But then again, to quote Mr Carlin, "What's the point in praying if it's already all been decided in God's 'Divine Plan?' What's the point of being a Supreme Being with a 'Divine Plan' if it can get screwed up by any schmuck with a $2 Prayer Book?"
Sometimes I really wish that people such as the guy you're quoting would either read the bible, ask questions, simply state why they don't believe or not say anything. How can you pull something apart and make arguments against it if you don't know about it? How can you argue against the theology of Christianity or any faith if you haven't read the book and understood it's context? Anyone who has read the bible will know of examples when God has heard the cries of his people and responded. For example, Hannah desperately pleaded and wrestled with God for him to bless her with a child and God responded. The Bible is clear about the power of prayer to change circumstances within his will. He says he longs to give us the desires of our hearts.
I have a GSCE in Religious Education (Catholic). In general, there is an argument to back up / justify any position you like in the Bible if you selectively quote. That involves good and bad actions.
Religion can be individually helpful and provides a sense of community. It is belief and opinion. Ultimately it is a matter of faith that cannot be proven one or other.
With all due respect to Addick in SW16.
There is some truth in that. What is important is the context. Knowing why and when a passage was written and having a background of the particular scripture.
I though the bible was "the word"? Am I missing the contemporary "help notes", or the "Making of" video somewhere along the line that no one has told me about? A bible "idiots guide" that was written at the time perhaps?
Oh dear. All I was saying is that a bible verse in isolation can be taken out of context and manipulated as with any text. To know the full meaning of the text it is important to know it's context. Usually just knowing the full body of a particular passage to know what a particular verse is saying.
I will ignore the "Oh dear", in the spirit of this debate.
You mention three aspects of biblical study: Why, when and background.
The why is about control, though I am fully aware you do not interpret it like that.
The when is at least three generations after the supposed events according to you; the vast majority written much, much later and to suit the politics of the time. By the fact that you failed to answer my question about Paul's letter to the Corinthians, I take it as read that it is in fact hearsay, and that original text - and indeed others like it - do not actually exist.
The background is entirely open to debate, "biblical scholars" interpretations of the events in the main - it is clear from your writings that as well as the bible you have read at least some of this work and have formed an opinion based on some of that. The truth isn't really known (other than things like yes, there was a king called Herod etc), it's just some bloke's take on the subject, often made with a hidden agenda to do with control, once again.
For hundreds of years those scholars attested that the earth was indeed 6000 years old, and the church stubbornly stood by that as a fact until scientific evidence proved it wrong (unless you are a mid-west bible belt creation nutter...). You are right, it does not say it in the bible, but the church stated it as fact nonetheless. Had you been studying your scholars pre-Darwin, you would almost certainly have been saying exactly the same thing.
The church gets things wrong. I don't believe anything a religious leader can tell me unless they can show me where it mentions it in the bible.
Well, that's a bit contradictory isn't it? The individuals who wrote the Gospels were merely religious leaders of some kind were they not? How can you reasonably believe what an anonymous religious leader wrote down in Greek 1900 years ago and well after the events took place (and later amended considerably in many aspects by scribes who didn't like the original very much) but not what a religious leader says now?
And what happens about the contradictory bits in the bible? Which is right and which is wrong?
Respect my faith! The last refuge of the religious when they have lost the argument.
I respect the right to hold Religious views, but in no way do I respect the actual views. I tend to find that this is rarely reciprocated by believers and in many cases most religions are intolerant of dissent.
Personally I actively seek to undermine peoples faith at every available opportunity by logical argument and the development of discrepancy. Religion is probably the most destructive force working against mankind.
Respect my faith! The last refuge of the religious when they have lost the argument.
I respect the right to hold Religious views, but in no way do I respect the actual views. I tend to find that this is rarely reciprocated by believers and in many cases most religions are intolerant of dissent.
Personally I actively seek to undermine peoples faith at every available opportunity by logical argument and the development of discrepancy. Religion is probably the most destructive force working against mankind.
Respect my faith! The last refuge of the religious when they have lost the argument.
I respect the right to hold Religious views, but in no way do I respect the actual views. I tend to find that this is rarely reciprocated by believers and in many cases most religions are intolerant of dissent.
Personally I actively seek to undermine peoples faith at every available opportunity by logical argument and the development of discrepancy. Religion is probably the most destructive force working against mankind.
Also if the is a God how do you explain Millwall?
