Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including,

Those are just people who like to believe something. Who consider ancient people's ideas to be somehow more deserving of respect than modern ones. Who aren't concerned with how nature really works, but prefer to fantasize about how they'd like it to work.

He was a poet. I wonder if he would still be known about today if he wrote sloppily and unattractively? Well I guess that can happen - somehow the Koran became popular despite its childish style and simplistic content.

Those? Gives some names. Who do you have in mind, Kallog?

Me? What is my reason for being? What do I believe, and why? And who do I respect?

PHILOSOPHY, SCIENCE AND ART
===========================
I like the saying "All science begins as a philosophy and ends as an art." And keep in mind: Philosophy includes pneumatology, psychology and theology.

I usually find it easy to respect most people (past and present) I meet and get to know. Yes, I include people in general, including amateurs--lovers of what they do--as well well as professionals.

ALL CURIOUS PEOPLE ARE PHILOSOPHERS
I consider people, especially children who ask a lot of questions, with a curiosity and an eagerness to overcome ignorance with the help of knowledge, to be philosophers. Socrates also emphasized how important it is to be humble enough how little we actually know about many things.

I have a great respect for philosophers who have reached the teacher level, who have the ability to speak with knowledge and confidence, to write, influence and communicate what has been learned to others.

PHILOSOPHY IS THE FOUNDATION OF SCIENCE
Scientists are those who explore the nature, function and practical use of the ideas they, as philosophers, or others imagines and though about.

ART IS THE APPLICATION OF PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE
The artists among us use the the tools and materials invented by the scientists to create the things we find to be useful and beautiful. Over the years I have done quite a number of paintings. I have a daughter, married to an artist, a carver (Tofino, BC). She paints and carves. My son who is an R&B musician, and teacher, here is Toronto.

If you are interested, I am very willing to have more dialogue with you, and others, about the ideas expressed above.
BTW, do you think that the Bible nothing but
fantasy?
Meanwhile, check out 1 Corinthians 12, and especially 13. Then tell me what you think. If you don't have a Bible you can find the passage at www.biblegateway.com

GOD IS LOVE (1 John 4:7)--that is, a will that is truly free--is the kind of love Paul writes about in his great prose poem: 1 Corinthians 13.
============================================================
Love-based and truly human beings are those who know how to connect with, tune into, and use the mysterious power we call free will--commonly called love. The special Greek term is agape. As an old song puts it: "Ah! sweet mystery of life, at last I have found thee--at last I know the secret of it all."

A will that is not truly free can be manipulated to be GRUESOME, OMINOUS & DIABOLIC--note that it spells 'god'--the false kind of God.

A will that is truly free is one which GENERATES, ORGANIZES & DELIVERS that which is GOOD, ORGANIZED and DELIGHTFUL.

To those who know a thing or two about physics:

Recently, I read that there is no direct evidence that electrons really do exist. Is this true?

I got this information from the book, THE EVOLUTION OF GOD, by Robert Wright:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_God

Mostly people I've known, so I won't name them. I wasn't thinking of you, but I suppose you could be a believer too! You presented it without any disclaimer of "this is rubbish, but..". I don't just mean believing ancient people's ideas, but simply considering them to be worth any more than the fiction they are.


Sure, but when you turn to made up things because the real answers are too difficult, or too dull, or just not available, then it's not seeking knowledge anymore, it's just satisfying the desire to have knowledge. You like figurative language, so I would consider religion like taking a drug to feel happy instead of having a happy lifestyle. Or masturbating instead of making the effort to find a real partner :P Essentially, cheating yourself and ending up with nothing but an empty shell of illusion.



Some people are given the ability of "distinguishing between spirits"? Well, yes, that's exactly the kind of rubbish I'm talking about.

"God has placed the parts in the body...just as he wanted them to be." More made up ancient ideas. No need for me to read further.

Some time ago, probably in a different thread, I posed the question, "What do we actually know about God". I suggested that the answer might be "nothing". As I remember, the only response was from Rev. who set about dissecting the word "nothing".

I still think the answer is "nothing", and that it applies equally to theists and atheists. Both sides believe they are right, and everybody hates an agnostic.

Bill, I don't remember this. But I agree: GOD, for me, is a NO thing.

Once upon a time, there was NO time. All there was, was empty, dark space. Then, in a "millionth" of a second, light was generated followed by chaos, movement and time, in the midst of which was organized the first hydrogen atoms into a primordial ball ... and the rest was delivered to us as history and herstory.

Rather than debate with or hate anyone, I prefer to talk about what is and where we go from here.

I think it likely that you're not saying what mean to say there Rev. Empty space isn't nothing, and still requires a time dimension. Wouldn't you agree?

How would a scientist say it? Like the electron, space without mass?

In trying to write a modern mythic story, I welcome all the help I can get.

Although he Big Bang theory is not universally accepted, it does seem to be the best theory we have at the moment. However, the assumption that before it there was nothing (or NO thing, or what ever imaginative term one might wish to use) is pure speculation, colourful prose notwithstanding.

