some insight and be valuable as a kind of art form.Edited by: Observer

 

[Don Wassall]

I think we can all agree that these questions were decisively answered in the scene from Animal House when some of thegang aregetting highwith the professor played by Donald Sutherland:


That means that...
our whole solar system...
could be, like...
one tiny atom in the fingernail
of some other giant being.

This is too much!

That means...
-one tiny atom in my fingernail could be--
-Could be one little...tiny universe.

Could l buy some pot from you?

 

[jaxvid]

[

A college class on basic science would not use a textbook written 400 years ago; the material contained therein would be laughable even though at the time it was presented as "fact."  In the year 2408, today's scientific knowledge will be just as laughable in how wrong and primitive it is.

Science wouldn't use a 400 year old book and present it as "fact" but religion would!

 

[jaxvid]

But if we're willing to admit the existence of uncaused things, why not just admit that the universe is uncaused and cut out the middleman?

Why should we do that?

I feel that science (and theologians) draw conclusions from insufficient data to say unequivocally that A means B.

For example, proving that the universe has always existed does not mean there is not a being that would be, to us, 'God.'

Second, even by postulating that even God must need a creator doesn't mean there is no God, either. It pushes the question further back but does not 'resolve' whether there is a God or not.

Just seems too much assertion and speculation and not enough humility to go around (not this board; science and theology. Lots of arrogant SOB's in both fields.)

You missed the point! It was meant to refute the idea that God is needed to explain where the universe came from. if you assert God is the creator from nothing based on the idea that there is a cause for every effect (as people in this thread did) then where did God come from?

If you say that God was and always will be then why can't a person who does not believe in God say that the universe always was, and will always be. After all the person who believes in the Big Bang Theory has some REAL evidence to back him up, unlike the supporter of a belief in God who has nothing but faith.

 

[jaxvid]

I use John 3:16 as a concise and well-known alternative to turning into fertilizer after you die. "You will be carried across a bridge of swords by in the arms of a gorgeous Valkyrie" is another option far more appealing than anything the militant atheist offers.

Carried across a bridge of swords by a big blonde woman!!! Sounds dangerous. Can't that be updated a little? Maybe driven across a well designed suspension bridge in a Porsche??

Kidding aside, yes John 3:16 is a better alternative to rotting in a box but is rotting in a box a better alternative to being burned in a lake of fire for an eternity????

 

[White_Savage]

The question is, is a universe where you might (And I probably will! LOL) burn in Hell for enternity better or worse than one where the spirit within us dies after a finite time and entropy ultimately triumphs over all?

Besides, eternity is a long time to come up with an escape plan or find a loophole.

I use John 3:16 as a concise and well-known alternative to turning into fertilizer after you die. "You will be carried across a bridge of swords by in the arms of a gorgeous Valkyrie" is another option far more appealing than anything the militant atheist offers.

Carried across a bridge of swords by a big blonde woman!!! Sounds dangerous. Can't that be updated a little? Maybe driven across a well designed suspension bridge in a Porsche??

Kidding aside, yes John 3:16 is a better alternative to rotting in a box but is rotting in a box a better alternative to being burned in a lake of fire for an eternity????

 

[White Shogun]

You missed the point! It was meant to refute the idea that God is needed to explain where the universe came from. if you assert God is the creator from nothing based on the idea that there is a cause for every effect (as people in this thread did) then where did God come from?

I think I actually pointed out that God could also have had a different source or 'creator' as well. We don't have enough facts to say there is no god, there is a god, the universe is eternal, the universe collapses on itself, etc.

If you say that God was and always will be then why can't a person who does not believe in God say that the universe always was, and will always be. After all the person who believes in the Big Bang Theory has some REAL evidence to back him up, unlike the supporter of a belief in God who has nothing but faith.

Well, a person could certainly say that, of course. But the Big Bang theory, to me, is contrary to an eternal universe. Besides, as I pointed out with links in other posts, the Big Bang theory may not be around much longer anyway.

 

[jaxvid]

[Besides, as I pointed out with links in other posts, the Big Bang theory may not be around much longer anyway.

A good thing about the scientific method is that theory'schange when new information is introduced that cannot be reconciled with old ideas. There is some stuborness, mostly caused by government interference, but in the end the evidence is considered. Can't say the same about other belief systems which are a bit more rigid in their dogma's.

 

[White Shogun]

A good thing about the scientific method is that theory's change when new information is introduced that cannot be reconciled with old ideas. There is some stuborness, mostly caused by government interference, but in the end the evidence is considered. Can't say the same about other belief systems which are a bit more rigid in their dogma's.

Even religion can change it's tune about dogma. After thousands of years, the Pope suddenly figures out there is no such thing as limbo.

Oh, and by limbo I mean the place where unbaptized babies go when they die, not the dance where you duck under a bar.

Edited by: White Shogun

 

[jaxvid]

Even religion can change it's tune about dogma. After thousands of years, the Pope suddenly figures out there is no such thing as limbo.

This is a HORRIBLE decision. It's like an amnesty for SINNERS! The unbaptized go to HELL!!! They have the stain of original sin on their soul. It was bad enough that babies were given a "special" place of eternal happiness, now they get to go to heaven? This is just the beginning of the church capitualizing on a basic tenet, soon other "unbaptized" people will be allowed into heaven like Muslims and Jews. And you know they want to go to heaven, that's where the white people are!!!!!

 

[Bart]

It was bad enough that babies were given a "special" place of eternal happiness, now they get to go to heaven?

Oh, just great! Who the hell is gonna get any sleep in Heaven, withmillions of de-limboed babies screaming forbottles, and needing their diapers changed at 4:00 in the morning. Soundslike another job security ployby the angel union.