Hopefully I haven't said too much, but I believe this is the forum for thinking out-of-the-box?

Good post Tip & nice to see you here again

We did have this discussion before(couple years back?) & your wondering's were just as interesting then.

And if I may be so bold I would claim that the answers are, literally, all around us. Certainly they are within us. These questions are not unknowable, impenetrable, or even inherently mysterious as we like to believe. Perhaps the true fairy tale which we've created for ourselves, and I think this point is worth considering, is the belief that the answers to death, life and who we truly are are, well, beyond us.

I suspect that at some point in the future our understanding of the universe will begin to shed light on the matter. I think science will one day be able to give answers to at least some of the questions and maybe even prove or disprove religion and/or the after-life, albeit in a scientific sense as opposed to mystical mumbo jumbo.

I think it's a case of not knowing where to start looking. There might be some leads to go on, however.

The double slit experiment here

might go some way to explaining in scientific terms what appears to be mystical.

I also remember once watching a documentary about life after death. Apparently, thoughts within in the brain are transmitted and then received between two separate nodes that have actual space between them. Of course this space is tiny but for just a fraction of second our conscience, or part of it, is existing in open space. That might be another place to start looking.

I would say that there is no need to wait for science to prove or disprove these questions. The answers have always been there and will always be there.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, science has evolved into the singular authority decreeing what may be real and what is not and has too often become the only source for people to turn to for acceptable answers to life. Alas, there is so much, too much, that still baffles science. Mysticism, spiritualism, meta-physics, what-ever-other-meaningless-label-you-prefer et al have been relegated to, ahem, mumbo jumbo. So sad in my opinion. For science, again in my opinion, has unperceived limitations to prove existence in all of it's aspects for reasons that are too lengthy to explain here.

Of course, no matter where one searches it is best never to leave your critical thinking skills behind. Else it is easy enough to fall prey to mindless acceptance of any particular discipline being touted. That would, as far as I am concerned, include science as well.

These questions I consider to be more than just trivial, irrelevant, meaningless or inconsequential. And yet oddly enough very, very few concern themselves with these questions seriously or make any true attempt at arriving at real answers.

I very much disagree. A lot of us dwell on these questions in our youth and eventually realize that we are never going to know the answers and just get on with the rest of our lives.

With all due respect, UG, and I mean that sincerely, please allow me to edit your response.

A lot of us dwell on these questions in a cursory manner in our youth. Noticing that answers are not easily to be had with minimal effort we eventually realize conclude that we are never going to know the answers through feeble attempts, that knowing them doesn't really matter after all (especially as no one else seems to give these questions much thought or weight) and certainly doesn't prevent us from living our lives, and just get on with the rest portions of our lives which are more easily perceivable; in fact rather in-our-face.

Hopefully I haven't said too much, but I believe this is the forum for thinking out-of-the-box?

Good post Tip & nice to see you here again

We did have this discussion before(couple years back?) & your wondering's were just as interesting then.

:jap:

Yes, it's been a few years. Discussing this topic was as enjoyable then as it is now.

These questions I consider to be more than just trivial, irrelevant, meaningless or inconsequential. And yet oddly enough very, very few concern themselves with these questions seriously or make any true attempt at arriving at real answers.

I very much disagree. A lot of us dwell on these questions in our youth and eventually realize that we are never going to know the answers and just get on with the rest of our lives.

With all due respect, UG, and I mean that sincerely, please allow me to edit your response.

A lot of us dwell on these questions in a cursory manner in our youth. Noticing that answers are not easily to be had with minimal effort we eventually realize conclude that we are never going to know the answers through feeble attempts, that knowing them doesn't really matter after all (especially as no one else seems to give these questions much thought or weight) and certainly doesn't prevent us from living our lives, and just get on with the rest portions of our lives which are more easily perceivable; in fact rather in-our-face.

With all due respect, I'm sure that a lot of religious nuts, deluded phonies and outright charlatans would prefer your adaptation, but I stand by my version.

These questions I consider to be more than just trivial, irrelevant, meaningless or inconsequential. And yet oddly enough very, very few concern themselves with these questions seriously or make any true attempt at arriving at real answers.

