How massive the universe really is

[Linguofreak]

The quark who believes that he is so special as to warrant a relationship with the human is not being humble.

This is where the analogy breaks down. A quark may warrant the interest of a human being because there is something special about that quark that warrants a good chunk of that human's limited processing power.

Humans warrant the interest of God not because they are extraordinarily special, but because God has enough processing power that nothing need be ignored. That's where the wonder comes in.

Also, take the example of an artist and a painting. The painting need not be the greatest or most special painting the artist has ever painted to warrant the artists attention. It is his painting, and it warrants his attention because he chose to paint it and chooses to give it attention. If it is a work in progress, it warrants his attention because it is the painting he is working on at the moment.

As humans, we are used to thinking of people who have something to offer us, or can take something from us, or have some special status that merits special favor as being the ones that deserve our attention. We tend to forget that sometimes even we turn our minds to the most unremarkable things for the purpose of simple amusement.

 

[MJR]

Here is an even better comparison. It is Earth compared to Canis Major to the Milky Way compared to the Universe.

 

[kneejo]

I understand that, but a religion is nothing if not a collection of assumptions taken on faith, is it not?

Science also starts out with an assumption based on a belief/theory.

The religious person has followed this assumption and discovers it is real.

If any scientific assumption from the past wasn't followed through out of pure belief in a theory, we wouldn't have advanced that much. So why can't people take that same step towards God?

What's the difference between hearing for the first time that energy and mass are in fact the same thing and believing in God? To discover either, this belief must be followed through..

Okay, I won't wait for answers on that.. I'll give them; belief in science is encouraged from a young age in schools and is the generally accepted school of thought in this time, and therefore belief in God is considered absurd and is discouraged in general.. yet, still at least 2/3rd of the world believes in God in one way or another..

There is a logical conclusion to make here, but I'll leave that up to the scientists here.

---------- Post added at 04:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:55 AM ----------

I find the idea that the creator of all that stuff wants a relationship with me to be mind-boggling. It's like me wanting a relationship with a quark.

I have a relationship with him, but it's not really good. To me, it's not like he wants a relationship.. It's like, he offers an inescapable choice; choose to love him (which is not something a person can actually choose.. I don't remember 'choosing' any love I encountered in this life) or suffer the consequences; a life that's hell and an afterlife that's hell, compared to what He just offered you.

The only (but invalid) escape is to choose not to believe anymore, which can be quite difficult once your on it and He's shown you the wonders of it all.

Not to discourage other believers.. I realize I don't have a healthy relationship with God.. things can be better, if you're not me, I guess.

signing off.. having a bad day..


<edit>getting back on the love thing; people tell me God is capable of loving even if the feelings are not mutual. To me, as a human, I know this.. there are many people I love, who don't love me back (I don't expect them to) I can respect that. But it doesn't mean I want to burn them in hell for that, as long as they leave me in peace.. personally, I feel that for a Being that has existed forever, God does seem to have a lot of emotional issues and anger problems.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

OK, so these two quarks walk into a bar....
(ice breaker?)

 

[insanity]

What's the difference between hearing for the first time that energy and mass are in fact the same thing and believing in God? To discover either, this belief must be followed through..

The difference is that one can be empirically demonstrated. For example, I can go into a lab and construct an experiment that explains how ascorbic acid disappears as it interacts with ethanol. My model of the reaction does not diminish its inherent coolness as a function of nature and chemistry, but it does explain an element of it so that others will know how that reaction happens. A more provocative example would be evolution. It is fairly hard to deny that life undergoes constant change in response to other life. Bacteria illustrate quite well that they can adapt to antibacterial soap and continue to persist. We have many models that explain this process, models which we constantly update and refine in response to arising science. Note, nowhere here did I say that science is an objective truth, because it is not.

However, the universe is entirely too massive for me to grip... I can hardly grasp the distance between my feet and the stairs. I do believe that there are a lot of things about the universe we won't know which leaves a lot of room for people to have no idea about what is really going on. I count myself amongst them- I'm just along for the ride until my time expires.

 

[computerex]

Science: A tool to make your life easier.
Believe in whatever you like, and use science to make models that give you good approximations of how the universe behaves. Screw the implications of the models, they don't add anything useful.

Allah is the one who created seven heavens and from Earth like them (of corresponding type); [Allah’s] command descends among them (heavens and earths) so that you may know that Allah is capable of anything and that Allah knows everything.
(Quran 65.12)http://quran.al-islam.com/Targama/DispTargam.asp?nType=1&nSeg=0&l=eng&nSora=65&nAya=12&t=frn

 

[kneejo]

Wow, I was really getting too serious about this last night. I'll try not to do that again.

The difference is that one can be empirically demonstrated.

It can now, but in the early stages it was only an assumption, that led to a theory, that turned out to work.
My opinion is, that in case of God, you could follow the same principal. It amazes me, that many people don't take this leap of thought.

It is said, that many prophets, Jesus in particular have empirically proven this for the people in their time.

This might not be according to scientific rules, but eye-witness accounts (which is what the bible is, in fact) usually are treated with quite serious consideration. If Jesus would walk the earth today, doing the same miracles, I think the news will spread fast and it will be easier to believe then when reading from an old book. 2000 years is not that old, in my opinion anyway, especially compared to all the other conclusions science likes to draw based on 'evidence' that's hundreds of thousands of years old.

 

[garyw]

when reading from an old book. 2000 years is not that old, in my opinion anyway, especially compared to all the other conclusions science likes to draw based on 'evidence' that's hundreds of thousands of years old.

So, you are happy to have major surgery based on a medical book from 2,000 years ago?

