My beliefs

[Maelakin]

Couple quick rebuttals for you Yorick. Actually, they are really just something to consider.

You bring up a point about “empty” space. You are right that there could be something there and we just don’t know it yet. That also supports an argument I have with the “positive”. Since we are not capable of understanding all, we are also incapable of coming to a conclusion in this matter. This actually illustrates my problem with people who philosophically speak of items such as this. They use a quantifying theory to support their argument when in truth they cannot quantify all that exists.

As always, my simple point is when you take a sample portion of data, there is no way to can come to an exclusive answer. It has happened all through history and on occasion has even set back man’s discovery of the universe (think back to the sun orbiting the earth). Just a note, I’m not implying religion here for those who see that…I’m also speaking of science.

I also have a comment of the Infinite of the universe. I’m sure many of you are familiar with Stephen Hawking. In one of his printed lectures he talks in depth about black holes and their creation. He also talks about how a black hole destroyed the basis for quantum physics. The reason quantum physics were destroyed, as we once knew them, was due to two scientists who were attempting to measure the residual effects of the “Big Bang”. They succeeded in finding a measurable residual effect, Red Shift.

For those that don’t know, red shift is what occurs when light energy travels for so long that the particles slow down and change spectrum, becoming a form of radiation in the “red band”. When these scientists found this, they also found that no matter where we measured from, the result was always exactly the same. Since they first discovered this, sometime in the 70’s, we have done additional tests to measure this red shift outside of or atmosphere and as far away as we could from the earth. Every time the results are exactly the same leading to the conclusion that the universe neither begins nor ends. Instead, it actually travels in upon itself, leaving no end. At the same time the universe continually expands, to our minds.

There is the distinct probability that there is some unknown factor that plays a part, which we cannot understand at this time. This does lead one into debate on the various dimensions and whether or not they exist, as we know them, but that is another subject.

[Pikachu_PM]

Whew, Ok, this is going to take some time...all in response to Yorick

1. The bible did have many inspirations and influences...but the actual writing of the moder bible, in alls its collections, was written by five ppl. I learned this from the History channel. They may have lied to me, but I consider them a pretty reliable source.

2. You are likely not the kind of religious person who offends me (you haven't so far). While you have your beliefs you appear to be very moderate and admit to the bible is bias and has flaws. A lot of 'born-again' type people preach that the bible is flawless and absolute. You apparently to not believe this and so my stating a bibles biasness to you is a mute point.

3. Panthiesm....a big wank...haha, I like that. Unfortunatley it is misapplied. So if there is a God, and he created us in his image, is he not then having a big wank? Thats a bad example...a better thing to say is that your example over simplifies everything. The universe is incredibly complicated...and as much as I understand (and I do understand a lot) I still understand nothing. From what I do understand, the universe is made up of an enourmous (that words quite the understatment) collection of matter and energy that have organized themselves in such a way as to become self aware. You and I are each a collection of quarks, electrons and protons, organized into atoms, who have organized into elements, who have organized into molecules who have organized into compounds, then a few steps up cells..who have organized into us. We are a collection of individual pieces of matter who now work together and our self aware. On a greater level we--each of us--may be a collection of organzied bodies that help make up something greater...perhaps God? Who knows...all I do know is that we are each a piece of the universe, and while we are different we are the same. We are the universe attempting to understand itself...and doing so in an exceptional way by not utilizing Panthiesm. Because we are all seperate we each provide the universe with a seperate perspective on itself. One day, IF our senses are all combined (aka Alpha Centauris Trancendence concept or something) the universe will have many different perspective despite examining itself.

