Do you believe in God?

Post Reply New Topic

Suffice to say, the issue is that heat death is no longer a persuasive hypothesis. I can get into details if you wish.

I'm kind of interested in that point. I often heard either collapse or heat death and that they were getting more persuaded it would be the later. What kind of alternatives are we looking at?

I've heard some people suggest that there may not have been a big bang or that there was one and then something like an eternal oscillation after that. Is that a bit like where you're headed?

Remember this post I made?

And if you cannot put them to the test, the hypothesis ceases to be a scientific matter, it is metaphysics at best.

Vaguely, and I'd ask the question because the post you're offering doesn't answer it. It just tells me that you personally reject the idea of heat death but not why or what alternate model you'd put in its place.

The post answers this quesiton, but if it is vague, then I apologize.

Techstep, DEE is set at a value in lambda-CDM that eventually it will continue to accelerate the expansion of the universe that in the next circa. 5 billion years, it will tear apart space time itself. If I can recall, gravity will cease to keep the stars together in a single formation, half an hour before the end, and one minute before the end atoms will be strung apart, and finally, spacetime itself will dissolve.

That's a fine explanation of the big rip, the model you seem to be suggesting to be incorrect.

I mean, are you willing to suggest an alternative to that or are you just saying you don't believe the big rip to be how things will end and hanging up the discussion on that note? I wanted to hear what your alternative was, not more details on the big rip.

So what will there be after the "big rip?"

Will another "universe" take its place?

I might be misunderstanding something perhaps, are you suggesting that heat death and big rip are different enough in what the terms mean that you're advocating big rip over heat death? I was of the impression that you were discarding both.

No, I am not suggesting the big rip scenario is incorrect. It is the most plausible explanation for how our universe would end.

There are four possibilities to how our universe will end.

* Contraction (potentially into a big bounce)
* Heat death (not possible in face of accelerating expansion)
* Big Rip (the most plausible, in my opinion)
* Ceaseless Expansion, or the notion that the universe will continue to expand forever.

This is indeed a very good question. Sadly, I do not think that even the most pedantic cosmologist will speculate upon such a notion.

The notion of a God as defined by people is absurd in that a microbe can't conceive of being an ant, and an ant can't conceive of being a human.

The need to puncture holes in a belief by spouting absurdities such as "Why did this, that or the other God allow this, that or the other bad thing to happen if this, that or the other God is so benevolent." really serves no purpose since it's based on a very narrow view of scriptures (all of them) and cherry picked for impact and not considered in proper context.

Quite frankly the above type of statement attempts to place humanity at the top of the 'do not disturb' list in the vast cosmos.

In the grand scheme of things, we are very inconsequential; an echo of a blip in a moment of time.

I don't believe we cease to exist at death. Our physical bodies are just recycled atoms which are constantly being rejiggered by intake of materials to create, repair and maintain cellular growth as well as excreting waste and dead materials out of the body.

Whatever consciousness is, some form of energy pattern, can't be lost due to physics laws that state that the total amount of energy in a closed system cannot be created nor destroyed (though it can be changed from one form to another).

Science is no more perfect than faith. It is just rationalized, yet just as limited as faith in the long run. Science gave us 'humours', 'ether', 'alchemy' and many other silly things during its long evolving path of knowledge. No doubt in one hundred years, there will be scientific 'facts' of today, that will be considered just as quaint.

There is just as much conjecture and dogma attached to science as there is to faith in certain circles. Both are evolving systems that have people, with all their weirdnesses vying to be some sort of authority. Many of them don't like being knocked off that top tier or even challenged.

I understand the scientific method and know it cannot be applied to faith. But, maybe that's because we do not know the questions to ask of both.

Some of the greatest theologians as well as scientists do not have a schism between science and faith. In fact, many of them speak freely about how one informs the other.

So, with all the crap above....why must it be one or the other? To me, and only me, it is just as silly of an argument as whether this deity or that deity is superior.

When you boil it down, this type of argument is really "What I believe is more 'right' than what you believe."

I think I get your point of My _____is better than your ____.

In my religion I am
A. A bit of dust.
B. Co Heir to the Kingdom and Glory.
C. Granted Grace and Forgiveness, when I fall short of that Glory.
D. All the above.

A lot of people are still tracking those rather seriously but more as topics of the subjective realm - ie. balance of one's internal four elements, the idea of an aether of akashia at the root of the self, alchemy not of the puffing variety (trying to manipulate the periodic table) but more toward the Hindu and Neoplatonist philosophies to transform oneself by applying mind to leverage epigenetic effects as well as endocrine and overall health and organization.

That said there are actually people out there, quite sober and disciplined, who do claim that they've had success in doing some rather interesting things to plant tinctures or even metal salts in solution that were akin to things people like Paracelcus and Basil Valentine said could be done. That's it's own side story I suppose and one where while considering those individuals it's difficult to imagine their bluffing I get that a person of high integrity saying they've done something and gotten results is still stuck in the anecdotal realm.

Aside from that I'd say I completely agree with your post. That and, with the way the universe seems to operate and the way people seem to experience exotic forms of consciousness, they by and large are unconcerned with our suffering or whether or not we survive as a species. Perhaps there are some very human (or previously human) agencies who had accrued enough depth and breadth in certain senses to have graduated and are sticking around to help us - can't confirm that one, haven't run into anyone or anything from what WE Butler liked to call the Withdrawn Order, but it would make sense on a panpsychic structure of the type considered.

I don't believe personally not because I'm intolerant of other viewpoints (an accusation that often gets thrown at me when I talk about this) but because I don't see any scientific evidence of this and I trust scientific tools and analysis to understand the world around me.

We have achieved so much in scientific advances that I don't think believing in a supernatural entity is a productive use of my time.I'd rather make new discoveries than maintain faith in the supernatural.

Just my opinion.

Science and God are not diametrically opposed or contrary.... rather, they are complimentary. This is a false dichotomy too many people buy into. You can go back and read the thread to see where we have thoroughly elaborated on this very topic specifically in the most depth I would say.