End Time Prophesy

Jump to Last Post 251-283 of 283 discussions (6469 posts)
  1. alexino profile image60
    alexinoposted 5 years ago

    maybe Yes

  2. alexino profile image60
    alexinoposted 5 years ago

    maybe Yes

  3. janesix profile image59
    janesixposted 5 years ago

    I wish I knew who was talking to who on this last page of the thread, but it's all messed up for me. Anyone know how to fix that?

    1. Dr Lamb profile image55
      Dr Lambposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, go to the top right of the page and make sure chronological is selected in the threaded options.

      1. janesix profile image59
        janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        It's weird, I've done that. It keeps happening though, just in certain threads, and not all the time. I think it's a glitch, a couple other people said it's happening with them too.

        1. Dr Lamb profile image55
          Dr Lambposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Do you set your browser to brows privately? Because that will switch it from chronological.

          1. janesix profile image59
            janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            No. I don't really know much about computers except how to turn one on , get on the internet, and google.

    2. profile image0
      jonnycomelatelyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      When I see a post in the chronological mode that I want to tie into a Thread, how do I do that? The best I have managed is "Go to last post."  Sometimes the threaded view is really useful, so can someone eplain?

      1. Dr Lamb profile image55
        Dr Lambposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I'm not sure I understand but if you reply to a post in chronological format you can see who it was replied to but you see no threads.

  4. janesix profile image59
    janesixposted 5 years ago

    Melissa,

    If you want, I will instead provide the evidence from my point of view if you would prefer.

    1. oceansnsunsets profile image86
      oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      When she said he, I think she might have meant who you were speaking of earlier, Radman or Dr. Lamb?  In any case, I bet your view and your reasons might help, and certainly couldn't hurt.

  5. janesix profile image59
    janesixposted 5 years ago

    Last one for now.

    "Kate is a writer, surfer and scientist—not necessarily in that order. Originally from Great Britain, she now lives in Sweden while she works towards her PhD in quantum physics."

    http://www.united-academics.org/magazin … nics-news/

    " the idea that quantum mechanics poses difficulties for scientists still seems to be true today. Two surveys from quantum mechanics conferences show that there are still many foundational issues over which scientists disagree"

    "In one sense, quantum mechanics is an excellent theory; it has been tested extensively and makes very accurate predictions for all sorts of experiments. But there is still something troubling about it. No one really knows what’s really going on behind the equations.

    Because of this, quantum mechanics has various interpretations. They encompass ideas about determinism, reality, non-locality, freewill, consciousness and many worlds. The problem is that experiments cannot tell which of these interpretations is correct. And then there is the opinion that quantum mechanics needs no interpretation at all.

    With all these possibilities, it is difficult to know which ones most scientists believe."

    1. oceansnsunsets profile image86
      oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks Jane for taking the time to look all that stuff up.  Very interesting, though I am not completely caught up on reading it.

  6. Cgenaea profile image60
    Cgenaeaposted 5 years ago

    Dr. Lamb, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

    1. Dr Lamb profile image55
      Dr Lambposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      That is a discussion for another forum. Try the sciences.

    2. profile image0
      Dave36posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I'd say there's no such thing as sound, we just imagine what things sound like in our minds.....I know sound waves vibrate the hairs in our ears, but then what?.....Does another ear hear it?, & so on, & so on....Or do we just imagine the sound?, maybe we just imagine everything.

      1. oceansnsunsets profile image86
        oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Interesting.....but if we imagine things, why do so many imagine the same things at the same time when they do?  This makes me think we are not imagining the sounds.   Our perception and our brains do allow for so much of course, and I am guessing this is the angle you are coming from.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
          MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          You know, there are these things called sound waves. They are easily measured. In addition, considering Doctors can tell if a 2 day old baby can hear... while that baby is asleep, I think that's pretty observable too.

          Edit: Replied to wrong post.

        2. Slarty O'Brian profile image82
          Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          It's not that we imagine things it's that we interpret things. Sound is real, it's waves at specific frequencies. That's why we all hear and can play music together.

          But some people don't hear exactly the same sound. Some are tone deaf. So they interpret sound differently.

          If your equipment isn't working properly you will misinterpret the sound waves.

          And sound travels in a medium like air or water. So in space you don't hear sounds even though otherwise space might be rather noisy.

          But interpretation is always the problem, The facts remain the same but people interpret them and those interpretations are frequently wrong.