I very much disagree. A lot of us dwell on these questions in our youth and eventually realize that we are never going to know the answers and just get on with the rest of our lives.

With all due respect, UG, and I mean that sincerely, please allow me to edit your response.

A lot of us dwell on these questions in a cursory manner in our youth. Noticing that answers are not easily to be had with minimal effort we eventually realize conclude that we are never going to know the answers through feeble attempts, that knowing them doesn't really matter after all (especially as no one else seems to give these questions much thought or weight) and certainly doesn't prevent us from living our lives, and just get on with the rest portions of our lives which are more easily perceivable; in fact rather in-our-face.

With all due respect, I'm sure that a lot of religious nuts, deluded phonies and outright charlatans would prefer your adaptation, but I stand by my version.

As the Thais are so fond of saying, "Up to you."

:jap:

As the Thais are so fond of saying, "Up to you."

:jap:

Off Topic but I gotta tell you........

Today as I was checking out at a grocery store in the USA

They always have various candy & gum at the checkout

Today I saw a new gum made by Mentos called UP2U

Some kind of two flavors in one pack of gum.

Made me laugh :lol:

These questions I consider to be more than just trivial, irrelevant, meaningless or inconsequential. And yet oddly enough very, very few concern themselves with these questions seriously or make any true attempt at arriving at real answers.

I very much disagree. A lot of us dwell on these questions in our youth and eventually realize that we are never going to know the answers and just get on with the rest of our lives.

With all due respect, UG, and I mean that sincerely, please allow me to edit your response.

A lot of us dwell on these questions in a cursory manner in our youth. Noticing that answers are not easily to be had with minimal effort we eventually realize conclude that we are never going to know the answers through feeble attempts, that knowing them doesn't really matter after all (especially as no one else seems to give these questions much thought or weight) and certainly doesn't prevent us from living our lives, and just get on with the rest portions of our lives which are more easily perceivable; in fact rather in-our-face.

That's not an honest spellcheck error, that's a blatant, in-your-face no-no. If not, and it is acceptable, I'm going to have a lot of fun respectively edited responses.

That aside, even with MAXIMUM effot and TIRELESS attempts, we won't know what happens after we die until we do in fact die.

I very much disagree. A lot of us dwell on these questions in our youth and eventually realize that we are never going to know the answers and just get on with the rest of our lives.

With all due respect, UG, and I mean that sincerely, please allow me to edit your response.

A lot of us dwell on these questions in a cursory manner in our youth. Noticing that answers are not easily to be had with minimal effort we eventually realize conclude that we are never going to know the answers through feeble attempts, that knowing them doesn't really matter after all (especially as no one else seems to give these questions much thought or weight) and certainly doesn't prevent us from living our lives, and just get on with the rest portions of our lives which are more easily perceivable; in fact rather in-our-face.

That's not an honest spellcheck error, that's a blatant, in-your-face no-no. If not, and it is acceptable, I'm going to have a lot of fun respectively edited responses.

That aside, even with MAXIMUM effot and TIRELESS attempts, we won't know what happens after we die until we do in fact die.

That aside, even with MAXIMUM effot and TIRELESS attempts, we won't know what happens after we die until we do in fact die.

and i think untill SCIENCE can prove ottherwise, this is the ultimate conclusion

These questions I consider to be more than just trivial, irrelevant, meaningless or inconsequential. And yet oddly enough very, very few concern themselves with these questions seriously or make any true attempt at arriving at real answers.

I very much disagree. A lot of us dwell on these questions in our youth and eventually realize that we are never going to know the answers and just get on with the rest of our lives.

With all due respect, UG, and I mean that sincerely, please allow me to edit your response.

A lot of us dwell on these questions in a cursory manner in our youth. Noticing that answers are not easily to be had with minimal effort we eventually realize conclude that we are never going to know the answers through feeble attempts, that knowing them doesn't really matter after all (especially as no one else seems to give these questions much thought or weight) and certainly doesn't prevent us from living our lives, and just get on with the rest portions of our lives which are more easily perceivable; in fact rather in-our-face.

That's not an honest spellcheck error, that's a blatant, in-your-face no-no. If not, and it is acceptable, I'm going to have a lot of fun respectively edited responses.

