It seems our friends, the Atheists are shooting themselves in the foot, to use an appropriate phrase.
They keep accusing believers (religious) that they keep imagining God/gods, or as delusional, for believing, by sheer blind faith in the spiritual realm.
If that is so, and they (Atheists) only believe in the said 3d world which is evidenced by feel, sight, smell etc. then, dismiss any other possibilities. I believe even mathematics infers several dimensions beyond the 3d one. If this is correct, are they not the ones who are narrow minded, unwilling to learn?
Given the fact that there are many religions, and many deities, etc, one commonality still remains, and that is the universal belief amongst believers (religious) of "something beyond" this natural, material world.
Your first mistake is lumping agnostics in with atheists. Atheists are no different from theists. You all imagine you know something you don't.
Agnostics are well known for leaving all options open, until more data is in.
Except that many theists -- at least those from the Christian tradition -- aren't much like atheists. First, because few atheists claim certainty regarding God's existence. They don't BELIEVE that he exists, but they don't KNOW that he doesn't. Most atheists are, in fact, agnostic atheists. However, the majority of Christian theists claim to KNOW that God exists, through divine revelation, AKA the Holy Spirit. The difference between knowing and believing is immense. Those who claim certain knowledge have a trump card that nonbelievers don't have.
That's what I don't get.. Immensely...
Do I even need to point out the lack of logic in that?
I will just to prevent any misdirection of my intention.
Atheists are devout to 'no God exists'..
Agnostics are devout to 'I don't know' which can hold degrees of possibility.
Theists devout to absolute certainty of God. And therefore to ADD to the point an - A - theist.. is exactly opposite of a theist... Which means 'no' possibility.
This is exactly why I give up on attempting to discuss anything involving showing God's existence.
One, the evidence is denied - not absent.
Two - you can't get to the point for people creating compound words that mean they believe there is zero percent possibility and there is from one to 99 percent possibility at the same time in someone's mind. Theists cover the one hundred percent certainty, hence the reason for three words, theist - agnostic -atheist
That, is called impossible. It's either believed certain, possible, or impossible. It cannot be both impossible and possible simultaneously.
And I would not be surprized if someone came along attempting a argument counter to my obvious explanation of the illogicality...
I do love every one, but it is aggrevating to even read some of the things thrown out lacking reason. And the creations that are come up with that make no sense....
I don't know what it's caused by, but I believe I'm going to make it a goal to figure it out.
God bless you and I mean all I say with good intention,
It's no wonder you don't get it, you're understanding of atheism is flawed.
Atheists listen to the outrageously ridiculous claims made by believers and understand they are just childish indoctrinated fantasies.
No, it's because you are incapable of showing God's existence, just like every other believer of every other religion.
No, your God is absent, entirely.
And, it is those who bandy about their love to "every one" who not only can't be trusted but probably have no clue what love is all about.
Love is blind, and these fools are in love with this idea of a God which sadly, doesn't exist, but they will do whatever they can to prove that he does even lying.... but it's usually to themselves.
Please show the relationship to my post and attempting to prove God.
I believe it's you who are stuck hard on the agenda, seeing things that aren't there.
I alluded to it. The post regarded atheist - agnostic - theist and their seperate meanings.
"One, the evidence is denied - not absent."
My agenda is defending my rights and the truth from people such as yourself.
I never wanted this to be an unfriendly debate yet you continue to make it so.
As far as Atheist and Agnostic... I actually agree with you on that point. But we are both probably wrong in one sense.
Atheist is about belief (or disbelief for that matter)
Agnostic is about knowledge (or lack there of)
In many sense Gnostic and Agnostic have nothing truly to do with Atheist and Theist except in relation to strong and weak points...
A strong Atheist such as myself would consider himself a Gnostic Atheist, saying not only is there no evidence for God but that the evidence for everything else shows that God is not logical or necessary to existence, while a weak one would be an Agnostic Atheist, because he refers to the absence of evidence only meaning you can't say something is true with lack of knowledge. You could say you are an Agnostic Theist, one who believes by faith alone and doesn't claim any special knowledge, while Gnostic Theist would mean you believe in a God and believe that you have evidence for such a beings existence (you just have yet to show valid evidence for it). In all of that the terms Agnostic and Gnostic can be switched around or even challenged depending on what they refer to.