You've got me :-(
Easily explained - if there is a God then Millwall can be quoted as being evidence of His fallability.
I am a radical atheist with strong anti- theist leanings. Losing my religion was one of the most liberating, joyous and life affirming events in my existence. I believe in secular Government and education and strongly recommend reading at least;
Richard Dawkins, " The God Delusion", - systematic, humorous, logical, dispassionate, point by point, demolition of religion.
Sam Hill " Letter to a Christian Nation"
Christopher Hitchins " God is not Great"
& Peter Boghossian " A Manual for Creating Atheists " Argues that atheists should actively seek to liberate people from their religion and provides a detailed method for achieving this.
If there is a God, the best thing that can be said is that basically he is an underachiever. All religions are the same guilt, with different holidays.
PS COYR's!
Yeah but...
What was the 'beginning'?
Can you whisper it to me, I won't tell.
Seriously? - Between ourselves, ..... roughly 14 billion years ago - about tea time.
Recommend " A Universe From Nothing" Lawrence Krauss - No God required!
I'm not saying that a God was required for 'the beginning' not at all.
I suppose I am saying that science is very very unlikely to be able to explain 'the beginning' either. We look back at the first billionth of a second after the apparent big bang, we reckon it happened 14 billion years ago (don't know how a year was calculated then before we had a sun and moon to order time for us), but in the end we come up against the question I proposed earlier...what banged, how did it exist if what banged was the start of existence, how did it happen, what did it bang into?
If science answers those questions, with the proof and evidence many in this thread demand, then that will be blimmin good going. There may not, incidentally, be many steps between scientific 'theory' and religious 'faith'.
I reckon it was on those starry nights, kids in bed, bellies full, that mankind started having conversations about 'where did it all come from', and 'what's it all about'. It is from those conversations that mankind struggled to make sense of it all. Originally from Religions, and lately from science, but just as religion won't find the answers to the big questions, neither will science.
Science however does provide us with a good practical basis to get through our lives, and at it's very best some aspect of religious thought provide some of us with a good moral basis to get through our lives.
Incidentally this has been a great thread, not because I can prove it, not because I have faith that it is, but because the phenomenology of the number of posts suggests so.
But then again, to quote Mr Carlin, "What's the point in praying if it's already all been decided in God's 'Divine Plan?' What's the point of being a Supreme Being with a 'Divine Plan' if it can get screwed up by any schmuck with a $2 Prayer Book?"
Sometimes I really wish that people such as the guy you're quoting would either read the bible, ask questions, simply state why they don't believe or not say anything. How can you pull something apart and make arguments against it if you don't know about it? How can you argue against the theology of Christianity or any faith if you haven't read the book and understood it's context? Anyone who has read the bible will know of examples when God has heard the cries of his people and responded. For example, Hannah desperately pleaded and wrestled with God for him to bless her with a child and God responded. The Bible is clear about the power of prayer to change circumstances within his will. He says he longs to give us the desires of our hearts.
George Carlin was raised Catholic. I suspect he was more than familiar with the bible.
With a clearly poor understanding of the key themes of the book. I find it hard to believe that he knows the bible with comments like that. I have given an example from the bible that demonstrates my point.
That highlights perfectly the futility of a discussion about religion between someone who believes in it, and someone who doesn't. If the bible was 'true' then there wouldn't need to be an 'interpretation' of the themes in it. You can 'interpret' a book like 1984 however you want - because it's a 'fictional' book. You can't 'interpret' the Haynes Manual for a 1984 Ford Cortina - because it's a 'factual' book.
If you just take the bible as a bunch of stories to live your life by - I have no problem with that. I have problems with the content of a lot of them, and it's frankly ridiculous to live your life by some of them 2000 years later as they have zero relevance to how we live today - but as a concept, if you just take the 'peace and love' and ignore the 'eye for an eye' stuff, that's great.
What I do have an issue with, is people attempting to 'justify' their faith by trying to 'prove' that God exists. Surely, if God DOES exist, then why do you need to prove it?
Those that believe don't need to prove it because they have faith.
They are placed in that position by non believers that ask them to.
When those same non believers reject the evidence they are offered, which is of course their right, they then tend to get annoyed when the response from the believer is something like ok you disagree with my efforts then prove to me that God does not exist.
None of this would matter very much if it was possible to live and let live but governments of all hues advocate a "one size fits all" approach and that's where the problems and disputes start between the two sides in my view.
