Are we religious?

Discussion in 'Your Religion & Spiritual Corner' started by jim1884again, Jul 4, 2010.

ATTN: Our forums have moved here! You can still read these forums but if you'd like to participate, mosey on over to the new location.

  1. Chris0515

    Chris0515 New Member

    The Church of Scientology is a dangerous cult pretty much, or least that's how they operate down here in Florida. They have a huge headquarters over in Clearwater that is under heavy security, and if you stand out front for a few minutes or try and snap a picture of their building some big gorilla looking dude will come out and tell you to - "keep moving".
     
  2. Cara

    Cara New Member

    Thank you Jim........for your example........I love reading what others believe and think. But more so than that.....thank you for not discrediting what I believe.........such a good guy you are!
     
  3. jim1884again

    jim1884again advocating baldness be recognized as a disability

    you are welcome Cara and thank you
     
  4. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    Scott hasn't been back to answer. I hope that he is OK.
     
  5. studio34

    studio34 Guest

    Hey Hank,

    >>> And this Law of Gravity is responsible for all natural creation, just like God. The only difference in the two that I can see is the the "Law of Gravity" is merely an object. It has no personality as God does. It just exists, and has always existed.

    There is one glaring problem that you overlook here and that is there is evidence that gravity exists. We have the Theory of gravity. We can measure it, I can drop a ball and it will hit the ground because of gravity. You seem to be comparing god and gravity as one in the same or at least both equally plausible for having a hand in the beginning of the universe yet god is not only extremely unlikely because "where did he/ she/ it come from in the first place", but there is no evidence for the existence of god – none. It's a faith-based belief and not rational IMO and you're now telling me that the god you think had a hand in creating has a personality! Have you met this being to comment on this? What evidence do you have in making such a statement?

    >>> You say that God had to be created. Yet you accept that the Law of Gravity has no need for the same.

    God is a divine being from what I gather in your posts that has a personality. Complex living life forms must come from somewhere or should have evolved from something. Gravity, on the other hand, may just simply be a result of entropy. Nothing living about it, not a being, not supernatural, does not require evolution. Here's an interesting article explaining this:

    Entropic Gravity For Pedestrians

    http://www.science20.com/hammock_physicist/it_bit_entropic_gravity_pedestrians

    >>> Whatever created this universe, whether God or the Law of Gravity, had to exist outside of time as we know it. That is because time as we know it began with the Big Bang. That means that there is another realm, another dimension apart from our natural dimensions, that just "is."

    Perhaps there is another "dimension" we don't yet know or maybe there is not. But again, as Hawking spells out, we do not need to evoke the supernatural or a god for which there is no evidence to explain how it all started or to say that even if there is some other sort of realm that it is supernatural. We do, however, know that gravity exists, and according to this theoretical physicist and cosmologist, it can explain how it all started. It's plausible and he's been thinking about it for 40 years. I will go with what the best evidence is showing us in 2010 from a guy who I think we can be sure knows what he's talking about.

    >>> But what all this does, eventually, is brain wash the victim. And she was a brainwashed victim ... Scientology became her life.

    This is an interesting comment you make. I completely agree that scientology is a brainwash as you do so tell me this – how does this differ from Christianity or Islam or Catholicism? They are religious systems with leaders, people congregate in their faith with like-minded believers, they all believe in creators or aliens from other planets for which there is no evidence, and for most of them, they have this belief system constantly reinforced, first by their family (not scientology usually) sometimes to the point of sensory deprivation and then by their friends ... and on it goes. Is this not a brainwash? The parallels are the same only to you a scientologist is totally irrational because the things they believe seem ludicrous. To a scientologist you are irrational in your belief in a god because to him/ her it is irrational. To me both of you are equally irrational.

    >>> Prior to that moment, the natural universe did not exist.

    We do not know exactly what there was before the Big Bang Hank and I don't pretend to have the answer. How do you know that what existed before that was not in fact perfectly natural? Perhaps this universe expands and contracts on itself over the millenia just like a planet keeps making rotations around its sun.

    >>> I propose that you already accepted the evidence when you cited Hawking's latest theory as your "evidence" that God does not exist.