          So it is always best to study the facts and leave the interpretations alone.

          1. oceansnsunsets profile image86
            oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I think I agree with you!  Someone else had stated they may be imaginary, the sounds.  We can take interpretations into account, as they are fact in a sense.  Like it is a fact I thought I heard what sounded like "x".

    3. oceansnsunsets profile image86
      oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      What about little animals in the forest?  smile

      1. janesix profile image59
        janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Those with ears to hear....lol

        1. oceansnsunsets profile image86
          oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          What about the intelligence that allowed for ears, even when no one else is around?  They probably sense it in some other crazy cosmic sense, lol.  Just kidding, kind of.... smile  Closing can of worms now.... 

          Maybe "some" can hear it with ears and so much more.......

          1. janesix profile image59
            janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Actually, you don't even need ears to process sound. You can feel it too, if it's loud enough. lol...

            1. oceansnsunsets profile image86
              oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Yes, more senses than hearing can be involved with such things as crashing trees.

              1. Cgenaea profile image60
                Cgenaeaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Yes. I agree. Let me pose a question. So since we know with a huge level of certainty that the thing crashes loudly although we did not hear it; are we moving into a level of FAITH in the "rules" of noise when we say, "Hell yeah, it makes a sound???"
                If I see a a tree falling on tv with the sound muted; I make up some sounds in my head to compensate for the deficit. smile

        2. oceansnsunsets profile image86
          oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I always wondered long ago, "Why would a tree fall silently?  What a silly question!"  Come crashing down....silently?

          1. Cgenaea profile image60
            Cgenaeaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Somebody was DEEP in thought... I cannnot imagine a silently crashing tree either.
            Blame the philosophical.

            1. oceansnsunsets profile image86
              oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Yep!  But the philosophical can be so fun, besides helpful at times. smile

              1. Cgenaea profile image60
                Cgenaeaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Yes. I love philosophy. I'm a thinker. (Dont tell Rad...) wink

      2. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Did you ask any of them if THEY heard the falling tree??? smile

    4. Slarty O'Brian profile image82
      Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Actually try a Zen forum. wink

  7. Cgenaea profile image60
    Cgenaeaposted 5 years ago

    People do it with the sciences all the time. "Hey Honey, they just found potentially dangerous fillers in fast food!" And nobody goes to McDonald's with their own testing kit...
    "We've carbon dated it using the latest equipment!" And nobody shows up at science headquarters with their own carbon dater thingy that everyone must have access to else it'd be called BLIND FAITH. wink

  8. Cgenaea profile image60
    Cgenaeaposted 5 years ago

    People do it with the sciences all the time. "Hey Honey, they just found potentially dangerous fillers in fast food!" And nobody goes to McDonald's with their own testing kit...
    "We've carbon dated it using the latest equipment!" And nobody shows up at science headquarters with their own carbon dater thingy that everyone must have access to else it'd be called BLIND FAITH. wink

  9. Cgenaea profile image60
    Cgenaeaposted 5 years ago

    I lost my comment.

  10. janesix profile image59
    janesixposted 5 years ago

    Cgenaea, you didn't lose your comment. The last page just won't show up for a while. It's been doing that lately, and it's really annoying.

  11. janesix profile image59
    janesixposted 5 years ago

    "I'd say there's no such thing as sound, we just imagine what things sound like in our minds.....I know sound waves vibrate the hairs in our ears, but then what?.....Does another ear hear it?, & so on, & so on....Or do we just imagine the sound?, maybe we just imagine everything.


    Probably.

    Our ears receive the vibration, and our brains interpret it. So I guess, yes, there probably is no real thing as sound, except in our minds.

    1. Cgenaea profile image60
      Cgenaeaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      smile
      What mind???

      1. oceansnsunsets profile image86
        oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        lol, but I think Jane is a "believer" in her mind..... she was on that side of that I believe.  smile  I could be wrong though.

        1. janesix profile image59
          janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Yes I believe in God.

          1. oceansnsunsets profile image86
            oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I do too smile

            1. Slarty O'Brian profile image82
              Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              What's god?

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
                MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Hopefully the entity that is going to break this thread...

              2. oceansnsunsets profile image86
                oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Edit... Misread your question. 

                What is God?  When Janesix and I were talking about believing in God, you don't know what we mean?  Or are you going in a different direction there?