So agnostics are now atheists as well?
Why then does the agnostic always reply "I'm not atheist, I'm agnostic.."
And the atheist always reply "I'm not agnostic, I'm atheist.."
Go find me someone to claim the title "agnostic-atheist" and bring him-her here for me to see.
Your post is ridiculous without a single resolved point.
Why the implications about what I am? Why not prove me wrong?
I see, you cannot because the reasoning is correct...
There is no illogicality to agnostic atheism. My purpose in making this counter-assertion is not to argue with you, but merely to explain.
The words 'atheist' and 'agnostic' are complicated. The words "know" and "believe" are complicated. All of this complication contributes to a lot of confusion.
Some atheists assert that they KNOW that God does NOT exist. On the other hand, some theists assert that they KNOW that God DOES exist. The beliefs of these claimants are obviously 100% antithetical to each other.
Other atheists -- perhaps the majority -- do not assert that God does NOT exist, but merely that they lack belief in him. I am that type of atheist. I lack any belief in God.
There are also many subtleties to the word agnostic, but most agnostics don't believe that it is possible to prove or disprove -- at this time, and perhaps never -- God's existence. I am that type of agnostic. I don't believe that it is currently possible to know whether God exists.
I lack BELIEF in God's existence. Therefore, I am an atheist. However, I also don't believe that it is currently possible to KNOW whether God exists. Atheism and agnosticism are measuring two different things. They are not part of the same continuum. There is no contradiction.
Do you have any questions?
Know and believe are complicated.
You seem to be telling me that you're an atheist, which of course is lack of belief in God, but that you're uncertain of your conclusion because you aren't absolutely certain that your lack of belief is final because you don't think it's possible to know.
1- Lack belief in God
2- Don't assert that there is no God.
So you don't believe but still think it's possible??
Isn't that back to agnosticism? lol
One must realize, there are so-called "intelligent" beings out there that can complicate a cheese sandwich.
Of course, atheists and agnostics are two different types of mentality. Uh, duh! By the way, what in the hell is an "agnostic atheist?" I thought they called that confused or disconcerted or perhaps even discombobulated...
You would first have to understand the meaning of those words and their inverses in order to make any sort of judgement on them without looking like a complete idiot for not knowing such basic ideas about words and their general meaning.
Not meaning to offend you that was just a general statement.
All I'm saying, is that an atheist and an agnostic are two separate mentalities. The only idiots involved, are those that think those two words are synonyms. Not meaning to offend anyone, just saying...
I was beginning to worry everyone believed what he was saying..
I was a wee close to writing a hub....
They are different, they have different meanings and can refer to each other as adjectives and nouns do. Atheist Agnostic, Atheist Gnostic, Theistic Agnostic, Theistic Gnostic.... The last one makes me chuckle.
All of those titles you mentioned make me laugh.
I don't see the reason to complicate your stance toward the subject.
People are generally theistic, atheist, or agnostic. ...Then there are those that are not concerned with otherworldly matters and are merely philosophical in a mundane fashion, and we will always have those that could care less about any of this, either way.
Anyway, what's next? Democratic Republicans? Ancient Alien Christians? Atheist Buddhists? Agnostic Yin & Yang? LOL!
Agnosticism is concerned with proof, and comes in two main varieties.
A weak agnostic says, "Maybe deities exist, maybe they don't. Currently, we don't have enough evidence."
A strong agnostic says, "It is permanently beyond our capabilities to know whether or not deities exist."
Atheism is concerned with belief and comes in two main varieties.
A weak atheist says, "I lack belief in the existence of deities."
A strong atheist says, "I know that deities do not exist."
I am a weak agnostic and a weak atheist.
Now let's try a simple analogy, substituting "deities" with "McDonald's restaurants."
I am a (weak) agnostic concerning the possibility of McDonald's restaurants on Pluto. In other words, today, it is beyond my capabilities to know whether or not they exist there. Tomorrow, maybe I will be able to obtain enough evidence.
I am a (weak) atheist concerning the existence of McDonald's restaurants on Pluto. In other words, I lack belief in the existence of McDonald's restaurants on Pluto.
In other words, I am an agnostic atheist concerning McDonald's restaurants on Pluto. In the same manner, I am an agnostic atheist (concerning deities).
Does that clear things up?