But then again, to quote Mr Carlin, "What's the point in praying if it's already all been decided in God's 'Divine Plan?' What's the point of being a Supreme Being with a 'Divine Plan' if it can get screwed up by any schmuck with a $2 Prayer Book?"
Sometimes I really wish that people such as the guy you're quoting would either read the bible, ask questions, simply state why they don't believe or not say anything. How can you pull something apart and make arguments against it if you don't know about it? How can you argue against the theology of Christianity or any faith if you haven't read the book and understood it's context? Anyone who has read the bible will know of examples when God has heard the cries of his people and responded. For example, Hannah desperately pleaded and wrestled with God for him to bless her with a child and God responded. The Bible is clear about the power of prayer to change circumstances within his will. He says he longs to give us the desires of our hearts.
George Carlin was raised Catholic. I suspect he was more than familiar with the bible.
With a clearly poor understanding of the key themes of the book. I find it hard to believe that he knows the bible with comments like that. I have given an example from the bible that demonstrates my point.
That highlights perfectly the futility of a discussion about religion between someone who believes in it, and someone who doesn't. If the bible was 'true' then there wouldn't need to be an 'interpretation' of the themes in it. You can 'interpret' a book like 1984 however you want - because it's a 'fictional' book. You can't 'interpret' the Haynes Manual for a 1984 Ford Cortina - because it's a 'factual' book.
If you just take the bible as a bunch of stories to live your life by - I have no problem with that. I have problems with the content of a lot of them, and it's frankly ridiculous to live your life by some of them 2000 years later as they have zero relevance to how we live today - but as a concept, if you just take the 'peace and love' and ignore the 'eye for an eye' stuff, that's great.
What I do have an issue with, is people attempting to 'justify' their faith by trying to 'prove' that God exists. Surely, if God DOES exist, then why do you need to prove it?
Those that believe don't need to prove it because they have faith.
They are placed in that position by non believers that ask them to.
When those same non believers reject the evidence they are offered, which is of course their right, they then tend to get annoyed when the response from the believer is something like ok you disagree with my efforts then prove to me that God does not exist.
None of this would matter very much if it was possible to live and let live but governments of all hues advocate a "one size fits all" approach and that's where the problems and disputes start between the two sides in my view.
Respect my faith! The last refuge of the religious when they have lost the argument.
I respect the right to hold Religious views, but in no way do I respect the actual views. I tend to find that this is rarely reciprocated by believers and in many cases most religions are intolerant of dissent.
Personally I actively seek to undermine peoples faith at every available opportunity by logical argument and the development of discrepancy. Religion is probably the most destructive force working against mankind.
Also if the is a God how do you explain Millwall?
" Religion is probably the most destructive force working against mankind" . Profound words indeed, IAgree & I do ( agree, that is)
My earlier post regarding a view held by many that with no religion, there would be no wars was a somewhat provocative statement but one in which I believe there is a great deal of truth. Perhaps more succinct wording would be that rivers of blood have been shed in the name of religion over the centuries and as we are all only too aware, continues apace in these "enlightened" times.
I am a radical atheist with strong anti- theist leanings. Losing my religion was one of the most liberating, joyous and life affirming events in my existence. I believe in secular Government and education and strongly recommend reading at least;
Richard Dawkins, " The God Delusion", - systematic, humorous, logical, dispassionate, point by point, demolition of religion.
Sam Hill " Letter to a Christian Nation"
Christopher Hitchins " God is not Great"
& Peter Boghossian " A Manual for Creating Atheists " Argues that atheists should actively seek to liberate people from their religion and provides a detailed method for achieving this.
If there is a God, the best thing that can be said is that basically he is an underachiever. All religions are the same guilt, with different holidays.
PS COYR's!
Yeah but...
What was the 'beginning'?
Can you whisper it to me, I won't tell.
Seriously? - Between ourselves, ..... roughly 14 billion years ago - about tea time.
Recommend " A Universe From Nothing" Lawrence Krauss - No God required!
I'm not saying that a God was required for 'the beginning' not at all.
I suppose I am saying that science is very very unlikely to be able to explain 'the beginning' either. We look back at the first billionth of a second after the apparent big bang, we reckon it happened 14 billion years ago (don't know how a year was calculated then before we had a sun and moon to order time for us), but in the end we come up against the question I proposed earlier...what banged, how did it exist if what banged was the start of existence, how did it happen, what did it bang into?