                In this case I mean it, God is an uncaused cause, with intelligence and personality that can create.  To me, the best explanation for all that is, over anything else.  Everything else offered up that I have seen as being able to cause what we see, either isn't capable, (whether lack of agency or capability, etc.) or is much less reasonable of an option.

                Wow, for once I am talking about this subject....  Normally I am trying to veer things away from God (with Radman mostly or Dr. Lamb) and back to the subjects at hand.

                1. profile image0
                  Rad Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Interesting… the best explanation for our universe for you is to invent something that can cause the universe but has no cause itself even though you have no evidence for any such thing. You are under the assumption that the universe needs a cause. In one of Hawking's books he outline why the universe doesn't need a cause and why no God could have created it. Your way of thinking came about when someone thought the universe was like a well run clock and since every clock has a maker the universe must have a maker. It turns out the universe is nothing like a clock, time is not constant, it just appears that way for us. It's in no way perfect and made to contain life. On the subatomic level particles pop into and out of existence all the time. No cause.

                  1. oceansnsunsets profile image86
                    oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    I could be mistaken, but "part" of the clock analogy was supposed to be something having to do with being "wound up", and the subsequent winding down.  We assume stuff about the universe that we would never assume about even man made things, because we know better. 

                    As for an uncaused cause, that is a necessity, not a preference of mine.  It is logical, what would have had to have been for reasons that we have discussed in detail here in the past.  Its a lot of steps to get there, but this is not being made up or anything.  As for having no evidence for such a thing, that is part of what is up for debate.  If we are just at this point offering up our beliefs and opinions, then i have mine and you have yours.  We are "even" in that regard.  As for what would have to be due to reality and science as we know it, that is an issue that has to be dealt with by all.  The issue isn't with me, but with reality and truth and "origins", not me. 

                    No assumptions are being made.
                    Also, it is logical for there to be causes for effects we see.  This is nothing new, and very scientific, until some deem that it isn't when it must not be the case because worldviews must be maintained and esteemed that don't merit it.  Without seeing more details, I can only speculate at this point, but that is what it usually amounts to.  When something can't be verified 100%, I tend to go with a more reasonable answer, over a lesser reasonable answer.

                    Too many people pick and choose what is reasonable, by letting their worldviews take over their thinking for them.  The frustrating part for me with that is that people assume just Christians do it (here anyway), and that they could NEVER do it, even when its pointed out point blank to them.  The severe blinders, denial is incredibly strong and observable when it happens.  I mean actually happens, not just assuming a group of people must be doing it. Just wanted you to know, no assumptions here.  This stuff is too important to just assume about it, and uphold personally held belief for some other reason.

                  2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image85
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Invent? You're speaking as if God is something new. Something designed to fit between the lines only after we learned where the lines are. Far from. There is a particular God, who no one of this age made up, who is just as relevant today in light of modern knowledge as described 3000+ years ago.

                    You realize our whole concept of things needing to have a cause or a beginning is because of the place we live in and it consisting of time, right? We don't know that that's the case beyond this universe. We don't even know if some form of time exists beyond this universe. But the way it was described, long before we even knew much of anything about the natural world, actually makes more sense now than then. And they had no idea.

                    It's not that we invented God. It's that the God that the ancients said interacted with them is still relevant. Nothing we've learned about the natural world has removed this God from the equation. It's only removed old ideas about this God from the equation. It's made things more clear.

              3. oceansnsunsets profile image86
                oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                That does sound like a good start for a new thread as this one is having issues at times, lol.  It goes silent and then posts several posts from days before all at once.  Then we rush the board and it seems to set it over the edge.  Isn't this a longer than normal threat with over 6K posts?

                1. EncephaloiDead profile image54
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  That is not true, there are options that are far more reasonable than an invisible creator, however you are just not aware of them or understand them. More likely, you will deny or reject them in favor of your religious beliefs. To say otherwise is disingenuous and you know it.

                  1. oceansnsunsets profile image86
                    oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    What is your BEST other option that could account for this universe as we know it?  It started with a big bang.  What accounts for that?  It might be true that I am unaware of the options or don't understand them.  We have to find that out.  Give me your best bet/option/choice, and show how it works better than an intelligence with agency?  We can leave god out, or keep him in this.  Don't assume I will reject it or believe blindly in the face of other reasonable options.  I promise you, I am a very fair person and take this stuff very seriously.