    I didn't say that nor is that my point. I haven't yet read Hawking's book but it sounds like he has made a very good argument based on known physics and laws. We cannot prove that God does not exist, but we also cannot prove that there is no flying spaghetti monster or that unicorns and leprechauns don't exist either. Does that mean I am going to believe that unicorns exist without some sort of evidence -- or a god. Of course not. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    Cris said -- would you want to live on without pain or suffering and feel spiritually free if it's possible and would you be ok with it if after you died that is what you discovered to be the truth

    If this were true, and there was such a thing as a spirit, then why not? It would be great if there was an "afterlife" complete with no suffering, bowls of fruit, and 30 virgins running around a perfect Garden of Eden with rainbows and sunbeams in the sky. But I'm afraid that's almost certainly fantasy land my friend and when we die, we're dead, and that's it. Lights out. Not easy to accept for some but that's almost certainly the reality of the situation.

    >>> I would love to see you & everyone else on here end up there as well as myself when that time comes.

    I have to agree with Sarita here. Why are you waiting for all of this fun when you're dead? Why not do it now while you're still alive and breathing and can enjoy yourself?

    Cara said: Studio43 and Jim.........I am curious as to how you would interpret my situation that day, please tell me. I know the physical changes that take place as a person is nearing death, I also believe things start happening in their brains as well. Please tell me what ya'll think.

    My explanation is very similar to Jim's and I think his thunderstorm example is very good. I don't want to detract from your experience as it has meaning for you, but I do know that in highly emotional situations our brains can make us feel, hear, and see all sorts of wild and wonderful things that are not really there and that is how I would explain it. For me personally, I have also felt some pretty bizarre things too under such circumstances.

    Back to Chris who said: The Church of Scientology is a dangerous cult pretty much, or least that's how they operate down here in Florida.

    Have a read of the newspaper today and check out what a reverend is going to do on 9-11. His church is in Florida and I would charge that his religious delusion is very dangerous indeed -- worse than anything a scientologist has done. What a very stupid man to be doing this:

    Church vows to burn Koran on 9/11 anniversary

    http://www.smh.com.au/world/church-vows-to-burn-koran-on-911-anniversary-20100908-14zw0.html?autostart=1

    Anyway, time for dinner!
     
  6. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    Scott: "There is one glaring problem that you overlook here and that is there is evidence that gravity exists."

    Now that's just a silly argument, my downunder, and backward and inside out friend. Of course gravity exists---but only in the natural world. The force due to gravity can be measured, and even computed. In the special case of the earth's force due to gravity, given that an object falls unimpeded by the resitance of the atmosphere at the rate of 32.2 feet per second squared (9.8m/s2), that force can be computed using the following formula:

    F=ma, where
    F=force due to gravity
    m=mass of the object in question
    a=acceleration due to gravity, or in this special case, call it g

    So the force due to gravity, applied on any object of mass, varies directly with the magnitude of the mass. That is a natural law, universally accepted across all science. The more mass, the more force due to gravity is applied, and in equal proportion. So for a gravitational force to exist, mass must exist. Consequently, if there is no mass, there is no gravitational force. For this reason, in a realm in which there is no mass, there is also no gravity, this according to your own argument expressing that "gravity exists." You could have expressed it more completely, and more accurately, had you written that "gravity exists in the special case in which mass exists." That special case is the only case where science can depend on the notion that gravity exists. Why? Because as you say, science has no "evidence" beyond what it can see in the natural world, the theoretical evidence for the origin of which predicts a Big Bang to have occurred. But there is no evidence that gravity can have existed before the moment of the Big Bang, and to assert that it did, or could have, is unfounded and merely speculative. Speculation is not the business of science. And to rely upon one's speculation, I might add here, requires a certain sufficiency of faith. More on that...

    How can we know that it was not completely natural? Good question. Answer: We know that it was not natural because the energy for the Big Bang must have been sufficient to overcome the force due to gravity, a force that only exists in the natural universe. If, as the Big Bang theory prescribes, the entire universe came from a singularity of infinite mass, which requires no dimension, then the force due to gravity would have held that mass in check, unable to expand against its own infinite gravitational forces. And so, for the explosion to occur, a force greater in magnitude than even infinity had to be applied. Get that, a force greater than an infinite natural force had to be applied. That could only be a supernatural force.

    Now the most significant credence I can attach to your argument here finds basis in the notion that we just don't know what happened prior to the Big Bang, and therefore you personally choose to fall back on the existing science to give you the answers, as far as science can give them. Well, Scott, that we don't know what happened prior to the Big Bang will never change. That is because we cannot duplicate the conditions that were present at that moment. We therefore cannot test any scientific theory that attempts to explain it. We are in a scientific rut of infinite proportions. Ten thousand simultaneous differential equations solved, and universally accepted by all of science, forming the basis of a model that predicts and explains the Big Bang, simply cannot be tested. It cannot be tested because we don't know the conditions that existed at the moment of the Big Bang and we can't simulate those conditions if we did. For this reason, the scientific method is useless beyond the moment of the Big Bang. And therefore science is useless beyond the Big Bang. All it can do is speculate and dream. So there you are, the end of a great run of science, a dead end, proverbial brick wall, literally a black hole of supernatural dimensions. Consequently, if science dares proceed beyond that point, the point that it knows that it cannot with any certainty create the conditions and test its assertions, the ironic part of all this is that it can only proceed based on faith in its own abilities to reason. Science beyond the Big Bang is science based upon faith in the power of human reasoning. How ironic.
     
  7. Chris0515

    Chris0515 New Member

  8. studio34

    studio34 Guest

    Hank -- I've ordered a copy of Hawking's book and want to read it before commenting further. I need to see where he's at with this in more detail. I can't wait to get stuck into it.

    How's New York?
     
  9. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    Thanks for asking. We arrived in Corning last evening. At the recommendation of a friend, we plan to tour the Corning Glass Museum. (This is really something Winde wants to do. But I expect I will enjoy it too. In exchange, we get to go to Cooperstown to tour the Baseball Hall of Fame for me, something I expect she will enjoy too.)

    A little tired from the drive. But eager to get going. We will see Niagara Falls next week, something we have never seen. This is our 30 year anniversary gift to each other.

    But I will be checking in as I can.

    Thanks again for asking.
     
  10. studio34

    studio34 Guest

    Sounds great. I grew up about 100 km away from the Falls. Never made it this past visit but a great place to go every time. Make sure you get some fudge. That was always the thing we did at the Falls.

    Are you finding anything to eat on the drive? We could not find anything on I-75. Junk food for 1,000 miles. If I saw one more Waffle House ...
     
  11. studio34

    studio34 Guest

    An interview with Stephen Hawking and Larry King on all of this. The master of nonsense and the ridiculous, Deepak Chopra, is there as is a religious figure. Unfortunately the clip is cut short.

    But what I like is this statement (paraphrased):

    Science is not based on authority. The authors' personal beliefs do not enter into the picture; they are simply reporting what the evidence shows. It is not necessary to invoke a God to explain the Universe based on the evidence.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AdKEHzmqxA&feature=player_embedded

    S
     
  12. Imnoscientist

    Imnoscientist New Member

    Hank and Scott - I'm very jealous you've both been/going to Niagra Falls. I did a driving trip up into Canada a few years back but just couldn't stomach the roughly 1000 miles of travel from Quebec to the falls on the Interstate. Give me the Blue Highways any day (and more time to drive them!).
     
  13. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    Hi Scott,

    On the way to Cooperstown today. Never thought I would have reason or opportunity to go there. So this is a real bonus.

    Food? Food is secondary. We just grab and go, just like if we were working. It's engrained.

    Regarding Hawking's statement, unless he has done it how does he know that it is not necessary to invoke a God to explain the Universe? Last time I checked, he was falling a bit short of the goal and has no way to check his work if he did.

    As you say, cheers.
     
  14. barnyardbird

    barnyardbird Guest

    Your numbers are a tad off.I have read that there are 1.9% atheists in the U.S.not 1.6%.As for those people who are not associated with a particular religion I have read the percentage to be as high as 16%.Christian type people make up 76% of the U.S.population.
    (no I cannot provide evidence or links),but then again since when do believers believe in evidence since they have faith?I think it was Nietzsche who said,"Faith:Not wanting to know what is true"!
     
  15. studio34

    studio34 Guest

    Hank,

    The trip sounds like fun. Nothing better than hitting the road and exploring new places and meeting new people. Are the leaves changing colour?

    I'm in the middle of watching Hawking's series on the Universe. It's mindblowing stuff. More comments later.

    Turns out the book is not yet available here and is cheaper to order via Amazon anyway. Crazy.
     
  16. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    Somehow I don't think the book is finished yet.
     
  17. hollymm

    hollymm Me, 'in' a tree.

    Well, since there's basically two major players in this discussion I will say Hank, I really hope your trip is wow'd and Scott I hope the book hits the tour quickly.
     
  18. carolyn33

    carolyn33 New Member

    Wow Goes to show you Nietzsche doesn't know what Faith is. It has nothing to do with "wanting" to know what is true.
     

Share This Page