If you don't mind, I'd like to comment on that and show that the agnostic position is rather a weak one and somewhat invalid.
Let's look at the first claim, "Maybe deities exist, maybe they don't. Currently, we don't have enough evidence."
On the contrary, there is ample evidence one may use to show that the belief in deities goes back thousands of years and that those beliefs and deities have tended to reconstruct themselves as one religion falls and another rises to takes it's place. We will claim that Thor and Zeus are myths today, but were very much believed as real gods centuries ago, worshiped and obeyed back then very much like the deities today.
We can also show through many of the sciences that deities and miracles, as they are described and believed couldn't possibly exist or have occurred if the laws of science had any validity.
To just sit back and state we don't have enough evidence would only show one ignores all the evidence that is actually there.
It is also why the example of McDonald's restaurants on Pluto is also invalid, simply due to the fact there is so much evidence one can use to show there aren't McDonald's restaurants on Pluto, nor could be with our current technologies and understanding of the conditions on Pluto.
I'm not discrediting the agnostic position, but only showing it isn't entirely valid and those who take up that position aren't really acknowledging what we already know as evidence that would show it to be invalid.
Wait...you mean that it's not all gibberish?
What you were replying to apparently. Not once did you call it all Gibberish. I'm impressed and remove my other remarks about you calling everything gibberish.
Only gibberish can be called gibberish. Unfortunately, I don't speak gibberish and cannot understand that particular language.
For the record, Gibberish supposedly derived from accounts of army and navy chaps who returned from Gibraltar and spoke of the 'natives' speaking Gibberish.
Gibraltarians spoke (and still speak) a complete mixture of English, Spanish, Italian and Arabic, and will mix all of those in one sentence on occasion.
Yet as babies we all spoke it and understood it. I wonder how we forget something so primitive?
I honestly can't remember if I did or not lol
I don't disagree with you. I know that agnosticism isn't a pragmatically sensible position, but I maintain it because I have no other choice.
In my daily life, if you asked me whether I had a sofa in the living room -- assuming for a moment that the living room and the sofa were out of sight -- I would unhesitatingly answer "yes." However, ask me a similar question in a different situation -- a situation in which I felt a more rigorous standard of evidence was required -- and I would say "I don't know."
Have you ever read Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land? Are you familiar with his fictional profession in that novel, the Fair Witness?
Here is an excerpt that should explain what a Fair Witness is:
Jubal called out [to Anne], “That house on the hilltop—can you see what color they’ve painted it?”
Anne looked, then answered, “It’s white on this side.”
Jubal . . . [said to] . . . Jill, “You see? It doesn’t occur to Anne to infer that the other side is white, too. All the King’s horses couldn’t force her to commit herself . . . unless she went there and looked—and even then she wouldn’t assume that it stayed white after she left.”
Anne is a Fair Witness, trained to accurately observe and report exactly what she has seen.
When it comes to factual questions -- especially factual questions of an ultimate nature -- I am _almost_ as serious as a Fair Witness.
Sure you have a choice, but perhaps it's a choice you don't wish to make as opposed to the choice not being made available to you. And, by choosing not to make such a choice brings this Edmund Burke quote to mind...
"All that's necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing."
I read that book years ago and while I completely understand that position, it rules out possibilities and probabilities and the fact that in reality we must take them into consideration for almost everything, which means we take the risk of being wrong.
Anne may be a fair witness in that regard, as we all should be, however it takes very little effort to observe the other side of the house and take into account the possibility and probability it will remain white after she leaves. That is the risk.
If we constantly sit on the fence, never take risks, we never get off the fence and never move ahead.
In daily life, I'm never, or seldom, a "fence-sitter." Further -- while this isn't the appropriate venue for my autobiography -- I assure you that I have taken my fair-share of risks. Some of those risks caused me pain, and some caused me gain, but I would unhesitatingly take most of them again.
The relevance of the Burke quotation puzzles me. In what way is my agnosticism evil? I would live my life exactly the same if I were a strong atheist.
As for the question of "choice," it is only logic which dictates my agnosticism. I could make another "choice," but that choice would be a lie. I'm not going to pretend to believe what I don't believe.
Yes, and no.
At this moment, I don't know that the sun exists. I know that it existed (approximately) eight minutes ago, for that is the length of time that it takes for its spectrum of electromagnetic radiation to reach us, without which we would be dead. Because this radiation is still reaching us, I can reasonably conclude that the sun still existed as of eight minutes ago.