        2. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Not in reference to Jane. She's carving a space in my heart (the one without the blood vessels).
          The conversation was so long wrestling with mind/no mind because it's intangible; unseen; and uncolorful; just thought I'd throw in a funny. wink

      2. janesix profile image59
        janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Are you asking what my version of what I think the mind is?

  12. oceansnsunsets profile image86
    oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years ago

    Just an idea, but should we start a new thread, as this one seems broken so much of the time lately?  It has gotten off topic from the OP some time ago, and I don't mind that one bit.  Just wondering about this "not working" stuff.  Maybe someone else here has more experience with massive sized forums than me, lol.  Thing is, so many good discussions have been had here, so it would be hard to look back as needed.

  13. Cgenaea profile image60
    Cgenaeaposted 5 years ago

    One like me, may look at whatever you got. But it is just not necessary. I truly feel that God exists with all my fibers. I'll just treat your "evidence" as you treat mine. When you yell fact; I will yell you're crazy to believe such fictitious nonsense without backing it up with your own SEEN and approved experiments. And we will laugh and talk about it again...until...

    1. EncephaloiDead profile image54
      EncephaloiDeadposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      lol The shrinking narrow minded minority makes a desperate last stand.

  14. Cgenaea profile image60
    Cgenaeaposted 5 years ago

    Hopefully, I will catch up with this post. I'm lost...

  15. Cgenaea profile image60
    Cgenaeaposted 5 years ago

    Yes, for me; no proof of the nonexistence of God exists. For me, God is as real as I am. ALL OPTIONS THAT DO NOT INCLUDE GOD ARE ADAMANTLY REJECTED. Thanks for noticing.

  16. Cgenaea profile image60
    Cgenaeaposted 5 years ago

    Dont feel bad ED; LOTS of. People believe as you do; I agree with your assessment though I wouldn't call you desperate. Just determined to see things your way. And please dont let it be your LAST stand. Fight for what you believe in. I can handle it. smile thanks anyway...

  17. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image85
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years ago

    Why did you specify believers? Stephen Hawking speaks of the same kinds of things. So do more and more physicists within the community. They speak of what occurred beyond this one universe, which includes space-time.

    I'm sorry you're tired of hearing it, but that makes it no less true. As far as we can tell, space-time only exists from the big bang forward because it too is a product of it. Which means time, at least as we perceive it, does not exist beyond it. So, whatever does exist beyond it, if anything, is not affected by time as we are and would be exactly the same at the beginning of the universe as they were at the end of it.

    1. Dr Lamb profile image55
      Dr Lambposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Speaking of Steven Hawking, he also said that no God could have created the universe because he would have needed time where none existed.

      1. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Steven should have read someone's bible. The Lord began time when he divided the light from the darkness. The light, he called day; and the darkness he called night.
        Run tell dat... wink

        1. Dr Lamb profile image55
          Dr Lambposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Do you know what happens without time?

          1. Cgenaea profile image60
            Cgenaeaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Why yes...! smile The bible says that God and the "word" spoke, cut on the lights and then made the world.

            1. Dr Lamb profile image55
              Dr Lambposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              How did he get the time to do that?

              1. Cgenaea profile image60
                Cgenaeaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                He MADE it...!!! wink

                1. Dr Lamb profile image55
                  Dr Lambposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  He can do all that and yet can't make be believe he exists. Pathetic.

                  1. Cgenaea profile image60
                    Cgenaeaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Be patient. He WILL "make" you believe it.

      2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image85
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Yeah, that's more of a problem from a material/causal aspect than it is from a God aspect because you do indeed need time for a singularity to change states in a material/physical way. If time didn't begin until the inflation, then how does that singularity first change states from being a singularity to being an inflating universe?

  18. Cgenaea profile image60
    Cgenaeaposted 5 years ago

    Yeah, I like solitaire too! smile

  19. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image85
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years ago

    No, I meant what I said.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZFEayYl … WtpJ1HEL4v - "Boundaries of the Knowable(Cosmology) by Prof Russell Stannard




    Recognizing what's beyond this universe as 'unknowable' is not false logic. It is logic, based on facts and evidence. If all that is measurable/detectable/quantifiable/etc is a product of the big bang, if time and space themselves are a product of the big bang, then what could we possibly observe to understand what's beyond it? Sure, we can follow the math, maybe see the mathematical possibilities, but no way to confirm which is right. It's simply unknowable in any material/objectively verifiable way. It's beyond our scope.