That aside, even with MAXIMUM effot and TIRELESS attempts, we won't know what happens after we die until we do in fact die.

It's not a no-no at all....he's left the quotation as it was and cut and pasted a paraphrasing in his own post.

Some would say it's silly to say that we will know what happens after we die when we die......all evidence suggests that we will know nothing after death because we don't exist except as a piece of rotting meat....we can not know something if we don't exist.

With all due respect, UG, and I mean that sincerely, please allow me to edit your response.

A lot of us dwell on these questions in a cursory manner in our youth. Noticing that answers are not easily to be had with minimal effort we eventually realize conclude that we are never going to know the answers through feeble attempts, that knowing them doesn't really matter after all (especially as no one else seems to give these questions much thought or weight) and certainly doesn't prevent us from living our lives, and just get on with the rest portions of our lives which are more easily perceivable; in fact rather in-our-face.

That's not an honest spellcheck error, that's a blatant, in-your-face no-no. If not, and it is acceptable, I'm going to have a lot of fun respectively edited responses.

That aside, even with MAXIMUM effot and TIRELESS attempts, we won't know what happens after we die until we do in fact die.

It's not a no-no at all....he's left the quotation as it was and cut and pasted a paraphrasing in his own post.

Some would say it's silly to say that we will know what happens after we die when we die......all evidence suggests that we will know nothing after death because we don't exist except as a piece of rotting meat....we can not know something if we don't exist.

With all due respect, Harcourt, please allow me to edit your response.

It's not a no-no at all despite giving the impression that the editor is completing the original poster's own thoughts for him....he's graciously left the quotation as it was and cut and pasted inserted a an innaccurate and misleading paraphrasing in his own post so maybe you're right afterall and it is a no-no.

That's opening a can of worms IMO.

As for the second part...all evidence shows that we are a rotting piece of meat after we die. Our physical bodies, yes. No one can deny that. But is that all we are? What about our consciousness, essence of being or soul?

[

As brilliant as the man is, he has no special insight as to whether there is a heaven or not. This is one area where all of are equal - all of us can only guess what happens next.

Is there any factual evidence that God does not exist?

Indeed there is evidence that God, as portrayed by "His" holy scriptures (of any major monotheistic religion), does not exist.

You are rewording my question.

Please humor me and answer it as asked, without displaying your editing skills, such as they are.

Not squabbling; An important point......

"God" is a concept of religions. When we talk about heaven or God, we are talking about the concepts that religions have given us. It is important to remember that when we discuss the issues and bring science into the equation. We have to remember that "God" is a theory, a hypothesis put forward by religion.

If we are to discuss heaven and God, then we have to discuss them as described by religion.

If we are to discuss "some omniscient entity" and "some sort of afterlife", then we need to call them such, and not confuse them with God and heaven (as portrayed by His holy scriptures).

With all due respect, UG, and I mean that sincerely, please allow me to edit your response.

A lot of us dwell on these questions in a cursory manner in our youth. Noticing that answers are not easily to be had with minimal effort we eventually realize conclude that we are never going to know the answers through feeble attempts, that knowing them doesn't really matter after all (especially as no one else seems to give these questions much thought or weight) and certainly doesn't prevent us from living our lives, and just get on with the rest portions of our lives which are more easily perceivable; in fact rather in-our-face.

That's not an honest spellcheck error, that's a blatant, in-your-face no-no. If not, and it is acceptable, I'm going to have a lot of fun respectively edited responses.

That aside, even with MAXIMUM effot and TIRELESS attempts, we won't know what happens after we die until we do in fact die.

It's not a no-no at all....he's left the quotation as it was and cut and pasted a paraphrasing in his own post.

Some would say it's silly to say that we will know what happens after we die when we die......all evidence suggests that we will know nothing after death because we don't exist except as a piece of rotting meat....we can not know something if we don't exist.

With all due respect, Harcourt, please allow me to edit your response.

It's not a no-no at all despite giving the impression that the editor is completing the original poster's own thoughts for him....he's graciously left the quotation as it was and cut and pasted inserted a an innaccurate and misleading paraphrasing in his own post so maybe you're right afterall and it is a no-no.

That's opening a can of worms IMO.