4. As for your coments on free will in response to my qoute....once again you are perhaps not the target of my problem. If we have free will...and I think we do, and if there is a God...the kind of God I was taught existed in Sunday school...of course I would want to spend eternity with Him. But what of the God who is preached by many zealots...the one who condemns all 'non-believers' to hell simply because they grew up in a different culture (this is all under the MAJOR assumption that their God is right and everybody elses is wrong)? What of the God who condems someone to hell simply because he questioned...simply because he excercised Gods gift of thought in a respectfull and thoughtful manner? IF that is the god who exist, I would sooner head to oblivion than spend an hour in the presence of a deity who has less compassion than I do.

5. As for your comments on other religions: First off, what you have said, as I understand it...is that you choose your beliefs simply because it is the belief you 'like' the most...the one that makes you comfortable. Thats not good...but maybe I'm wrong. More significant is your statemtn that you have examined other religions...by your examples it is quite clear that you have not. The Hinduism castes system is no more a 'part' of the religion than the Catholic Heiarchy (sp?)...it is the manner in which the religion is practiced, not the religion itself. While I do not agree with the caste system, the beliefs in Hinduism as a whole are some of the most ideal, optimisitc, and realistic notions of any religion. Moreover, if one was to use scientific evidence to support a religion, Hinduism would win hands down as the religion most probable to be correct based on scientific evidence. Go read some books on it, then post here..>I would love to have discussions with you. As for Muslims teaching being founded on fear...first off, not true unless your talking muslim zealots. Second off, there are plenty of Christian religions who do the same damn thing. Do good or spend eternity in hellfire....sounds like conformity through fear to me...also sounds very christian.

6. As for your last comments all I have to say is this...If God exist he and I have a very personal relationship (as he does with all of us) and I don't need anybody butting in to our relationship anymore than A husband and wife need someone butting into theirs. (that sounded a bit aggressive...not meant as an attack to you personally...just a resentment about all the people telling me how my relationship with God should be)

[Pikachu_PM]

OH, one last thing I think worthy of note:

There is a new hypothesis out (might even be up to Theory, but I don't think so) that there is no such thing as matter...ie, matter does not exist. Sound crazy? Perhaps..but hypothesis is that EVERYTHING is energy, and that matter is simply a form energy takes. To be honest, I don't entirely understand it..but it's quite the concept.

[Timber Loftis]

Chewie, on thing I didn't mention is that for me the dialectic nearly resolves the diconnect between western and eastern thinking. It is the closest thing to understanding what (I think) is truley meant by "Yin/Yang" that we western thinkers have. Every thesis contains within itself the antithesis, and vice versa.

Maelakin, one way to explain the red shift that I always liked was that of a visual doppler effect.

Yorick, agreed that there may be things in the empty space -- in fact we know there are wave-particles, which are waves, wait, no, they're particles, wait, they're waves again, erm... yeah. But, defining said space as "not the universe" doesn't seem appropriate. Certainly most people's perceptions of the "universe" includes the matter and the space it is travelling in.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Faceman: The mathematical concept of infinity is rather fuzzy sometimes (SixOfSpades attacks this on his site ), infinity is NOT equal to infinity as there are higher and lower orders of infinity. To give a simple example: There's an infinite amount of even numbers. (i.e. there's no biggest even number, as "biggest even number"+2 is bigger) If you add up the even and uneven numbers (both infinite sets) you get a set that's twice as big, yet only infinite. So you CAN expand something infinite into more infinity

Naaaah.

A number is finite. All the even numbers are finite, as are all the odd numbers. Finite clear representations.

What is infinite in one direction, is the collection of them together.

However, because it has a beginning, the collection is in another sense, also finite. You can quantify what the lowest whole even number is, and what lowest whole odd number is. Therefore, though it may go on infinitely, the collection itself is finite because it has a beginning. Unless you're going to include going down into fractions that would keep going infinitely. However, the point remains, we are still speaking of infinite assemblies of finite numbers that have at their start in either direction 1. Multiples of one, or fractions of one.

So it'a not true infinity.

Having a beginning is part of the Universe issue. If in fact, the universe did indeed start with a big bang, or creative thought from God, it is also finite.