Actually I was questioning the word 'belief'. But you defined 'exist' and defined as 'what you see'. So based on that definition stars whose light that has not reached earth or planets from which reflected light does not reach us, do not exist.
The sun exist regardless of whether we see it or not.
I read your question poorly, so I answered it poorly.
Yes, I believe in the existence of the sun, but for pragmatic reasons, not for purely empirical ones. First, I've seen photos of it. Yes, those could have been faked, but that would require a vast conspiracy that I have no reason to conjecture. Second, I've seen it in the sky, and I've felt its rays. Yes, there could be other -- better? -- explanations for those phenomena, but I'm disinclined to spend time looking for them.
For almost all factual claims, I accept the scientific answer, unless I have compelling reasons to do otherwise. However, I differentiate between what I know and what I believe.
Does that answer your question?
May be I worded it poorly.
Can't it be better said, if you say the existence of sun can be put into our theory.. Sun exist and gives as light, which plants use to produce food which we eat... that way even a blind person can understand what sun is.
Science form hypothesis and theories.
Hypothesis is an assumption, say 'sun exist'
Theory is the explanation, say 'sun exist so.....'
So that way, it is objective. We do not need any proof or evidence. Belief on the other hand is the confidence we place in a statement. Say I believe Julius Caesar lived. It may or may not be true and we need evidence and proof for that.
So my contention is saying "I believe in god" is irrational, for we do not know what god said. Either the statement should be simply 'god exist(not exist)' or 'I believe the priest when he says god exist'.
So then our hypothesis will be 'god exist' and theory, god exist hence......(nobody has filled that blanks though!!). Since it the word "exist" is the crucial word that make or break our theory we should define that word too.
I agree, sort of.
We each apprehend our own existence. No one needs to explain that we exist, although we do philosophize about it, a posteriori. We then extrapolate this intrinsic understanding to other material things that we apprehend to exist. Fortunately, this understanding comes easily, and naturally. Babies don't need to be taught that the floor underneath them exists; they intuit it. Initially, we only ascribe to these things a state of being, and nothing more. Later, we ascribe other qualities, and finally we ascribe qualities to things whose existence we have only inferred. However, the first quality that we ascribe is always existence.
Sometimes, we infer the existence of things that don't exist. I believe that God is one of our first incorrect inferences, and that we continue to ascribe fanciful qualities to it to this day.
I agree, we human beings has seen things getting birth and then die and so we suppose it happens with the universe too and assumed a creator to that which we called god. For a time people thought life can arise spontaneously arise till Louis Pastor showed overwise.
Are you trying to say Louis Pasteur showed that life can arise spontaneously?
...and of course all three answers are correct.
Yes, first answer is I don't know and being a hypocrite not to accept it,
Second is trying to find out the answer and third is merely being lazy. All answers are correct.
By YOUR very limited definition, however, in reality, all are correct, and each see the truth by their own definition.
You really need to take off those blinkers.
Can you or any other believer show otherwise? No one has yet.
Actually, we live in a 4 dimensional manifold evidenced by length, width, height and time. Scientists do not dismiss any other possibilities as long as there is evidence for other possibilities.
No, mathematics is simple the language used to explain that 4 dimensional manifold. It is other theories that assert there are more dimensions to our universe and mathematics is used to explain them. Since there is no evidence to support those other models as yet, scientists continue to use the 4 dimensional manifold as our current model.
And, even if other dimensions are found, they will only be used to support theories that are attempting to explain quantum field theories of gravity and how that theory can be unified into General Relativity.
Considering this OP is so blatantly misinformed from the get go, it only shows the author has an unwillingness to learn.
The irrational beliefs of believers have nothing to do with the science they are sorely misinformed about, but is merely wishful thinking of "something beyond"
The irrational beliefs of believers AND NON BELIEVERS have nothing to do with the science they are sorely misinformed about, but is merely wishful thinking of "something OR NOTHING beyond"
Sure Jerami, and when you're ready to show us there is "something beyond" the irrational beliefs of anyone, we'll sit up and listen.
If you've ever studied Fractals (not that you would have to), you'll realize that there is definitely "something within," so why not "something beyond?"
Do you even know what a Fractal is? How do they support "something beyond"?