As for the second part...all evidence shows that we are a rotting piece of meat after we die. Our physical bodies, yes. No one can deny that. But is that all we are? What about our consciousness, essence of being or soul?

You are misconstruing Tippaporn's intent AND effect. There was no impression of the poster completing the original poster's thoughts. There was nothing misleading about it....are you saying thart you didn't comprehend the post and were misled?

As for the second part....

A good question, but the answer to which does not neccessarily prove or disprove religious concepts.

We have to remember that "God" is a theory, a hypothesis put forward by religion.

Religion puts forward the existence of God as a given fact. It's the non-believers who call God a "theory" or "hypothesis"

If we are to discuss heaven and God, then we have to discuss them as described by religion.

If we are to discuss "some omniscient entity" and "some sort of afterlife", then we need to call them such, and not confuse them with God and heaven (as portrayed by His holy scriptures).

Was Hawking talking only about Heaven in the Biblical sense or was he talking about the existence of a heaven/paradise/afterlife in general?

Is there any factual evidence that God does not exist?

Indeed there is evidence that God, as portrayed by "His" holy scriptures (of any major monotheistic religion), does not exist.

You are rewording my question.

Please humor me and answer it as asked, without displaying your editing skills, such as they are.

Not squabbling; An important point......

"God" is a concept of religions. When we talk about heaven or God, we are talking about the concepts that religions have given us. It is important to remember that when we discuss the issues and bring science into the equation. We have to remember that "God" is a theory, a hypothesis put forward by religion.

If we are to discuss heaven and God, then we have to discuss them as described by religion.

If we are to discuss "some omniscient entity" and "some sort of afterlife", then we need to call them such, and not confuse them with God and heaven (as portrayed by His holy scriptures).

Another non-squabble so may I post again???

I was watching the History channel last night when they presented a show named something like..How the Universe was formed. Didn't catch the name so my apologies but you get the idea.

During the show they interviewed two scientists that espouse the big bang theory on the creation of the universe. They both seemed to believe the universe was created some 14 billion years ago, but here's the interesting part. They really don't have a clue exactly what exploded to make the big bang since, in theory, nothing existed prior to the big bang. They simply compromised and said the universe began with something tinier than an atom, but since atom's did not exist, the universe must have started with (get this!)...NOTHING.

My thoughts, after wiping the tears of laughter from my eyes, were that the science world's theory of the big bang is nothing short of a religion in it's own right. One must have 'faith' the scientists have gotten this correct, even though they are 14 billion years behind the power curve. They have absolutely not one shred of evidence to support their hypothesis yet they obviously believe it happened exactly as they claim it did.

The same scientific community that believes in the big bang theory based on 'faith', denigrates most/all religions because one can only believe them if they have 'faith' that there is a Supreme Being.

What's the difference?

PS: These are rhetorical questions and do not demand a soul searching response from anybody.

My thoughts, after wiping the tears of laughter from my eyes, were that the science world's theory of the big bang is nothing short of a religion in it's own right. One must have 'faith' the scientists have gotten this correct, even though they are 14 billion years behind the power curve. They have absolutely not one shred of evidence to support their hypothesis yet they obviously believe it happened exactly as they claim it did.

They do actually have reams of evidence.

These theories all come from mathematical data on physics and astrology. Sure they are just theories, but they are theories devised from actual information.

It is also quite wrong to say that they are anything like a religion. Science is always looking to prove itself wrong, always looking for the truth. Facts and theories will forever be studied and dismantled in an effort to prove them wrong and find something better. Take Newton's theory for example, for so long it was at the forefront of science but we have since found that it actually doesn't work and a better alternative is needed.

We know that Einstein's theory of relativity doesn't always work because it falls apart when it comes to quantum mechanics.

Religion tries to state everything as absolute fact and the answer to everything, regardless of how much evidence there might be to the contrary. Science is just trying to look for the answers to the many questions that we have, nothing is absolute and everything is open to scrutiny.

To say that science is like religion is to say that the purpose of science is misunderstood. It's nowhere near as arrogant as people make it out to be.

Religion does not "state everything as an absolute fact". It says "We believe... and to us it is a fact."