God is considered truly infinite in that he has no beginning, no end, no limit, outside time, outside space. He just "is". He identified himself as "I AM".

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Chewie, on thing I didn't mention is that for me the dialectic nearly resolves the diconnect between western and eastern thinking. It is the closest thing to understanding what (I think) is truley meant by "Yin/Yang" that we western thinkers have. Every thesis contains within itself the antithesis, and vice versa. Maelakin, one way to explain the red shift that I always liked was that of a visual doppler effect. Yorick, agreed that there may be things in the empty space -- in fact we know there are wave-particles, which are waves, wait, no, they're particles, wait, they're waves again, erm... yeah. But, defining said space as "not the universe" doesn't seem appropriate. Certainly most people's perceptions of the "universe" includes the matter and the space it is travelling in.

Then consider me challenging those perceptions. [img]smile.gif[/img] I do not regard the space outside and around the universe as part of the universe. It of course follows that a human can never leave the universe. Wherever they are, so the universe also is, for they are an inescapable part of it.

We do call the word "space" space for a reason. Consider it. Space is void. Nothing, Empty. If something is nothing, it doesn't exist. Space is the absence of anything. Space is not part of the universe, though it is necessary for the universe to have certain levels of external motion.

Consider that I'm challenging the "equal and opposite reaction" idea as well.

What is the opposite of creating something? Destroying something? Destroying is in itself a positive action. It achieves an end, just as creating does, therefore it is not a true opposite, as it borrows a positive from it's counterpart to achieve it's end.

If inaction is the true opposite of creation, it achieves no end. Nothing. It is therefore not "equal" in force as it requires nothing to achieve nothing.

[Faceman]

Originally posted by Yorick: Naaaah. A number is finite. All the even numbers are finite, as are all the odd numbers. Finite clear representations. What is infinite in one direction, is the collection of them together. However, because it has a beginning, the collection is in another sense, also finite. You can quantify what the lowest whole even number is, and what lowest whole odd number is. Therefore, though it may go on infinitely, the collection itself is finite because it has a beginning. Unless you're going to include going down into fractions that would keep going infinitely. However, the point remains, we are still speaking of infinite assemblies of finite numbers that have at their start in either direction 1. Multiples of one, or fractions of one. So it'a not true infinity. Having a beginning is part of the Universe issue. If in fact, the universe did indeed start with a big bang, or creative thought from God, it is also finite. God is considered truly infinite in that he has no beginning, no end, no limit, outside time, outside space. He just "is". He identified himself as "I AM".

Naaah yourself

I was talking in simplicistic terms, so
1. I used numbers for "set of numbers". I do know that a number can't be infinite
2. Let's take positive AND negative numbers. Now there's no beginning anymore.
3. Actually, if we want to use exact mathematic terms there ARE as many even numbers, as there are numbers. Both sets are "countably" infinite. If we break it down to fractures and add the irrational numbers (such as pi, e or square-root of 2) we get an "uncountably" infinite set.

However - back to simplicistic terms - although the set of even numbers is (countably) infinite, it is still possible to expand to a bigger set (the even+odd, or a tad bigger rational, or a tad bigger real) which still is only infinite.
So there is expansion of something infinite into infinity

[Timber Loftis]

Yorick, it seems you may be contradicting your earlier statements about stuff being in that space. We know stuff is there upon occassion, as wave particles bounce around the universe, therefore, defining the space as "not the universe" except when something material in the universe is in it is really doing a lot of mental gymnastics for no good result. In effect what you're saying is piece of space X is NOT the universe, unless an astronaut is spacewalking in it or unless a light particle is passing through it. So, sometimes it is the universe, sometimes it's not. That's not only incorrect, it gets you nowhere.

Plus, it ignores what IS in that unit of space constantly -- gravity for instance. If that unit of space were truly not the universe it would not affect the matter in the universe. Stated another way, it is useless to define the universe in such a way as to not encompass everything in the universe or that affects matter in the universe.