"Pattern recognition" sort of speaks for itself, on that one.
And, that supports "something beyond" how?
I'm just saying that if it's possible to be endless in one direction, it is also possible to be in another, inside or out, within or beyond, etc.
Sorry, but you are confusing one concept with another. We can actually see fractal patterns. What is that you claim to see that is "something beyond" comparable to fractal patterns?
It can't be disconcerted... If you can find a pattern going from what we know to exist down to the infinitesimally small, why should we not think the pattern would continue in a reverse fashion?
We do have our limits in what we can see, but why deny the infinite patterns at hand?
In a universal sense, I think that is where a lot of multiverse concepts come from, outside of creative thinking, but fractal patterns at least give grounds for such reasoning, in my opinion.
It's a good thing our minds are a universe in their self, or else we couldn't contemplate such things; it is all very interesting, nonetheless.
It probably can continue in a reverse fashion, but we can actually see the pattern, which is the entire point of claiming there is "something beyond".
I'm not sure, but I think we are on the same page here.
Either way, seeing is one thing, finding an end is another. So, if it doesn't end on either side via our perception, doesn't it make perfect sense to be open-minded when it comes to multiple dimensions and other possible planes of existence?
Hey, nobody said this thing was normal.
As the old saying goes, "truth is often stranger than fiction."
No, it doesn't make sense at all, that is a logical fallacy.
We can use another similar example, the equation (n+1) in which 'n' represents any number and find that simple equation does not equate to assuming multiple dimensions and other planes of existence exist.
You said: "No, it doesn't make sense at all, that is a logical fallacy."
Oh, so to you, fractal patterns only go in one direction, from here ... down?
...But yet, in an earlier comment you said, "it probably can continue in a reverse fashion."
Yeah, that's true, you make no sense.
There is no error of reasoning here or, as many "argumentists" (coined term for y'all) often call, "logical fallacy."
A Troubled Man just said: "That isn't what I said at all. The logical fallacy is your conclusion that because fractals can go in either direction, that is evidence for 'something beyond'. Perhaps, you may have a reading comprehension issue."
Oh, cool, now y'all "logical fallacy" believers start insulting us rational beings like myself by saying that I lack reading comprehension, albeit I simply quoted you for what you said yesterday and now you say that you didn't say such things. Wow!
Well, I'm not sensitive, so I suppose it is okay for you to debate in such an insulting style like that.
...By me saying one should be open-minded to the idea, is hardly considered a "conclusion," as you say.
By the way, who did you say had the "reading comprehension" problems?
I don't believe that there is anything beyond this natural, material world, but not because I am narrow-minded. I am receptive to new ideas, and I don't hold rigid views. However, I don't accept factual claims without evidence, and I am not credulous. I use the same standards of evidence for all claims, without partiality.
You make an interesting point,but has many have said there are types of believers and non believers.Perhaps both suffer from paradigm paralysis.
Are you implying that believing in Bronze Age childish myths suggest deep thinking and a willingness to learn?
So there could be something beyond this material world, but imposing psychosis upon myself to experience it is a fraudulent and worthless pursuit. Get real!
when we want t o believe something everything becomes an evidence of our faith: belief without proof. Let's just accept others the way we want to be respected.
Sometimes we have lots of evidence that we refuse to interpret correctly, because we fear faith.
Great example is Intelligent Design. Plenty of evidence, just lots of denial because faith is required.
And, reason, logic and understanding are not required.
Funny how believers claim there is "plenty of evidence" when they can never produce any.
We don't need to produce any.
Open your eyes, and look around.
ALL of creation speaks of the Glory of God, the Creator.
I disagree, god has nothing to do with it. I think the universe is an awesome place and doesn't need a god to be that way.
Faith is only required when their is either no evidence or the conclusions are fictional. Intelligent design has been shown to be unscientific and unreliable as anything but religious belief in a court of law. How can you question that? Faith can make you believe anything you want to believe no matter how absurd or off the wall ridiculous the idea might be.
My faith is not based on "no matter how ridiculous it is"!
That's just your narrow minded interpretation.
I feel for you!
That's it. I don't feel for you any more!
I could care less what you feel about me or my belief. You can believe whatever silliness you like, I'd rather believe in what is real. The universe is an awesome place and faith in anything is insignificant.