Science is about the physical world; as it proves something new, the scientific world expands. But science and religion are not talking about the same things; science is about the physical world, and religion is about the spiritual world. If you wish to say "the spiritual world does not exist", that is your right.

To get back to "heaven", which is where the thread started, Christians (my kind of Christians anyway) do not pretend to know what heaven is. My Catholic friends refer to it as "bliss", which as far as I can see, simply begs the question. One poster suggested that it was "perfection"; that idea sounded a little like the Buddhist Nirvana. To me it must contain an element in which our personalities are preserved (or there is no point in it), but beyond that I simply have to trust in God. Trust is a central factor in any religion; sometimes we call it Faith.

The Big Bang was bound to make its appearance on this thread. In my opinion, this does nothing to disprove the religious concept of creation; it simply pushes it further back. "Nothing shall come of nothing; think again."

My thoughts, after wiping the tears of laughter from my eyes, were that the science world's theory of the big bang is nothing short of a religion in it's own right. One must have 'faith' the scientists have gotten this correct, even though they are 14 billion years behind the power curve. They have absolutely not one shred of evidence to support their hypothesis yet they obviously believe it happened exactly as they claim it did.

They do actually have reams of evidence.

These theories all come from mathematical data on physics and astrology. Sure they are just theories, but they are theories devised from actual information.

I predict in 100 years all these reams of evidence will seem to scientists of the future the same way that all the evidence used 700 years ago to prove the world was flat seems to scientists today.

I love science but those TV shows sometimes drive me nuts. You have scientists saying - in a definite manner, not as a theory - what planets in other galaxies are like yet they just figured out a few years ago that Pluto isn't a planet at all. There indeed is a lot of faith involved on the science end too. But as you state, they are always trying to prove themselves wrong (with the exception of those East Anglia climatologists) whereas religions don't.

I predict in 100 years all these reams of evidence will seem to scientists of the future the same way that all the evidence used 700 years ago to prove the world was flat seems to scientists today.

Well yeah, that's the beauty of it.

We used to think the Earth was at the center of the universe and everything revolved around it. It was investigating this that lead to what we currently know about the solar system.

Likewise investigating the big bang theory, for example, could lead to something completely and utterly different.

My thoughts, after wiping the tears of laughter from my eyes, were that the science world's theory of the big bang is nothing short of a religion in it's own right. One must have 'faith' the scientists have gotten this correct, even though they are 14 billion years behind the power curve. They have absolutely not one shred of evidence to support their hypothesis yet they obviously believe it happened exactly as they claim it did.

They do actually have reams of evidence.

These theories all come from mathematical data on physics and astrology. Sure they are just theories, but they are theories devised from actual information.

It is also quite wrong to say that they are anything like a religion. Science is always looking to prove itself wrong, always looking for the truth. Facts and theories will forever be studied and dismantled in an effort to prove them wrong and find something better. Take Newton's theory for example, for so long it was at the forefront of science but we have since found that it actually doesn't work and a better alternative is needed.

We know that Einstein's theory of relativity doesn't always work because it falls apart when it comes to quantum mechanics.

Religion tries to state everything as absolute fact and the answer to everything, regardless of how much evidence there might be to the contrary. Science is just trying to look for the answers to the many questions that we have, nothing is absolute and everything is open to scrutiny.

To say that science is like religion is to say that the purpose of science is misunderstood. It's nowhere near as arrogant as people make it out to be.

These reams of mathematical equations really mean nothing, other than they are reams of mathematical equations. My 7th grade mathematics teacher could prove, mathematically speaking, the weight of a snowbird equaled the weight of an elephant. We knew the two were not equal in weight but it was a proven mathematical fact at that time in my life. We recently had mathematical proof the climate was warming until somebody found a bunch of e-mails that suddenly said the math wasn't really correct.

The acceptance of mathematical facts and the acceptance of religion follow the same principle. In the case of the formation of the universe, it is the scientists saying...my figures are correct so you must believe me, even though nobody really understands what my figures prove, you must accept them on faith that I have made my mathematical entries correctly.

Religion is also accepted on faith with one teensy little different. Religion is not an exact science. There are as many interpretations of what one believes as there are people that believe anything.

Sometimes mathematics is not an exact science either.

PS: True story...My 7th grade math teacher was in Easy Company of the 101st Airborne, that parachuted behind German lines on D-Day in 1944. They fought all the way to Berchtesgaden. He was one of the few survivors. Didn't find this out until the HBO series "Band of Brothers" came out a few years ago. Maybe we were just afraid to challenge his mathematical theories about the elephant's weight.

My thoughts, after wiping the tears of laughter from my eyes, were that the science world's theory of the big bang is nothing short of a religion in it's own right. One must have 'faith' the scientists have gotten this correct, even though they are 14 billion years behind the power curve. They have absolutely not one shred of evidence to support their hypothesis yet they obviously believe it happened exactly as they claim it did.

They do actually have reams of evidence.

These theories all come from mathematical data on physics and astrology. Sure they are just theories, but they are theories devised from actual information.

It is also quite wrong to say that they are anything like a religion. Science is always looking to prove itself wrong, always looking for the truth. Facts and theories will forever be studied and dismantled in an effort to prove them wrong and find something better. Take Newton's theory for example, for so long it was at the forefront of science but we have since found that it actually doesn't work and a better alternative is needed.

We know that Einstein's theory of relativity doesn't always work because it falls apart when it comes to quantum mechanics.

Religion tries to state everything as absolute fact and the answer to everything, regardless of how much evidence there might be to the contrary. Science is just trying to look for the answers to the many questions that we have, nothing is absolute and everything is open to scrutiny.

To say that science is like religion is to say that the purpose of science is misunderstood. It's nowhere near as arrogant as people make it out to be.

These reams of mathematical equations really mean nothing,

Except they lead to theories and suggestions of how everything works.

It's not necessarily about getting it right, it's more about getting it "more right" even if it means getting it wrong along the way.

The problem is that many people think that scientists have it all figured out when they are really just getting started. Humans have a long way to go before they know diddly-squat about why we are here or what created the universe.

The problem is that many people think that scientists have it all figured out when they are really just getting started. Humans have a long way to go before they know diddly-squat about why we are here or what created the universe.

I am rapidly approaching my 74th birthday. If I haven't figured it out by now, why bother? If they expect me to believe the universe started when NOTHING exploded though, they will be sadly mistaken.

I was upset when I read Stephen Hawking pronounce there is no Heaven. He's a really smart guy so I guess I have to believe him.

I was so looking forward to playing uninterrupted golf absent the usual aches and pains.

I predict in 100 years all these reams of evidence will seem to scientists of the future the same way that all the evidence used 700 years ago to prove the world was flat seems to scientists today.

Well yeah, that's the beauty of it.

We used to think the Earth was at the center of the universe and everything revolved around it. It was investigating this that lead to what we currently know about the solar system.

Likewise investigating the big bang theory, for example, could lead to something completely and utterly different.

Consider, too, that the religious authorities condemned any science that refuted the official accepted views.

My thoughts, after wiping the tears of laughter from my eyes, were that the science world's theory of the big bang is nothing short of a religion in it's own right. One must have 'faith' the scientists have gotten this correct, even though they are 14 billion years behind the power curve. They have absolutely not one shred of evidence to support their hypothesis yet they obviously believe it happened exactly as they claim it did.

They do actually have reams of evidence.

These theories all come from mathematical data on physics and astrology. Sure they are just theories, but they are theories devised from actual information.

It is also quite wrong to say that they are anything like a religion. Science is always looking to prove itself wrong, always looking for the truth. Facts and theories will forever be studied and dismantled in an effort to prove them wrong and find something better. Take Newton's theory for example, for so long it was at the forefront of science but we have since found that it actually doesn't work and a better alternative is needed.

We know that Einstein's theory of relativity doesn't always work because it falls apart when it comes to quantum mechanics.

Religion tries to state everything as absolute fact and the answer to everything, regardless of how much evidence there might be to the contrary. Science is just trying to look for the answers to the many questions that we have, nothing is absolute and everything is open to scrutiny.

To say that science is like religion is to say that the purpose of science is misunderstood. It's nowhere near as arrogant as people make it out to be.