Plus, we know the universe is finite. I've known this since DangerMouse flew past its borders and ended up in the white space.

Oh, and a point on the numbers. There are actually an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1, if we'd like to put a fine point on it. And yes, one infinity can be bigger than another as well. And, four infinities beats a full house anyday.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Pikachu_PM: [QB] Whew, Ok, this is going to take some time...all in response to Yorick 1. The bible did have many inspirations and influences...but the actual writing of the moder bible, in alls its collections, was written by five ppl. I learned this from the History channel. They may have lied to me, but I consider them a pretty reliable source.

Oh yeah, I believe everything I see on the TV too. [img]tongue.gif[/img]
Seriously, you are incorrect. Either you misheard, or misunderstood, or they were incorrect.

The Bible has over 40 authors. Yes the "modern bible" that just so happens to be exactly the same as the 24,000 manuscripts from antiquity.
40 authors Pikachu. Not 5. What else can I say? I know the bible very well. It is my business to as I base my life on it. I do not base my life on something I haven't tested thoroughly.

2. You are likely not the kind of religious person who offends me (you haven't so far). While you have your beliefs you appear to be very moderate and admit to the bible is bias and has flaws. A lot of 'born-again' type people preach that the bible is flawless and absolute. You apparently to not believe this and so my stating a bibles biasness to you is a mute point.

Every Christian is "born again" so I'm not sure how you are delineating Christians in that manner. Adult converts perhaps? Please elaborate.

In any case, I do believe in the inerrancy of the most validated work in existence that speaks regularly to people in a manner that people call "Living". I'm not sure where you've picked up that I've said the bible has flaws, as I'm very careful with my words, and would never write such a thing.

Perhaps it's a similar result to the "5 authors" conclusion.

I believe the bible - LOGOS - is the inerrant word of God. That it speaks to us directly. I also believe in the spoken word of God - RHEMA. Logos and Rhema need to be in harmony for truth to be realised, and to avoid all sorts of craziness like "God told me to kill uncle Joe" Really? It doesn't say so in the Bible? etc etc.

3. Panthiesm....a big wank...haha, I like that. Unfortunatley it is misapplied. So if there is a God, and he created us in his image, is he not then having a big wank?

If I create something in my image, it is not me. Self love is self love. If God created another awareness to love, then it is love of another, not love of self, no matter how "in his image" that other person is.

So no, it is not misapplied. If all is self, then any love is love of self. If God is outside his creation, then love is love of another.

Thats a bad example...a better thing to say is that your example over simplifies everything. The universe is incredibly complicated...and as much as I understand (and I do understand a lot) I still understand nothing.

Possibly because you're over complicating things. The essence to understanding something, is to simplify it, and then elaborate on it. In the process of simplifying it, you gain a greater appreciation of how complicated it is.

Kind of like how the world can appear both smaller and larger to you as a result of the events of just one day.

Hence, the more you know the less you understand. As you grasp one element, you realise how many more there are.

But this doesn't mean a person understands nothing. On the contrary, they understand a great deal. The simply realise there is so much more to understand, and that BY COMPARISON to all knowledge they see, they understand very little.

The key is always to simply to an understandable level, and then apply the understanding of the simple into a greater application.

I taught recording engineering for a while. In a studio with a big real sound desk, not merely computers. As imposing as the desk looked, the majority of it was repeats of one channel. A 52 channel desk, involves repeating itself. So I'd teach, if you understood what ONE CHANNEL did, you could then transfer the knowlegde onto the other channels.

Music too possess transferable knowledge. It is easier to pick up and play a second and third instrument that it was the first. I play five or six, so I'm speaking from personal experience. To do so, you simplify down to common elements and apply what you know in the new context.

So, if under monotheism, loving God is analogous to sex; then under pantheism, loving God is analogous to wanking.