 

[Linguofreak]

So, you are happy to have major surgery based on a medical book from 2,000 years ago?

At the moment, I would not be happy to have a major surgery based on any medical book, because, as far as I know, I am healthy.

The age of the book doesn't really matter in and of itself. If someone were to find the ruins of an ancient and advanced human civilization with medical technology far superior to our own (not that that is at all likely to happen), and I needed major surgery, I would be happy to have my surgery based on a method from a book from that civilization even if the book were 50,000 years old.

Going back to the real world, the reason I would not be happy to have a surgery from a 2,000 year old medical book is not the age of the book, but that I know the medical technology of the era wasn't very good.

Truth is always better than falsehood, whether it's yesterday's truth and today's falsehood, or yesterday's falsehood and today's truth.

---------- Post added at 04:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:06 PM ----------

Recall that there were still those who, even having witnessed such miracles, disbelieved enough to have him crucified. And have another look at John 20:29.

I don't think there'd be much difference today, and I don't think people would be much more or less inclined to believe by seeing miracles themselves than by reading about them from the Bible.

 

[Ghostrider]

If Jesus were to walk the Earth now, the Vatican would pull a hit on him before you could say Kyrie Eleison.

 

[garyw]

Going back to the real world, the reason I would not be happy to have a surgery from a 2,000 year old medical book is not the age of the book, but that I know the medical technology of the era wasn't very good.

Exactly. Yet people will believe a book that WASN'T written until 800 years after the event and even then was changed around to make this "God" creature appear to be kind and loving when in actuality "God" killed more people in the old testament than Rambo.

 

[Ghostrider]

"God" killed more people in the old testament than Rambo.

You know, Monday mornings are hard on everybody.

 

[garyw]

You know, Monday mornings are hard on everybody.

Except "God", because if you believe the propoganda he is without error.... so, Monday mornings should be perfect for him and if he is so damn perfect why did the church make the new testment and stop people from being stoned for not eating fish on Fridays?

WE WANT ANSWERS!!!

 

[Ghostrider]

WE WANT ANSWERS!!!

Well, you won't get them from me because I'm no theologist and I don't pretend to know God that much.

I just cross Her sometimes and we say hello, but that's about it...

 

[atuhalpa]

My question is this: Why is the belief in any of the iterations of Abraham's mythology, whose origins are possibly 6000+ years ancient, off limits to ridicule and derision, but another belief such as Norse mythology or Greek mythology open to all kinds of disparagement if it is taken seriously? To quote Stevie Wonder, "When you believe in things you don't understand then you suffer, superstition ain't the way"

 

[Ghostrider]

My question is this: Why is the belief in any of the iterations of Abraham's mythology, whose origins are possibly 6000+ years ancient, off limits to ridicule and derision

They aren't. It's perfectly safe to poke fun at Christians. In fact, they make some of the best jokes about themselves.

 

[Andy44]

It can now, but in the early stages it was only an assumption, that led to a theory, that turned out to work.

Incorrect. Science is based on skepticism. The "assumption" is held only for purposes of theorizing. The scientist doing the assuming doesn't actually believe in it, he's just holding it to set up an experiment or an equation for the sake of argument. He is fully aware that his assumption may turn out to be wrong.

The religionist (for lack of a better word) makes assumptions that cannot be tested, hence the word "faith". And in the case of many religions, he is emotionally attached to those assumptions, and being human, he will ignore evidence to the contrary if he can.

Of course, a person can be both a scientist and a religionist at the same time. The scientist who is emotionally attached to his theory and can't let it go even after it has been proven false, for example. Or Albert Einstein, with his famous "God does not roll dice" comment, a comment which was made when he was playing the roll of religionist rather than scientist.

I take Michael Schermer's stance on this: there's nothing wrong with having religious faith, as long as you can separate it from real science. For many people, it may be beneficial to their mental health to be comforted about the prospect of an afterlife. Religion only becomes a problem when it holds back science and retards human knowledge of the physical world, a la Dark Ages.

 

[Ghostrider]

For many people, it may be beneficial to their mental health to be comforted about the prospect of an afterlife. Religion only becomes a problem when it holds back science and retards human knowledge of the physical world, a la Dark Ages.

Actually, the prospect of an afterlife is quite terrifying when you stop and consider it. Moreover, belief in a God and in an afterlife are not necessarily connected.

As for the Dark Ages... If that's another term for the Middle Ages you might find that it was an exciting time for science and engineering and the term was coined by Enlighteners who believed they were so much better (while vehemently denying the existence of meteorites for starters).

 

[Moonwalker]

To me it is somehow simple to imagine that the universe has no end and no beginning. Because I think it is just an accumulation of matter that expands within nothing we tend to call universe.

I also think there are no restrictions of size. There is not a biggest thing, nor a smallest particle. Everything that exists still is divisible. There is no rational reason why a particle should be as small to become indivisible / the smallest one.

---------- Post added at 05:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:51 PM ----------

Actually, the prospect of an afterlife is quite terrifying when you stop and consider it.

Indeed. The conception of paradise and endless existence is quite a torture. Because you're forced to live forever, to always do the same things, talk about the same things. Because ironically, I've often heard by believer that the spirit is something that does not develope. It's just there. Always and forever. But believe me, even 72 virgins become boring after a certain period of time :lol:

Afterlife is a conscious contradiction to death, caused by fear of finiteness. I'll take it like Einstein, that Religion is the paragon of the most childish superstition, and the product of human weakness.

 

[martins]

They aren't. It's perfectly safe to poke fun at Christians. In fact, they make some of the best jokes about themselves.

Really? Somehow, this lot got their knickers into a serious twist when faced with competition. :lol: