Originally Posted By: Orac
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle

If you belong to a church, you are more likely to be good, as defined by religion.


You realize that is completely erroneous well over 80% of the USA prison population identifies as religious which almost matches exactly the 73-76% of USA that view themselves as religious.

Everything is relative, isn't it. Doesn't stop religionists from defining God and what is godlike.
Originally Posted By: Orac

So at least in USA belonging to a church makes you no more or less likely to be good if you define that as being a criminal.
Depends on whether you have repented and have found grace within the church to be forgiven by both God and the church in order to guarantee a spot in the afterlife. wink
Originally Posted By: Orac

It seems to be one of the other things it is easier to say you are religious than to act appropriately ... (Paul smile)

What is appropriate. Do I act appropriately?
If you asked the reverend, he already says no. eek

Originally Posted By: TT

Perhaps within the theories of time in quantum physics, instead of time progressing from a past toward a future, a future calls events toward its probable outcome?

Originally Posted By: Orac

That is a poor QM explaination it would be all the possibilities simultaneously exist which depending on choices
will decohere to your reality.
It's not an explanation of QM or time, its a segue. Sorry it seemed inappropriate. You and the Reverend could have a private conversation with a moderator to complain about all inappropriate behavior that seems to take the good out of life. Tho you better find a moderator that takes sides. One of them was supposed to take this thread down a couple of months ago. That one probably is not on the Reverends good side. I think he likes Kate now... whistle
Sorry a bit off topic..
Being that all possibilities do exist, obviously the way we experience reality is within the realm of singular expressions within a diverse group, along a timeline that allows for what appears as a progressive experience.
Where does it start? At the beginning or at the end, or right now? With free will and infinite possibilities we should be able to change our past as easily as we change or future thru or present choices.
Some interesting thoughts about the infinite potential and evolution:
Does evolution move towards a possible outcome set in the potential of all possibilities based on choice? If so then who's?
Does the outcome randomly come about from nothing based on our choices that have nothing behind them, or do the choices themselves come from the infinite potential of possible futures? (Obviously in order to invent the wheel, man tapped into what could exist, since the possibility existed before it was conceived and manifested.)
When I say the first humans had nothing behind them, what I suggest is that logically the first humans had nothing to draw from other than what they experienced. What they surmised from nothing and a lack of experience was made up or conceived and identified how? They just made sh*t up? IF so, what has changed?
How did any direction come about to lead to an expanding or evolutionary path that evolved from choice, unless it was random, chaotic and by chance happened to come together within a time period that allowed man to evolve rather than to die out? Is there something within the Universe and the DNA of man that is similar, in that it directs evolution to an end, or just to another experience? Is there an end? Religion thinks so, and now the Reverends new book interest seems to think Religion and Science are seeking similar insight to a beginning and an end?
Obviously the infinite wouldn't be so infinite if it came to an end.
Originally Posted By: Orac
We don't deny freedom of choice in QM smile

We meaning science or scientists? What about certain predetermined closed systems such as those theorized around DNA, evolution and the like? Are you saying we have a freedom of choice in how humanity and the Universe will evolve, or just how we will choose to see how the Universe and all that is in it,is?
What I suggest doesn't take anything away from freedom of choice, but it will place certain qualities of choice within the structure and limitations of Ego (relative boundaries), and that of something greater than the individual ego as a moderator between what one sees as a beginning and an ending. Perceptions of reality in that something begins from one point in time, rather than in all points in time will affect the way one looks at evolution, and even choice.

I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!