Do you believe in God and why

[Peter Denis]

7 minutes ago, Tagged said:

If you look at it as an mans orgasm who fertilize a woman's egg. Quite amazing it is, and that is the start of a new human being, with a brain and body and a whole universe to so many other organism, that will never know anything else than right there, right now, doing what it have to do, and what it should do wondering, what a hell is all this about, and it all started with one great explosion. With that in mind, I find the big bang quite quite reasonable and plausible. 

The Big Bang as a giant cosmic orgasm?

Interesting and if that's indeed the case, the name was well chosen... ????

[mauGR1]

9 minutes ago, Tagged said:

If you look at it as an mans orgasm who fertilize a woman's egg. Quite amazing it is, and that is the start of a new human being, with a brain and body and a whole universe to so many other organism, that will never know anything else than right there, right now, doing what it have to do, and what it should do wondering, what a hell is all this about, and it all started with one great explosion. With that in mind, I find the big bang quite quite resonable and plausable. 

Jeez.. ok, so I should give credibility to the big bang because of the reproduction process of humans, and because tagged on tvf find it reasonable and plausible.

Now, have you got a little more to add to the debate ?

[Tagged]

3 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Jeez.. ok, so I should give credibility to the big bang because of the reproduction process of humans, and because tagged on tvf find it reasonable and plausible.

Now, have you got a little more to add to the debate ?

Well, if thats the best go you have, then all I can say, have a good day sir. 

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

The Big Bang as a giant cosmic orgasm?

Interesting and if that's indeed the case, the name was well chosen... ????

I wonder if there is any autobiographic reference hidden in between the lines in the orgasm theory ☺

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, Tagged said:

Well, if thats the best go you have, then all I can say, have a good day sir. 

Have a good day too ☺

[mauGR1]

17 minutes ago, Tagged said:

Well, if thats the best go you have, then all I can say, have a good day sir. 

By the way, the thing of the egg and the reproduction, I would say perhaps "replication"  is very much in line with my way of thinking.

Yet the exact opposite of the big bang theory.

In other words, the big bang theory implies a beginning, in my view there was not a beginning, there is eternity.

[Peter Denis]

4 hours ago, Elad said:

Scientific theories are based on evidence, and any theory is open to questioning or criticism. And should any new evidence come along that contradicts and goes against that theory, then scientists are willing to throw that theory out like yesterdays newspaper. 

That is NOT indoctrination. 

Yes, that's the genuine scientific approach which brings real progress.

But of course, scientists are only human and 'loss of face' having to admit that new facts do not match with the hypoheses they believed in and earned them fame is very human (the bickering between famous scientists is legendary).

On top of that the current 'science factory' is not so much anymore about testing hypotheses to get a better insight in material reality, but has largely deteriorated into a peer-reviewed paper production exercise with the funding for the studies often geared towards an outcome that needs confirmation.

Just like almost all religions, also 'science' has become a Church with 'believers' that often already dismiss a new hypothesis if it does not fit their pre-conceived thinking.  The anti-thesis of the scientific approach being lauded as the real thing.

> The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake investigates and reveals/unveils the mechanisms of this puppet-shadowry, and will be an eye-opener or a hard-to-swallow pill for the virgin science believers.

[Peter Denis]

3 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

By the way, the thing of the egg and the reproduction, I would say perhaps "replication"  is very much in line with my way of thinking.

Yet the exact opposite of the big bang theory.

In other words, the big bang theory implies a beginning, in my view there was not a beginning, there is eternity.

 

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake investigates and reveals/unveils the mechanisms of this puppet-shadowry, and will be an eye-opener or a hard-to-swallow pill for the virgin science believers.

I just read recently just a few things about R.Sheldrake, and I fell in love instantly with his writings.

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

 

Yep, the concept of something happening out of nothing has not a lot of credibility, and is at odds with any logical way of thinking.

[Peter Denis]

4 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I just read recently just a few things about R.Sheldrake, and I fell in love instantly with his writings.

> Then you will love this 3,5 hour fascinating conversation between 6 eminent scientists (Sheldrake being one of them) about science and what it brought us. 

It dates from 1993, but good things are timeless...

 

 

In the Dutch television show A Glorious Accident (1993) six scientists talk about their visions on their work and the world. Journalist Wim Kayzer asks them: how far did you come in your understanding of our thoughts an actions? What did science really bring us at the end of the 20th century: knowledge or also understanding? In The Coming Together all the scientist get together: The British neurologist Oliver Sacks, the British writer and biologist Rubert Shledrake, the American philosopher Daniel C. Dennett, the British philosopher Stephen Toulmin, the British physicist Freeman Dyson and the American paleontologist and evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould. The talk about the question what science has brought humanity.

[mauGR1]

8 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

> Then you will love this 3,5 hour fascinating conversation between 6 eminent scientists (Sheldrake being one of them) about science and what it brought us. 

It dates from 1993, but good things are timeless...

 

 

In the Dutch television show A Glorious Accident (1993) six scientists talk about their visions on their work and the world. Journalist Wim Kayzer asks them: how far did you come in your understanding of our thoughts an actions? What did science really bring us at the end of the 20th century: knowledge or also understanding? In The Coming Together all the scientist get together: The British neurologist Oliver Sacks, the British writer and biologist Rubert Shledrake, the American philosopher Daniel C. Dennett, the British philosopher Stephen Toulmin, the British physicist Freeman Dyson and the American paleontologist and evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould. The talk about the question what science has brought humanity.

Unfortunately I don't watch videos of any kind, unless they are very short, but of course I could make an exception in some cases, as i have a lot of trust on your judgement.

But I'm eager to put my greedy hands on any Sheldrake's works as soon as the absolute allows.

[VincentRJ]

On 10/7/2020 at 11:55 AM, mauGR1 said:

Do you believe that all of this came out from a big bang, which happened out of nothing ?  I wonder who is the one which is truly and well indoctrinated here.

I've seen such comments frequently on this thread, suggesting it is absurd that something can be created from nothing, but that is not the theory of the Big Bang, at least as I understand it.

 

The singularity from which the Big Bang occurred is often described as an infinitely dense point. Our range of personal experiences, of one extreme to the other, is very narrow compared to the extremes that exist in the universe. For example, if you hold a ball of polystyrene in one hand and compare its weight to a ball of lead in the other hand, you will feel that the ball of lead, of the same size, is a hundred times, or more, heavier. 

 

It's difficult to imagine any ball of the same size which would be a trillion times heavier than the lead ball in your hand, but such extreme variations apparently exist in the universe at large. A cubic metre of matter at the centre of our own relatively small planet is estimated to weigh about 13 tonnes. Far greater pressure is found within the collapsed core of a giant star. It is estimated that one cubic metre of “neutronium” matter from the centre of a neutron star could have a mass of up to a million billion tonnes. The weight of a similar volume of matter, or stuff, in a Black Hole will be even greater, and the mass of a 'Singularity' is calculated as being infinite.

 

An infinitely dense mass is not nothing. ????
 

[mauGR1]

7 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I've seen such comments frequently on this thread, suggesting it is absurd that something can be created from nothing, but that is not the theory of the Big Bang, at least as I understand it.

 

The singularity from which the Big Bang occurred is often described as an infinitely dense point. Our range of personal experiences, of one extreme to the other, is very narrow compared to the extremes that exist in the universe. For example, if you hold a ball of polystyrene in one hand and compare its weight to a ball of lead in the other hand, you will feel that the ball of lead, of the same size, is a hundred times, or more, heavier. 

 

It's difficult to imagine any ball of the same size which would be a trillion times heavier than the lead ball in your hand, but such extreme variations apparently exist in the universe at large. A cubic metre of matter at the centre of our own relatively small planet is estimated to weigh about 13 tonnes. Far greater pressure is found within the collapsed core of a giant star. It is estimated that one cubic metre of “neutronium” matter from the centre of a neutron star could have a mass of up to a million billion tonnes. The weight of a similar volume of matter, or stuff, in a Black Hole will be even greater, and the mass of a 'Singularity' is calculated as being infinite.

 

An infinitely dense mass is not nothing. ????
 

Yes, but we are running round in circles then.

Who established the laws which govern different levels of density ?

If you say that everything happened "by chance" or "without reason" , well, that's a strange way to call God, although I could almost guarantee that you will not be punished for that ????

[Tagged]

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

By the way, the thing of the egg and the reproduction, I would say perhaps "replication"  is very much in line with my way of thinking.

Yet the exact opposite of the big bang theory.

In other words, the big bang theory implies a beginning, in my view there was not a beginning, there is eternity.

A big bang doesnt exclude eternity

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, Tagged said:

A big bang doesnt exclude eternity

I agree, but then why the official science uses the big bang theory to explain the existence of the universe ?

 

in my opinion it would be fair to say that we don't know, and that "time" and "space" are concepts which rely just to the material reality which we are able to witness with the physical senses.

to think that only what we are able to perceive exists, sounds rather arrogant to me.

 

[Tagged]

A big bang might just be an end and a new start. Call it restart if you like. 
 

 

“Have peace in knowing, dear ones, that we are all composed of energy. Energy never dies. It is always changing and transforming.”

Molly Friedenfeld, The Book of Simple Human Truths

 

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, Tagged said:

A big bang might just be an end and a new start. Call it restart if you like. 
 

 

“Have peace in knowing, dear ones, that we are all composed of energy. Energy never dies. It is always changing and transforming.”

Molly Friedenfeld, The Book of Simple Human Truths

 

So, if I tell you that, you don't trust me, but if Molly Friedenfeld say the same on "The Book of Simple Human Truths" it must be true.