    So, I'm looking to figure out what's what with what is observable. There is an observable 'effect' that matches up with the 'causes' described in Genesis. And these 'effects' happen to be the key events that set the modern human world in motion. I'm just following the evidence.

  20. Righteous Atheist profile image60
    Righteous Atheistposted 5 years ago

    The irrational assumption that there is something beyond reality is the problem. The only reason you make this false assumption is to make the claim that there is something "unknowable," and therefore goddunit. After all - Invisible Pink Unicorns and the Loch Ness Monster are "unknowable" in the same way. wink

    Tell us the one about the majick boat again. I like that one best. Although apparently - the film gets it wrong. big_smile

    1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image85
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The idea that there's 'something beyond reality' is not an 'irrational assumption', and it's not something I alone am considering. In fact, it's the most likely explanation, given the evidence....

      "Modern equations seem to capture reality with breathtaking accuracy, correctly predicting the values of many constants of nature and the existence of particles like the Higgs. Yet a few constants — including the mass of the Higgs boson — are exponentially different from what these trusted laws indicate they should be, in ways that would rule out any chance of life, unless the universe is shaped by inexplicable fine-tunings and cancellations.

      In peril is the notion of “naturalness,” Albert Einstein’s dream that the laws of nature are sublimely beautiful, inevitable and self-contained. Without it, physicists face the harsh prospect that those laws are just an arbitrary, messy outcome of random fluctuations in the fabric of space and time."
      - https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta … unnatural/

      There's a reason why physicists like Hawking and others are moving over to multiverse concepts. Because this one universe on its own doesn't seem to work, unless, as it says above, "the universe is shaped by inexplicable fine-tunings and cancellations". But that would suggest intelligence, and we all know that's completely out of the question. So the next best explanation is that there must be millions of universes, each with slightly differing values, and we just happen to be in one that allows for life. Which, of course, is also suggesting there's "something beyond reality".

      1. Slarty O'Brian profile image82
        Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Something beyond reality is another of those silly ideas.

        If something exists it is part of reality if it does not it is not. You can't go beyond reality. It's a meaningless idea.

  21. oceansnsunsets profile image86
    oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years ago

    The presuming his worldview is true, and then counting on that to make the points he makes.  The essence of the argument as he seems to be making it, is depending on his personal beliefs to be true, only.  It makes it easy then to make the points he is making, like God couldn't have existed or do anything because there is no time to do it in.

  22. Dr Lamb profile image55
    Dr Lambposted 5 years ago

    Presuming your worldview is true, you imagine a God that could make the universe and then imagine a way he does't need a cause and a way he can't be detected.

    What you are not getting is that others are in search for the truth regardless of how that truth makes them feel.

    1. oceansnsunsets profile image86
      oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I can see the saying that believers just want to presume their own set of things.  However I think some truly care about truth and this would include the possibility of atheists maybe being RIGHT about them, and wanting to test their beliefs the hardest to see if that is the case.  If it isn't the case, then atheists need to be willing to accept the possible truths also.

      The thing is in this case (also), this is about necessity and science here, what could sufficiently explain what we observe.  Hawking may be right, but possibly putting some self limiting constraints on what could be/ by saying there can only be the physical time as we know it can exist, might be just that.  Self limiting constraints.  The thing is, reality is what it is, no matter how we mildly manipulate it.  I do get what he is saying and why I think, but I also get that it is convenient also while lining up with a worldview that allows for things to a point.  This "thing" we are speaking of seems to extend beyond material and physical including physical time and may include a kind of metaphysical time.  It actually would make sense and would actually be a sufficient cause for the effect.  It isn't about what makes us feel better or not or imagining things or not. 
      On the imagining note, it has been said that if man were to make up a god, it wouldn't be made up to look like this one. (If it were just about making it up.) A much more convenient or easy would be have been a better choice, with no rules perhaps or tough to accept parts to it, lol. 

      Also, as for feelings, one could make the case for those that reject god, to say its about feeling better.  The "relief" some say they feel, like how Dawkins talks about it, makes sense if god is real too.  Shedding that need to answer to anything bigger than oneself, could be a mighty nice feeling for many people.  It could be very attractive to convince oneself its just a lie, and that those other people are crazy.  Not saying it isn't true if it isn't or when it isn't.  Just observing there could be definite motive.