These reams of mathematical equations really mean nothing, other than they are reams of mathematical equations. My 7th grade mathematics teacher could prove, mathematically speaking, the weight of a snowbird equaled the weight of an elephant. We knew the two were not equal in weight but it was a proven mathematical fact at that time in my life. We recently had mathematical proof the climate was warming until somebody found a bunch of e-mails that suddenly said the math wasn't really correct.

The acceptance of mathematical facts and the acceptance of religion follow the same principle. In the case of the formation of the universe, it is the scientists saying...my figures are correct so you must believe me, even though nobody really understands what my figures prove, you must accept them on faith that I have made my mathematical entries correctly.

Religion is also accepted on faith with one teensy little different. Religion is not an exact science. There are as many interpretations of what one believes as there are people that believe anything.

Sometimes mathematics is not an exact science either.

PS: True story...My 7th grade math teacher was in Easy Company of the 101st Airborne, that parachuted behind German lines on D-Day in 1944. They fought all the way to Berchtesgaden. He was one of the few survivors. Didn't find this out until the HBO series "Band of Brothers" came out a few years ago. Maybe we were just afraid to challenge his mathematical theories about the elephant's weight.

I expect that the bird/elephant weight presentation was based on a flawed mathematical concept...probably deliberately, like a magicians trick. I have seen a simmilar trick that proved 1+1 = 4......it looks right if you do not have the higher maths skills to see the trick.....like to a bunch of 7th graders.

Maths is logic and a whole lot more than addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. It is difficult for the layman to grasp higher maths, thus easy for the layman to deride it.

The problem is that many people think that scientists have it all figured out when they are really just getting started. Humans have a long way to go before they know diddly-squat about why we are here or what created the universe.

I am rapidly approaching my 74th birthday. If I haven't figured it out by now, why bother? If they expect me to believe the universe started when NOTHING exploded though, they will be sadly mistaken.

I was upset when I read Stephen Hawking pronounce there is no Heaven. He's a really smart guy so I guess I have to believe him.

I was so looking forward to playing uninterrupted golf absent the usual aches and pains.

Are you certain that it will be uninterupted golf? Maybe it will be a thousand virgins to satisfy....could be the Muslims have it right.

My thoughts, after wiping the tears of laughter from my eyes, were that the science world's theory of the big bang is nothing short of a religion in it's own right. One must have 'faith' the scientists have gotten this correct, even though they are 14 billion years behind the power curve. They have absolutely not one shred of evidence to support their hypothesis yet they obviously believe it happened exactly as they claim it did.

They do actually have reams of evidence.

These theories all come from mathematical data on physics and astrology. Sure they are just theories, but they are theories devised from actual information.

It is also quite wrong to say that they are anything like a religion. Science is always looking to prove itself wrong, always looking for the truth. Facts and theories will forever be studied and dismantled in an effort to prove them wrong and find something better. Take Newton's theory for example, for so long it was at the forefront of science but we have since found that it actually doesn't work and a better alternative is needed.

We know that Einstein's theory of relativity doesn't always work because it falls apart when it comes to quantum mechanics.

Religion tries to state everything as absolute fact and the answer to everything, regardless of how much evidence there might be to the contrary. Science is just trying to look for the answers to the many questions that we have, nothing is absolute and everything is open to scrutiny.

To say that science is like religion is to say that the purpose of science is misunderstood. It's nowhere near as arrogant as people make it out to be.

These reams of mathematical equations really mean nothing, other than they are reams of mathematical equations. My 7th grade mathematics teacher could prove, mathematically speaking, the weight of a snowbird equaled the weight of an elephant. We knew the two were not equal in weight but it was a proven mathematical fact at that time in my life. We recently had mathematical proof the climate was warming until somebody found a bunch of e-mails that suddenly said the math wasn't really correct.

The acceptance of mathematical facts and the acceptance of religion follow the same principle. In the case of the formation of the universe, it is the scientists saying...my figures are correct so you must believe me, even though nobody really understands what my figures prove, you must accept them on faith that I have made my mathematical entries correctly.

Religion is also accepted on faith with one teensy little different. Religion is not an exact science. There are as many interpretations of what one believes as there are people that believe anything.

Sometimes mathematics is not an exact science either.