Fascinating ☺

[Peter Denis]

6 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

So, if I tell you that, you don't trust me, but if Molly Friedenfeld say the same on "The Book of Simple Human Truths" it must be true.

Fascinating ☺

... but Molly has two strong points in her favor! ????

[mauGR1]

6 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

... but Molly has two strong points in her favor! ????

You mean her nipples ? Tbh I never had the pleasure to meet her, so I'd have to trust your word for it.

Oops i just realized that i let the world know something about my priorities ????

[Sunmaster]

32 minutes ago, Tagged said:

A big bang might just be an end and a new start. Call it restart if you like. 
 

 

“Have peace in knowing, dear ones, that we are all composed of energy. Energy never dies. It is always changing and transforming.”

Molly Friedenfeld, The Book of Simple Human Truths

 

In other words, just what Hinduism has stated for thousands of years...

The creation of the universe according to Hinduism:
Brahma is the first god in the Hindu triumvirate, or trimurti. The triumvirate consists of three gods who are responsible for the creation, upkeep and destruction of the world. The other two gods are Vishnu and Shiva. Vishnu is the preserver of the universe, while Shiva's role is to destroy it in order to re-create.
 

Please, don't read "gods" and imagine three guys having fun at creating the universe, but rather see them as manifestations of forces responsible for the creation, subsistence and destruction of the material universe. If it makes one feel better or more modern, their names can be replaced by "energy": creative, sustaining and destructive energy.

The old sages came to this conclusion by intuition a long time ago. Modern science, driven by the thirst of knowledge and new, open minds, is slowly but surely walking in their footsteps and I have no doubt it will reach the same conclusion one day.

According to Hindu cosmology, there is no absolute start to time, as it is considered infinite and cyclic.^[1] Similarly, the space and universe has neither start nor end, rather it is cyclical. The current universe is just the start of a present cycle preceded by an infinite number of universes and to be followed by another infinite number of universes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_cycle_of_the_universe
 

But always keep in mind....: ???? 

 

Darkness there was at first, by darkness hidden;
Without distinctive marks, this all was water;
That which, becoming, by the void was covered;
That One by force of heat came into being;

Who really knows? Who will here proclaim it?
Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation?
Gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.
Who then knows whence it has arisen?

Whether God's will created it, or whether He was mute;
Perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not;
Only He who is its overseer in highest heaven knows,
Only He knows, or perhaps He does not know.

— Rigveda 10:129-6

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

In other words, just what Hinduism has stated for thousands of years...

The creation of the universe according to Hinduism:
Brahma is the first god in the Hindu triumvirate, or trimurti. The triumvirate consists of three gods who are responsible for the creation, upkeep and destruction of the world. The other two gods are Vishnu and Shiva. Vishnu is the preserver of the universe, while Shiva's role is to destroy it in order to re-create.
 

Please, don't read "gods" and imagine three guys having fun at creating the universe, but rather see them as manifestations of forces responsible for the creation, subsistence and destruction of the material universe. If it makes one feel better or more modern, their names can be replaced by "energy": creative, sustaining and destructive energy.

The old sages came to this conclusion by intuition a long time ago. Modern science, driven by the thirst of knowledge and new, open minds, is slowly but surely walking in their footsteps and I have no doubt it will reach the same conclusion one day.

According to Hindu cosmology, there is no absolute start to time, as it is considered infinite and cyclic.^[1] Similarly, the space and universe has neither start nor end, rather it is cyclical. The current universe is just the start of a present cycle preceded by an infinite number of universes and to be followed by another infinite number of universes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_cycle_of_the_universe
 

But always keep in mind....: ???? 

 

Darkness there was at first, by darkness hidden;
Without distinctive marks, this all was water;
That which, becoming, by the void was covered;
That One by force of heat came into being;

Who really knows? Who will here proclaim it?
Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation?
Gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.
Who then knows whence it has arisen?

Whether God's will created it, or whether He was mute;
Perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not;
Only He who is its overseer in highest heaven knows,
Only He knows, or perhaps He does not know.

— Rigveda 10:129-6

I believe that in the relation between n.1 and n.3 one can find many keys of understanding.

Years ago, while meditating on this issue, an atom appeared between my eyes. 

Brahma is the nucleus, Shiva the electrons, and Vishnu the power who keeps all together.

Just a vision, believe it or not ????

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Yes, but we are running round in circles then.

Who established the laws which govern different levels of density ?

We did, of course. All laws are a creation of humanity. It's what we do because of our capacity for abstract thought and language. We call our explanations for the behaviour of our surroundings and experiences, laws, only for as long as we see that such explanations are consistent and therefore, by inference, unbreakable.

 

The history of science reveals that many explanations in the past, that we have described as 'laws', have later been proven to be false, either completely false or partially false. When completely false they are abandoned. When partially false they are amended.