If you truly could care less, then you would not have denigrated my belief as you did.
Please be consistent with you comments.
It's just a comment and not my lifestyle, get over it.
yup.here is suraly something beyond our imagination, which is unseen and unknown--and the only self-realised person can feel this but truth is that they only can see and feel this but cant discribe this to others..why? bcz as i said this is beyond imagination-- as what science proved in present was unbelievable in past... so if we dont know about any thing its not mean that," that is not exist......and as some people says here that they dont believe anything without any evidance..then just for them.."that we believes what we want to believe this all depands on our perseptions and belief which makes by our suroundings and our learnings..for understanding anything our mind makes some conditioning and formaulations which bounds us in limits, then how can we understand unlimited things with limited mind conditioning,and dont say that here is no evidances..bcz they are here near to you,but you cant see them just bcz of lack of ignorance..for an example--buddha was not a god he was just a normal confused man--he also wanted to solve many things like what god is? who i am? what the universe is?--and when he sit for inner travell then he realised those all things which we cant realise..so never say i dont believe or i believe...bcz this things makes us so strong on our belieff and with strong perception and belieff we can never accept the new things and real truth--so just open your mind and heart and open your soul
There's plenty we can't observe directly, but we still know exists, because we have evidence of it. We can't see/feel/taste love, but we know it exists because we see evidence that our family and friends love us. It's not like we seek out evidence for love as if we're doing an experiment; it's more of an unconscious thing.
Even dimensions beyond the third have some evidence, or at least there are some theories, such as string theory, which allow for the existence of additional spatial dimensions. In string theory, there isn't evidence so much as the theory allows that they can exist. String theory is still very much in the conjecture stage at this point, though.
A Ph.D. in math wrote this on another website:
"Few if any mathematicians would contest the assertion that mathematics strictly on its own cannot, by its very nature, tell you about the real world. Those of us in the business might bristle a little at calling it a tool, but I certainly believe that if you want to learn something about the real world you have to go examine the real world. Another way of putting it: Mathematics is really good at establishing 'If...Then...' statements. If gravity obeys an inverse square law then the planets will move in elliptical orbits. You need input from reality to decide if this mathematically correct statement has relevance to the world we live in, and how close the model is to reality."
Mathematics does not describe reality. Mathematics describes the variables artificially placed into the model by the mathmetician. So, you see, even someone who made his living with mathematics understands that all it does is describe, not explain.
"I believe even mathematics infers several dimensions beyond the 3d one. If this is correct, are they not the ones who are narrow minded, unwilling to learn?" "Mathematics does not describe reality. Mathematics describes the variables artificially placed into the model by the mathmetician." You use to statements in contradictory manners, you also fail to label your sources for verification (not that in this instance it is necessary but it would add credence to your statement.
You make the false claim and assumption that atheists assert things in the real world using only their five senses, however this is also false, because evidence is not necessarily about using the five senses. If you use physics and mathematics you can use the if then statements made to make predictions about the qualities of that which you are measuring beyond your five senses... however, what one cannot do, which is what believers to is assume that because what is unknown or beyond knowledge automatically concludes the existence of something beyond our ability to observe, using our five senses. The spiritual world has no evidence to even suggest it's existence so how can one conclude the existence of such a realm except merely by wishful thinking.
If one chooses to believe in the existence of such a realm then that is for them to believe, but if one wishes to assert to the rest of the world that such a realm exists and that others must also believe such a thing the the believer must also show a valid source of reference to this realm and evidence that supports it's existence. Otherwise, it's you asking us to take your word for it. Most con artists plead to the emotions of others to believe in something which does not exist, for the intentional misleading of that person. The Believer in the spiritual (or the supernatural or the divine) is no different except in that they actually believe in such a false claim and plead to their lack of knowledge or experience in such ideas to be able to dismiss it.
So it follows either prove your claim of the existence of the spiritual or super natural or preach to the choir. Otherwise, don't complain that we nonbelievers don't believe you.
Cooking with gas today, I see. Even ATM is seemingly more on it than usual. The fractal nature does extend up to galaxy class, and it is reasonable to expect that there is something even beyond the Big Bang. Each and every Blackhole could be a totally separate reality, and on the fractal framework, it is entirely possible that this entire universe we perceive is inside of a blackhole itself. Now what fractal pattern, increased to the absolute macro conclusion would constitute what we call God? Man. Man is part of the fractal reality, and this can be worked into a viable theory of the divine nature in respect to us. There also has to be room for the other possibilities of Blackholes, because it is from the existence of Blackholes that String theory becomes a viable possibility.