  23. Cgenaea profile image60
    Cgenaeaposted 5 years ago

    Metaphor, metaphor; what is it with all this metaphor? Ay...
    Lol

  24. janesix profile image59
    janesixposted 5 years ago

    "Metaphor, metaphor; what is it with all this metaphor? Ay...
    Lol"

    Because it's just how I see the Bible. I've studied the religions and mythology of the world. There are certain commonalities. I think these commonalities are divinely inspired truths. Just get interpreted differently by different people. I've experienced some of these commonalities in my own way.

    You ever watch the Lion King? It's the same thing. Osiris and horus. Same thing. It's a biological/spiritual process of "death" and "rebirth", and fighting the "evil" that is within ourselves, to become better people.

  25. Cgenaea profile image60
    Cgenaeaposted 5 years ago

    Right Jane. It seems that those who study the religionS generally do form some rather blanketed ideas.
    What I know about other religions has somewhat had a different affect. I generally compare to what i know about the bible. No other holds the same weight. Indoctrinated??? Thank God... smile

  26. janesix profile image59
    janesixposted 5 years ago

    "Right Jane. It seems that those who study the religionS generally do form some rather blanketed ideas.
    What I know about other religions has somewhat had a different affect. I generally compare to what i know about the bible. No other holds the same weight. Indoctrinated??? Thank God... smile"

    Sorry, the thread seems to be glitch, I can't seem to answer your post directly.

    Anyway. You might be indoctrinated, but in at least your case, I feel you actually DO have spiritual insight. That's why I don't tend to argue religion with you anymore. I don't agree with you on  a lot of stuff. To me, I see a person on the spiritual path, working things out from the inside. You might be a bit preachy, but so am I, and so is everyone else. I totally don't expect you to agree with my ideas:) I don't expect anyone to.

  27. Cgenaea profile image60
    Cgenaeaposted 5 years ago

    I see the glitch. I often have the same issue.
    I have but one voice. And if I had 10,000 tongues, I could not thank him enough. My life has been lived in such a manner that has led to God. It was my destiny to be here.  My upbringing was full of spiritual people. My brain was hungry.
    I expect many will agree with my ideas.They are from the bible.

  28. janesix profile image59
    janesixposted 5 years ago

    Yeah, the Bible is one way to God. As long as you don't take it too literally:)

  29. Righteous Atheist profile image60
    Righteous Atheistposted 5 years ago

    So - the irrational assumption that there is a majikal Super Being that exists outside of reality, that you have faith exists is the same thing as hypothetical parallel Universes?

    This is where your complete lack of scientific understanding really shows itself. Nowhere does M-theory allow for an invisible Super Being that existed before time. Sorry. sad

    Despite these seemingly successful explanations, many physicists worry that there is little to be gained by adopting the multiverse worldview. Parallel universes cannot be tested for; worse, an unnatural universe resists understanding. “Without naturalness, we will lose the motivation to look for new physics,” said Kfir Blum, a physicist at the Institute for Advanced Study. “We know it’s there, but there is no robust argument for why we should find it.”

    And of course - if there are multiple Universes - they are in reality - not beyond it.

    “When people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them that the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the big bang, so there is no time for god to make the universe in. Stephen Hawking

    1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image85
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      "And of course - if there are multiple Universes - they are in reality - not beyond it."

      Wrong. Just as the bit you cut/pasted says, "Parallel universes cannot be tested for." Why? Because it deals with things that exist beyond this one observable reality.

      "This is where your complete lack of scientific understanding really shows itself. Nowhere does M-theory allow for an invisible Super Being that existed before time. Sorry."

      I never said that. The similarity here is that both explanations deal with what's beyond this one observable universe. Whether it be God, multiple other universes, pink unicorns, or flying spaghetti monsters, or even a combination of any of these, there's simply no way to test for it or confirm it. We only have this one universe to observe when attempting to understand what's beyond the 'knowable'.

      1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
        Righteous Atheistposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        If they exist they are part of reality regardless of whether or not we can test for them. wink Interesting that a total lack of understanding about hypothetical, non testable physics is the same as goddunit. lol There is nothing "beyond knowable." There is simply "non-existent." As your professor in the YouTube video you cut and pasted based on a title that you thought might support your argument for majick says, "The question of before the big bang is meaningless."

        Stick to the majik boat - much better. wink

        1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image85
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          "If they exist they are part of reality regardless of whether or not we can test for them."

          Or....

          "If [God] exists [He] is part of reality regardless of whether or not we can test for [Him]." See? That works too.