 

There's no reason to suppose that this process will not continue into the future. It's the nature of science.
The theory of the Big Bang as the origin of the universe is no more than a current explanation which appears to fit the current 'human-constructed-laws' of mathematics and physics, and other disciplines. It might not be true. It's not a 'belief' but more of an Hypothesis. It cannot be confirmed. It's merely a speculation based on the evidence we have and the mathematical models we are able to create.

 

If you say that everything happened "by chance" or "without reason" , well, that's a strange way to call God, although I could almost guarantee that you will not be punished for that ????

 

Again, 'chance' is a human concept. Any event that we cannot predict can be described as 'chance'. The obvious example is Casinos, where chance prevails all the time and is exploited for entertainment. However, in normal day activities we like to feel secure and do not like to expose ourselves to random events which could end our lives and/or cause great suffering, so it's quite natural and understandable, from my perspective, that people will strive to get some explanation for the apparently random nature and behaviour of their surroundings so they can prepare for any future 'apparently random' event, or at least attempt to prevent the event.

 

Consider extreme weather events, volcanic eruptions, and earth quakes as an example. Thousands of years ago, before the methodology of science existed, some bright spark or chieftain with a higher-than-normal IQ, after seeing how distressed the villagers were when their homes were destroy by a storm and many lives lost, probably came up with the idea that the storm was caused by some sort of very powerful God, let's say 'the God of Thunder'.

 

By convincing the local population that such storms were preventable by praying to the 'God of Thunder' who caused the storm as punishment for their bad behaviour, and by regularly sacrificing a number children as an offering to the God, the fear and worry about future storms was diminished, which is good for the harmony of the community.

 

When the storms naturally recurred, the explanation for the recurrence was the bad behaviour of the citizens. What an excellent way to control the population. Better than a fine or a few years in jail because no police force, justice courts, lawyers or jails are required. Big saving in resources. ????

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

We did, of course. All laws are a creation of humanity. It's what we do because of our capacity for abstract thought and langua

Although I read all of your post, I completely disagree with your first statement.

When I die, 2 plus 2 will still be 4.

If you also die, 2 plus 2 will still be 4.

Should the whole humankind, one day, be exterminated, guess what, 2 plus 2 will be 4.

The same with consciousness, it will exist even when our civilisation is out of the picture.

[Tagged]

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

So, if I tell you that, you don't trust me, but if Molly Friedenfeld say the same on "The Book of Simple Human Truths" it must be true.

Fascinating ☺

I did not dismiss your statement. In a rush to find a qoute, a universial qoute about energy doesnt dissapear, just appears in a new form, I found it amusing to find hers, angels on a cloud, energy and so on. To be earnest, I have no idea who she is ????

 

on the road for the weekend. Enjoy, will catch up later

[transam]

Has any reincarnated one come back yet to let us know the tech...?

[Sunmaster]

2 minutes ago, transam said:

Has any reincarnated one come back yet to let us know the tech...?

You are one of the reincarnated ones....why don't you tell us? ????

 

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, Tagged said:

I did not dismiss your statement. In a rush to find a qoute, a universial qoute about energy doesnt dissapear, just appears in a new form, I found it amusing to find hers, angels on a cloud, energy and so on. To be earnest, I have no idea who she is ????

 

on the road for the weekend. Enjoy, will catch up later

Thanks mate, apart from words and hair splitting arguments, I'm sure we agree on lots of things.

Enjoy your weekend, God bless ????

[Sunmaster]

29 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Consider extreme weather events, volcanic eruptions, and earth quakes as an example. Thousands of years ago, before the methodology of science existed, some bright spark or chieftain with a higher-than-normal IQ, after seeing how distressed the villagers were when their homes were destroy by a storm and many lives lost, probably came up with the idea that the storm was caused by some sort of very powerful God, let's say 'the God of Thunder'.

 

By convincing the local population that such storms were preventable by praying to the 'God of Thunder' who caused the storm as punishment for their bad behaviour, and by regularly sacrificing a number children as an offering to the God, the fear and worry about future storms was diminished, which is good for the harmony of the community.

 

When the storms naturally recurred, the explanation for the recurrence was the bad behaviour of the citizens. What an excellent way to control the population. Better than a fine or a few years in jail because no police force, justice courts, lawyers or jails are required. Big saving in resources. ????

You like to highlight this aspect of religion: the desire of a few to have power over the masses.

Sure, it was (and is) very real and should be incessantly denounced, BUT it is not the whole picture and should not be portrayed as such. 

[transam]

Just now, Sunmaster said:

You are one of the reincarnated ones....why don't you tell us? ????

 

Noooooooooo, not me, when I pop off I will be joining the zillions of other creatures of the planet that have died or been eaten by the likes of you, unless you're a veggy....????