True, Bill, until about a decade ago it seems to have been scientifically acceptable to assume that there could not have been a pre-Big Bang time. That's certainly not the case now.

Rev, while I respect your intention to express the current understanding of cosmology researchers as a modern mythic story, my objection would be that myths, as we all know, tend to become sacrosanct. Such a mythic story as that which you propose could thus become an impediment to the very science from which it arose. Fortunately, scientific knowledge isn't written in tablets of stone.

Bill, I assume that the "something" before the BB was the primordial ball (a ball of compact hydrogen atoms perhaps?).

Me? I cannot imagine, until the first hydrogen atom came into being, that there was any kind of "thing"--except what I call G.O.D.--not a thing, but the potential that there is, in all that is, to generate, organize and deliver, what some call Reality. I call it creation.

As I understand it, this hydrogen atom multiplied and became the primordial ball (about 30 times the size of the sun) which contained what we now call the cosmos.

Then came the BB causing super-hot galaxy-sized bits of matter in a state of chaos to move away from the core of the ball into what we call space. Concurrent with this, the atomic clock began ticking out the seconds, hours, years, millennia (thousands of years) and light years we call time.

Isn't this what scientists have in mind when they say: The BB was 15 to 20 billion light years ago?

BTW, Rede, the myth I have in mind is no more sacrosanct than are the theories of science.

THE MYTH I DO NOT HAVE IN MIND
Also, the myth I have in mind is not about a god who created a Garden of Eden--a perfect world with a perfect God-like and sinless Adam, and an Adam who did OK until God made a BIG mistake: He created Eve out of Adam's rib.

As a wag once put it: In the beginning God created the earth, including man, in six days. Then he rested on the seventh. But then, he created woman. Since then, neither man nor God has rested.

THE MYTH I HAVE IN MIND
It is about now and the future, not about some nostalgia-filled past.

I speak quite sincerely when I say: For me, the future I used to dream about--imagine about, visualize and creatively think about--in a not-so-good past, which I am glad IS past--is now.

For the very selfish and pragmatic reason that I enjoy living in a world that is filled with good people I want to world to be a better place for everyone. So why wouldn't I recommend this approach to anyone. So, as long as I find that creating this kind of myth works, I will do more of the same.

Rev, I appreciate your motivation, and I'm certainly all for enhancing the poetic aspect of ours lives. I would only suggest that if you intend to apply scientific data and theories in a supporting role, then it would be wise to ensure that you have a good grasp of them. It's evident, from what you say above, that your knowledge of them is none too good. I wonder, though, why you need bother with cosmology at all. The scientists seem to have it pretty well in hand.

Then tell us about the grasp that you have. Feel free to correct any wrong data that I gave.

Assuming that what existed before the BB was a primordial ball is as much as guess as postulating that it was an undefined number of angels dancing on a pin.

It is generally accepted that time was created with the Universe, which St Augustine reasoned long before anyone suggested the BB. So suggesting that there was time before the BB is also a guess.

However, unless you believe in the ultimate "free lunch", which I suspect is a bit naive, there must always have been something.

So? Are you suggesting that the something was GOD?

Gladly, although I can tell you a good deal less than you could glean for yourself from a few minutes searching the net. However...


Your assumption has no foundation and, to the best of my knowledge, it's not to be found among the reasoned speculations of scientists. For all I know, it may be true - but then, as Bill S implied, so might almost anything else.


So, you appear to be saying that the hydrogen atom, thence your 'primordial ball' existed before the Big Bang.\
See here for a concise correction to that: http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cms/astro/cosmos/p/Primordial+Fireball


(a) There's no reason to believe that there were any galaxy sized "bits" of matter (b) All the matter existed within spacetime from the moment of it's formation, and did not subsequently move into any other kind of space (c) There was no movement through space due to any primordial explosion, as it was not that kind of explosion - space itself was expanding, taking with it the matter.


I can't comment on "atomic clock began ticking" as I don't know what you mean. But "and light years we call time" is incorrect. A lightyear is a measure of distance.


Current data puts it at approx. 13.7 billion yrs ago. Not light years though, just yrs.

Hope that helps. As I said, there's a wealth of info available from reputable sources, and one doesn't need to be a scientist to learn about the current theories of cosmogenesis.

COSMOGENESIS--The Growth of Order
in the Universe by DAVID LAYZER

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
New York Oxford
Note this last sentence: We are not, they say, mere passive spectators of the passing show,
as the etymology of the word theory suggests, but participants; we help to make
reality. This fits an idea basic to unitheism: Each of us, moment by moment, is helping create the kind of future we imagine and desire.

You mean there is wealth of guesses, by any number of "experts", eh?

No, Rev. Had I meant to say that there is a wealth of guesses by any number of "experts" (your quotes), I assure you I'd have taken care to do so. I mean there's a wealth of info relating to a vast bank of accumulated observational and experimental data which, supported by rigorous mathematical physics, has transformed the Big Bang from a highly speculative model into a very sound theory.