From what I do understand, the universe is made up of an enourmous (that words quite the understatment) collection of matter and energy that have organized themselves in such a way as to become self aware. You and I are each a collection of quarks, electrons and protons, organized into atoms, who have organized into elements, who have organized into molecules who have organized into compounds, then a few steps up cells..who have organized into us. We are a collection of individual pieces of matter who now work together and our self aware. On a greater level we--each of us--may be a collection of organzied bodies that help make up something greater...perhaps God? Who knows...all I do know is that we are each a piece of the universe, and while we are different we are the same. We are the universe attempting to understand itself...and doing so in an exceptional way by not utilizing Panthiesm. Because we are all seperate we each provide the universe with a seperate perspective on itself. One day, IF our senses are all combined (aka Alpha Centauris Trancendence concept or something) the universe will have many different perspective despite examining itself.

I simply don't agree. I believe your conclusions are in error.

4. As for your coments on free will in response to my qoute....once again you are perhaps not the target of my problem. If we have free will...and I think we do, and if there is a God...the kind of God I was taught existed in Sunday school...of course I would want to spend eternity with Him. But what of the God who is preached by many zealots...the one who condemns all 'non-believers' to hell simply because they grew up in a different culture (this is all under the MAJOR assumption that their God is right and everybody elses is wrong)? What of the God who condems someone to hell simply because he questioned...simply because he excercised Gods gift of thought in a respectfull and thoughtful manner? IF that is the god who exist, I would sooner head to oblivion than spend an hour in the presence of a deity who has less compassion than I do.

And why not simply bring to the table your perspective of God? I don't believe in a vindictive God who would send someone to eternal torment for questioning!! That is not the God I know.

We can question within a worldview without throwing out all the parts of it that work you know Pikachu.

I questioned the idea of hell itself. I resolved that it is eternal separation from God. Possibly nonexistence, as how can life exist separate from it's creator and sustainer?

The Bible is quite clear that those outside the law (from another culture as you put it) are judged outside the law. It says, again, that people are judged on what they know. The day of judgement is not the day of condemnation. God judges, and calls into account every action we've done.

Do we want to spend an eternity with him? With the artist whose work we ignored abused, destroyed or manipulated to achieve power and glory for ourself? Why would we want to spend eternity with God, if all our time spent here was worshipping ourself? Making ourself our God?

What Jesus grace does, if give me an assurance, that on that day of judgement, I have an advocate, a person that took whatever I deserve, removes whatever obstacles I myself placed between God and me.

I have that assurance. Whatever happens to anyone else is between God and them.

But I do know this. There are enough precedents in the Bible for God to actually change the rules and allow EVERYONE into eternity with him. Jesus death enables that. Is Christianity an exam you have to get right? Or is Jesus grace a doorway you can walkthrough without knowing it?

On the zealot issue, I practice my faith with zeal. Being a zealot is a relative term. Relative to what those beliefs are.

5. As for your comments on other religions: First off, what you have said, as I understand it...is that you choose your beliefs simply because it is the belief you 'like' the most...the one that makes you comfortable. Thats not good...but maybe I'm wrong. More significant is your statemtn that you have examined other religions...by your examples it is quite clear that you have not. The Hinduism castes system is no more a 'part' of the religion than the Catholic Heiarchy (sp?)...it is the manner in which the religion is practiced, not the religion itself. While I do not agree with the caste system, the beliefs in Hinduism as a whole are some of the most ideal, optimisitc, and realistic notions of any religion. Moreover, if one was to use scientific evidence to support a religion, Hinduism would win hands down as the religion most probable to be correct based on scientific evidence. Go read some books on it, then post here..>I would love to have discussions with you. As for Muslims teaching being founded on fear...first off, not true unless your talking muslim zealots. Second off, there are plenty of Christian religions who do the same damn thing. Do good or spend eternity in hellfire....sounds like conformity through fear to me...also sounds very christian.