          You just said that multiple other universes might exist, you just acknowledged they're not testable, yet you then say there is nothing "beyond knowable". Yet, somehow you've convinced yourself that it's my "complete lack of scientific understanding" that's the problem.

          1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
            Righteous Atheistposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            See? What works too? An infinite number of possible gods? Why are you calling your god a Him? You have just postulated that there are an infinite number of possible gods therefore yours is infinitely improbable.

            You also seem to be saying that the god that you have faith in that steps in to do majick and tell people how it works and that exists completely outside reality is the same as hypothetical physics. You do know that your claim is that god does stuff and is therefore part of reality is not the same as unproven hypothetical physics - I can only assume that you lack understanding of science to be making this claim. The two are not the same at all. I never said that other universes might exist. Please don't misquote me.

            Can you tell me the difference between unknowable and non existent?

            1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image85
              HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              The fact of the matter is science cannot tell between unknowable and non-existent. Both yield the same amount of proof.

              My claim that there's a particular God is based on my observations of the biblical text, specifically Genesis, in light of history. Those stories depict events, and even give a very specific timeline, that matches up with the history of southern Mesopotamia down to the number of centuries between each event. I know you just want to make it seem as if I'm just dreaming up some concept I'm pulling out of thin air, but that's clearly not the case. There are a series of events, that really happened, that really do line up with the timeline specified in Genesis, that really did play a significant role in shaping modern human life. The God these texts describe is consistent with current knowledge, and the events these stories describe are consistent with the evidence of the region and time frame.

              I'm simply following the evidence. The difference is I'm not defining prematurely what is and isn't possible. I'm considering this a real possibility, and it has not only yielded copious amounts of supporting evidence, it has also proved to make accurate predictions about things I was unaware of when I first formed the hypothesis.

              1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
                Righteous Atheistposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Yes - I already know you have faith. Please stop calling it evidence - it insults my intelligence. Thanks. You are not "considering it a real possibility," you have faith. Please stop lying at me as well. Also insulting.

                Odd you don't see the contradiction between claiming your Invisible Super Being steps into reality 13.7 billion years after majicking  the Universe into existence is not in any way comparable to theoretical physics models. I can only surmise you lack understanding of science in that case.

                But thanks for admitting unknowable is basically the same as non-existent. Odd you then go on to claim to have evidence. Pretty disingenuous of you.

                1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image85
                  HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Well I'm sorry if my ideas damage your delicate sensibilities, but your sensibilities are irrelevant in my quest for truth. This IS evidence that strongly supports a hypothesis. My faith is totally beside the point. Your lack of understanding, or unwillingness to accept or even consider a hypothesis that you have personal hang-ups about, doesn't equate to me lying or being disingenuous. That's just your defense mechanism to ensure you never actually have to look at evidence that might suggest the real truth is something other than what you already think. You instead project the problem onto me because, in your mind, the faulty variable can't be you. That is disingenuous, insulting, and incredibly arrogant.

                  If my hypothesis is complete nonsense, then you should be able to prove it. Many have legitimately tried, many others have instead opted to accuse me of being dishonest or disingenuous as you are here, but none have been able to give factual/evidential reason why this isn't true. And considering this explanation spans the course of nearly 2000 years of known history, and gives a very specific and detailed timeline, it should be easy to refute. You shouldn't have to resort to these kinds of underhanded tactics that only aim to ridicule and discredit.

                  1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
                    Righteous Atheistposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    What delicate sensibilities are these? Pointing out that you claiming to know something unknowable because you have evidence is disingenuous is not being delicate - just honest. I already know you can change the meaning of the bible in order to defend your irrational belief in a god contradicted by science. Sorry if you find that insulting. I suggest you stop being so disingenuous - that might fix your problem. Hypothesis? You sure you don't mean "irrational belief"? Any fool can see you are simply defending a pre-existing irrational belief. This is why your religion causes so many conflicts. Yoru evidnce has been proven wrong on many occasions, I don't see why I should do it again.

                    Tell us the one about the majick boat that cannot float that has been proven to float. I like that one best. wink

                  2. profile image0
                    Rad Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    We have but it's rather difficult to convince you as you are convinced that and issues found are translation problems. Rather than looking at the evidence you change translations to mean something else. However it's your job to prove your theory factual, not ours to prove it fiction. Birds did not evolve along side fish and before land animals. The was no era of birds. There is no evidence for a global or regional flood that covered mountains for a year. There is no evidence that Jews were kept as slave in Egypt. We have plenty of evidence that other tribes told their people that they we God chosen people and waged war for that God. There is no evidence that the tribe as described in Genesis is any different.