A black hole is a super dense dead star, a star that has become so large and massive that it has collapsed and it's gravity is so enormous that it rips apart and swallows everything in it's path. Light is a photo particle ina wave (like sound) which is visible at different spectrums at various wavelengths. Therefore light has a mass that is effect by the extreme gravity of a black hole. If you know why Saturn has rings (tidal forces) you will know why anything in the event horizon of a black hole is ripped apart. What is in a black hole? Everything it has eaten compacted. Every atom has space between it's parts, except inside a black hole. How do you spot a black hole? It warps space like a lense. If you know how a mirage works, it's the same effect.
"String theory is an active research framework in particle physics that attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity. It is a contender for a theory of everything, a self-contained mathematical model that describes all fundamental forces and forms of matter."
Sure, anyone can take scientific ideas, create fantasies and then assume their fantasies are valid.
Yes they can and they do. I think that's why much literature has gone from science fiction to science fantasy or just plain fantasy with little bits of science (as alchemy) poured in for fun.
At the moment before the big bang, matter and antimatter existed in equal quantities. In the moment after, it is believed, that all except a small amount of antimatter was destroyed, leaving only matter. Isn't it conceivable that there is a flip-side to the universal coin in which all matter was destroyed except for a small amount, and this is what actually constitutes what we call the "after-life"?
In this concept, the material reality constitutes half of the total sum of all reality. Antimatter universe would constitute the other 50%
Throw a little "quantum foam" in there along with some dark matter, and we'll have a good ol' time. In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is a currently unknown type of matter hypothesized to account for a large part of the total mass in the universe.
Quantum Foam is a probabilistic foamlike structure of space that probably makes up the cores of singularities, and that probably occurs in ordinary space on scales of the Planck-Wheeler length and less.
Fun-fun! Are you sure it is just 50% that doesn't represent a material presence?
I didn't want to throw too much at 'em. Figured if they could concede fifty percent, it's at least a start.
"Isn't it conceivable that there is a flip-side to the universal coin in which all matter was destroyed except for a small amount, and this is what actually constitutes what we call the "after-life"?" That would be an assumption not actually based on any evidence just supposition of the desire to have an afterlife type scenario.
Actually, it's the basis for quantum physics. Where do you think alternate universes would be/ To every action, there is an EQUAL AND OPPOSITE reaction. I charge for educational classes. My lecture fee is quite high.
You really don't seem to grasp what quantum physics is about or the idea of the "multiverse"... schrodinger's cat.
"Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment, sometimes described as a paradox, devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects. The scenario presents a cat that might be alive or dead, depending on an earlier random event. Although the original "experiment" was imaginary, similar principles have been researched and used in practical applications. The thought experiment is also often featured in theoretical discussions of the interpretation of quantum mechanics. In the course of developing this experiment."
It has nothing to do with an afterlife.
It's basically saying that there is an alternate you where you have made a different choice than you would make otherwise. If you die you are still dead but in an alternate realm you haven't died but the one that did die is not you it is another you separate from this version of you.
Sometimes it seems like I need to post these to many of you who mention subjects that you either don't understand or misrepresent. I had a discussion with a quantum physicist and asked them about what they thought about the whole afterlife idea and they laughed saying that it wasn't the same thing and it was laughable that anyone would suggest so.
That's a problem because no one claims to know what was going on "before" the big bang, there are many theories about this including what you mentioned but they are just suppositions made by different quantifiable discoveries about matter and antimatter, black holes, and quantum physics.
Chasuk, you're my hero. HubPages needs a like option.
Assuming that there is "proof" of any deity(s) throughout history, such as the case with Zeus, Allah and etcetera, wouldn't it be easy enough to fabricate those deities? Assuming only one religion is right, as is to be assumed if any of them are right, wouldn't the others have to be fabricated? Otherwise, a person would have to admit that multiple deities did the same exact thing in this singular dimension (the creation of the earth and such,) which would just be mind boggling. Their existences contradict each other (unless you're a polytheist.)