PS: True story...My 7th grade math teacher was in Easy Company of the 101st Airborne, that parachuted behind German lines on D-Day in 1944. They fought all the way to Berchtesgaden. He was one of the few survivors. Didn't find this out until the HBO series "Band of Brothers" came out a few years ago. Maybe we were just afraid to challenge his mathematical theories about the elephant's weight.

Maths is logic and a whole lot more than addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. It is difficult for the layman to grasp higher maths, thus easy for the layman to deride it.

I meant to say something like that.

but for us to comment properly, chuck would have t tell us exactly what this equation is/was.

I am rapidly approaching my 74th birthday. If I haven't figured it out by now, why bother? If they expect me to believe the universe started when NOTHING exploded though, they will be sadly mistaken.

I was upset when I read Stephen Hawking pronounce there is no Heaven. He's a really smart guy so I guess I have to believe him.

I was so looking forward to playing uninterrupted golf absent the usual aches and pains.

Are you certain that it will be uninterupted golf? Maybe it will be a thousand virgins to satisfy....could be the Muslims have it right.

That would be a first.

Consider, too, that the religious authorities condemned any science that refuted the official accepted views.

And vice versa.

My thoughts, after wiping the tears of laughter from my eyes, were that the science world's theory of the big bang is nothing short of a religion in it's own right. One must have 'faith' the scientists have gotten this correct, even though they are 14 billion years behind the power curve. They have absolutely not one shred of evidence to support their hypothesis yet they obviously believe it happened exactly as they claim it did.

They do actually have reams of evidence.

These theories all come from mathematical data on physics and astrology. Sure they are just theories, but they are theories devised from actual information.

It is also quite wrong to say that they are anything like a religion. Science is always looking to prove itself wrong, always looking for the truth. Facts and theories will forever be studied and dismantled in an effort to prove them wrong and find something better. Take Newton's theory for example, for so long it was at the forefront of science but we have since found that it actually doesn't work and a better alternative is needed.

We know that Einstein's theory of relativity doesn't always work because it falls apart when it comes to quantum mechanics.

Religion tries to state everything as absolute fact and the answer to everything, regardless of how much evidence there might be to the contrary. Science is just trying to look for the answers to the many questions that we have, nothing is absolute and everything is open to scrutiny.

To say that science is like religion is to say that the purpose of science is misunderstood. It's nowhere near as arrogant as people make it out to be.

These reams of mathematical equations really mean nothing, other than they are reams of mathematical equations. My 7th grade mathematics teacher could prove, mathematically speaking, the weight of a snowbird equaled the weight of an elephant. We knew the two were not equal in weight but it was a proven mathematical fact at that time in my life. We recently had mathematical proof the climate was warming until somebody found a bunch of e-mails that suddenly said the math wasn't really correct.

The acceptance of mathematical facts and the acceptance of religion follow the same principle. In the case of the formation of the universe, it is the scientists saying...my figures are correct so you must believe me, even though nobody really understands what my figures prove, you must accept them on faith that I have made my mathematical entries correctly.

Religion is also accepted on faith with one teensy little different. Religion is not an exact science. There are as many interpretations of what one believes as there are people that believe anything.

Sometimes mathematics is not an exact science either.

PS: True story...My 7th grade math teacher was in Easy Company of the 101st Airborne, that parachuted behind German lines on D-Day in 1944. They fought all the way to Berchtesgaden. He was one of the few survivors. Didn't find this out until the HBO series "Band of Brothers" came out a few years ago. Maybe we were just afraid to challenge his mathematical theories about the elephant's weight.

I expect that the bird/elephant weight presentation was based on a flawed mathematical concept...probably deliberately, like a magicians trick. I have seen a simmilar trick that proved 1+1 = 4......it looks right if you do not have the higher maths skills to see the trick.....like to a bunch of 7th graders.

Maths is logic and a whole lot more than addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. It is difficult for the layman to grasp higher maths, thus easy for the layman to deride it.

I apologize for not being able to provide the mathematical formula the teacher used for his example. As I said that was the 7th grade and it was some six decades ago so I'm hoping even the nuclear scientists on this forum will excuse my lack of knowledge.

I did have a good friend stab me in the leg with his pencil in the 7th grade. I can show you the mark from that if anybody is interested.