  30. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image85
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years ago

    No, you haven't. I am convinced by adequate evidence. I am convinced by Hebrew translations that can be demonstrated to be in direct conflict. You have not shown these things. You've only offered your own interpretation of an English version which is obviously tinted by what you've been told it says because what you say is very much in line with traditional interpretations. Interpretations formed before we had the knowledge to actually be able to tie these texts to history.

    It's an easy answer to just dismiss me as being a stubborn or 'convinced' believer, but that doesn't make it true. I am open to being wrong. I welcome it, because truth is what I'm after. If you can adequately demonstrate that I'm wrong about something, I'm all ears, because that means there's something I think is true that isn't. I don't want to walk around just thinking things that are false are true. What would be the point of convincing myself I'm right when I'm not? What do I have to gain? I have no problem with your view, other than it doesn't make logical sense. I have no motivation to do what you're claiming I'm doing.

    Birds evolved in the same era as the first land animals that 'came forth from the sea'. And that's exactly what it says. It doesn't say fish. It says "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life". In the same breath it speaks of birds, so clearly it's not just talking about sea animals. That's just what you've been told, and you can't separate the text itself from what you've been told. There IS evidence of a regional flood and it would have easily covered anything that constituted as a 'mountain' or a 'hill' in that region, considering it's a plain. And given the timeline here is over 1000 years before writing, it's no surprise there's no documentation of the Jews being enslaved by the Egyptians.

    I have shown how this one explanation also explains other gods in the region and other religions, including Hindu. It actually ties together all of those other stories rather well, and it offers explanations as to who they're talking about, which is a much more likely answer than just to say these people invented the earliest forms of propaganda and knowingly lied to justify what their people did. As soon as writing was sophisticated enough to enable them to record stories, these are the stories they began to commit to stone. This was their actual history as far as they thought.

  31. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image85
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years ago

    Hi Mark. I thought that was you, but the 'This is why your religion causes so many conflicts' comment is a dead give-away. Didn't you always used to give me grief about 'hiding' behind a fake name and avatar? So which of us here is the one being the more disingenuous? The one under the same name as before, with my real name on my profile page, sticking to the same story? Or the guy now working under a second avatar? What happened to the other one?

    "What delicate sensibilities are these?"

    "it insults my intelligence."
    "Please stop lying at me as well. Also insulting."

    Those delicate sensibilities.

    "I already know you can change the meaning of the bible in order to defend your irrational belief in a god contradicted by science."

    To quote you from earlier, "This is where your complete lack of scientific understanding really shows itself." That statement about a "God contradicted by science" just shows you either don't understand God, science, or you don't understand either.

    So, you're saying I'm changing the meaning of the bible to make it work? How about the hard numbers? The ages given? The very specific timeline? The numbers add up. The events that separate them mirror actual events that are also separated by the same number of centuries. I can maybe understand if I were to twist around one or two vague verses, but I'm showing how the first 11 chapters line up, first with the geological/biological formation of the earth, then a span that covers roughly 5500-3500BC in southern Mesopotamia. 11 chapters. Over 2000 years of known history in detail.

    "Yoru evidnce has been proven wrong on many occasions, I don't see why I should do it again."

    If it were proven wrong, why would I still be doing this? What's my motivation? What do I get out of this, not just to believe it myself, but to spend so much time and energy engaging in discussions and defending it? What do I have to gain? How does that even make sense?

  32. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image85
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years ago

    I agree, but when you first change the definition of the word 'reality' to only mean what's observable/detectable material, as is the case in this forum, then there is room for 'beyond reality', because there is a high probability of there being parts of the story beyond what can be 'seen'. Anything beyond the big bang, for example, while technically would still be 'reality', whether that be a God or millions of other universes, would not be detectable by the material sciences, yet no less real.

  33. oceansnsunsets profile image86
    oceansnsunsetsposted 5 years ago

    Well, I guess this thread is officially broken, as the last comments never did arrive, and it has been days if not a week.

    You could tell people were responding in the main Hubpages feed, but so many never arrived here.  That had already been happening some, but usually after some time, they would all arrive all of a sudden.  Is there a point at which a forum thread doesn't work anymore?  Does anyone know? Will be interesting to see if this even goes through.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)