If we then assume that deities can be fabricated based on the evidence I just provided (more specifically the existence of deities,) is it not our duty to try and weed out the fabricated ones? People do this without even considering the deities.
Likewise, to say that there is no God or gods is akin to saying the origins of the universe have been explained. It's like putting the conclusion before the theory has been tested. Even if you do believe in the big bang, what started that and what started what started that and so on? God is the easy explanation, but there is no true, definitive evidence for it. It's just the only explanation that man can comprehend so far.
I often think of "Dexter's Laboratory." It might just be an old kid show, but one of the episodes brings up a very ingenious point. He's on a game show and can only say "fromage" for some silly and irrelevant reason. He is then asked the meaning of life and of course, answers with "fromage." He's right on the show! Now I'm not saying that cheese is the meaning of life, but who are we to say it's not? Being practical, I would highly doubt this of course.
The search for answers isn't a waste, as they might one day be found. A person just shouldn't assume anything without proper evidence.
If your in search of a spiritual truth, I recommend reading The Pagan Christ by Tom Harpur. It's actually got a good out look on the entire subject and they guy tries to remain unbiased in his research. I haven't finished it yet, but can say that it is intriguing and hard for me to put down.
Write a review as a hub and put a Amazon link in, you may as well make some cash form our buying it!
I don't know how much credence I would give to Harpur:
That Article is biased and unfounded. You use it as a reason for me not to give credence to this work, yet that article does nothing but attack a man because he refused to respond directly to someone. No offence to any moron who takes that article as more than a joke, but I've written several authors in my lifetime and each and every one of them refused to respond to anything I wrote. Your dumb if you honestly expect any author to respond about something they have written. Being a moron and attacking them because they didn't do what you expected is even dumber and just lends all the more credence to their work being accurate.
@EinderDarkwolf: You recommended a book that sounded interesting. Because I've appreciated a few of your hubs, I thought, "Maybe this will be a good purchase."
I read about 200 books a year, but I'm living in South Korea, so most of the books that I buy are in ebook form. I went to Amazon, where I discovered that The Pagan Christ was not available as an ebook. I don't buy many physical books, so I take especial care evaluating the ones that I do. I googled The Pagan Christ, and read the first five links. The fifth was the link I shared with you.
I didn't share it with you because I was disputing his work. I haven't read his work, and I don't dispute what I haven't read. In fact, my words to you were, "I DON'T KNOW how much credence I would give to Harpur." I meant exactly that, and nothing more. I shared it with you because some of the criticism seemed potentially legitimate. From reading your hubs, you seemed like the sort of person who enjoyed evaluating data from all sides. So I shared it with you for you to evaluate.
Your response to me? You insinuate that I am dumb. Thanks for that.
Thank you, Colpolbear. I didn't see this until a few moments ago; the HubPages forums are hideous. I seem to spend more time clicking "x replies" than I do replying.
As an aside, are you still playing Skyrim?
by Claire Evans 6 years ago
We hear often of atheists claiming that have looked for evidence of God but can find none but what would convince them? How do they go about investigating? How do they expect believers to prove it to them when it can only be proved to oneself and not by another?
by Claire Evans 7 years ago
That's the typical Sam Harris argument. How does suffering negate God's existence? Maybe He's just watching. It doesn't mean He doesn't exist and for anyone to bring up suffering as proof of no God is indication of a logical fallacy.
by M. T. Dremer 6 years ago
Atheists, can you make an argument for god's existence?They say that, in order to understand both sides of an issue, you must know enough that you could argue for the other side. It's a common practice in speech/debate classes. So this question is for atheists; can you make a convincing argument...
by HannahRiley 6 years ago
Does it make me close minded if I can't understand why people are atheists?I guess how is the better way to say it. I seriously question everything...like facts from history, ect...but for some reason Ive never questioned religion. I grew up in a Christian home, not a SUPER Christian home, but one...
by Mahaveer Sanglikar 2 years ago
Many believers like to say that Atheists should prove that there is no God. Believers should know that existence has to be proved, not the non-existence. If a thing exists, it is possible to prove its existence. So believers should prove the existence of God if he exists. But if they want to do it,...
by il Scettico 8 years ago
Many believe Atheism is not a religion because it does not follow traditional beliefs. Others believe it is a religion because it has to do with existentialism. What do you think?
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This 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.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We 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 Pixels||We 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.|