Firstly reality is very unlikely. It contains suprises you would hardly guess. There is no rhyme or reason to the solar system. Irregular distances between planets, variants in numbers of moons around each one. Saturn with a ring. (Yes I've been reading Lewis)

You can't decide in favor of something because it seems most likely. The truth is often unlikely. Yes I've rejected Occams Razor.

As to accepting Christianity, it was not one I "liked" the most. Christianity changes you. Forces you into a position of discomfort, which through susequently changing yourself, brings comfort and relief beyond where you were.

On the Hindu Caste system, vs Catholic Heirachy, church heirachys are governmental. That is all. The Pope will be in the same heaven I am. He is no holier than Al Sharpton, nor more redeemed or saved. All are equal under christianity.

The Hindu Caste system is in a sense fundamentally tied to pantheistic beliefs about ascending levels towards Samsara. The Hindu Guru is closer to Samsara than an Eagle. Closer than a street sweeper. Closer than a westerner.

There is no point in relieving the plight of the oppressed, for they are working through bad Karma.

How do you remove the caste system without removing levels of Dharmic rewards on the path to Samsara? Or Karmic retribution for misdeeds?

The two are intrinsically tied... though I applaud any moves by Hindus to reconcile this and move beyond it. It's wonderful that an untouchable became president.

It is a shame that it is actually a form of aparthied. The lighter the skin, the closer to the top, the purer the Aryan blood. The Aryans being the invaders who supressed the Australiod races of southern India, and imposed the caste system on them.

6. As for your last comments all I have to say is this...If God exist he and I have a very personal relationship (as he does with all of us) and I don't need anybody butting in to our relationship anymore than A husband and wife need someone butting into theirs. (that sounded a bit aggressive...not meant as an attack to you personally...just a resentment about all the people telling me how my relationship with God should be)

As a guy who was married for seven years, and is now divorced, I can personally say that sometimes a husband and wife NEED people butting into their relationship. If people outside the relationship see things which inhibit communication and closeness that may lead to estrangement, it is an act of love for them to try and help.

[Pikachu_PM]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Chewie, on thing I didn't mention is that for me the dialectic nearly resolves the diconnect between western and eastern thinking. It is the closest thing to understanding what (I think) is truley meant by "Yin/Yang" that we western thinkers have. Every thesis contains within itself the antithesis, and vice versa. Maelakin, one way to explain the red shift that I always liked was that of a visual doppler effect. Yorick, agreed that there may be things in the empty space -- in fact we know there are wave-particles, which are waves, wait, no, they're particles, wait, they're waves again, erm... yeah. But, defining said space as "not the universe" doesn't seem appropriate. Certainly most people's perceptions of the "universe" includes the matter and the space it is travelling in.

Then consider me challenging those perceptions. [img]smile.gif[/img] I do not regard the space outside and around the universe as part of the universe. It of course follows that a human can never leave the universe. Wherever they are, so the universe also is, for they are an inescapable part of it.

We do call the word "space" space for a reason. Consider it. Space is void. Nothing, Empty. If something is nothing, it doesn't exist. Space is the absence of anything. Space is not part of the universe, though it is necessary for the universe to have certain levels of external motion.

Consider that I'm challenging the "equal and opposite reaction" idea as well.

What is the opposite of creating something? Destroying something? Destroying is in itself a positive action. It achieves an end, just as creating does, therefore it is not a true opposite, as it borrows a positive from it's counterpart to achieve it's end.

If inaction is the true opposite of creation, it achieves no end. Nothing. It is therefore not "equal" in force as it requires nothing to achieve nothing. [/QUOTE]I'd like to challange this assumption with a little paraphrased qoute:

"To those who question the validy of space in Gods plan, I would remind them that the void EXIST, just as surely as you or I. Is 'nothingess' any less of a miracle than substance?"

Sisterm Miriam Godwenson
-We must Decent