If science answers those questions, with the proof and evidence many in this thread demand, then that will be blimmin good going. There may not, incidentally, be many steps between scientific 'theory' and religious 'faith'.
I reckon it was on those starry nights, kids in bed, bellies full, that mankind started having conversations about 'where did it all come from', and 'what's it all about'. It is from those conversations that mankind struggled to make sense of it all. Originally from Religions, and lately from science, but just as religion won't find the answers to the big questions, neither will science.
Science however does provide us with a good practical basis to get through our lives, and at it's very best some aspect of religious thought provide some of us with a good moral basis to get through our lives.
Incidentally this has been a great thread, not because I can prove it, not because I have faith that it is, but because the phenomenology of the number of posts suggests so.
The age of the Universe is calculated using two different methods. One is measuring the speed and distances of galaxies. We know that all Galaxies in the universe are moving apart, we know that at one time they were very close together. Measure their speed against the rate of Universe expansion and it comes to about 13.7 billion years ago. The second is measuring the oldest star clusters in the known universe. There are some orbiting our Milky Way that are 13 billion years old. We do not need our own star to measure this time.
I am a radical atheist with strong anti- theist leanings. Losing my religion was one of the most liberating, joyous and life affirming events in my existence. I believe in secular Government and education and strongly recommend reading at least;
Richard Dawkins, " The God Delusion", - systematic, humorous, logical, dispassionate, point by point, demolition of religion.
Sam Hill " Letter to a Christian Nation"
Christopher Hitchins " God is not Great"
& Peter Boghossian " A Manual for Creating Atheists " Argues that atheists should actively seek to liberate people from their religion and provides a detailed method for achieving this.
If there is a God, the best thing that can be said is that basically he is an underachiever. All religions are the same guilt, with different holidays.
PS COYR's!
Yeah but...
What was the 'beginning'?
Can you whisper it to me, I won't tell.
Seriously? - Between ourselves, ..... roughly 14 billion years ago - about tea time.
Recommend " A Universe From Nothing" Lawrence Krauss - No God required!
I'm not saying that a God was required for 'the beginning' not at all.
I suppose I am saying that science is very very unlikely to be able to explain 'the beginning' either. We look back at the first billionth of a second after the apparent big bang, we reckon it happened 14 billion years ago (don't know how a year was calculated then before we had a sun and moon to order time for us), but in the end we come up against the question I proposed earlier...what banged, how did it exist if what banged was the start of existence, how did it happen, what did it bang into?
If science answers those questions, with the proof and evidence many in this thread demand, then that will be blimmin good going. There may not, incidentally, be many steps between scientific 'theory' and religious 'faith'.
I reckon it was on those starry nights, kids in bed, bellies full, that mankind started having conversations about 'where did it all come from', and 'what's it all about'. It is from those conversations that mankind struggled to make sense of it all. Originally from Religions, and lately from science, but just as religion won't find the answers to the big questions, neither will science.
Science however does provide us with a good practical basis to get through our lives, and at it's very best some aspect of religious thought provide some of us with a good moral basis to get through our lives.
Incidentally this has been a great thread, not because I can prove it, not because I have faith that it is, but because the phenomenology of the number of posts suggests so.
The age of the Universe is calculated using two different methods. One is measuring the speed and distances of galaxies. We know that all Galaxies in the universe are moving apart, we know that at one time they were very close together. Measure their speed against the rate of Universe expansion and it comes to about 13.7 billion years ago. The second is measuring the oldest star clusters in the known universe. There are some orbiting our Milky Way that are 13 billion years old. We do not need our own star to measure this time.
OK, thanks for that, I almost understand. I suppose it might be more comprehensible to an idiot like me if we said 13.7 billion earth years ago. Are the rules different for the other universes?
My thoughts were too long so having to break this up into different posts - hope it reads okay.
This is a great thread to discuss. On a personal level I was raised a catholic, baptised and took holy communion, but was never confirmed. I believe that if you are brought up this way then it does play a part in what you believe and whether or not you have faith. However, I am also deeply into reading about science, the universe and astro/particle physics. The more I read about such matters, convinces me we are all born of the stars (not some sort of zen, hippy philosophy), but actually put together by the birth and death of stars and all the matter and elements that occur when a star is going through its various stages of life. A lot of theory is embedded in the Big Bang and now things like cosmic inflation, dark matter and even dark energy. People often ask 'what came before the Big Bang' when trying to understand what put us here if it wasn't a higher being or some sort of creationism theory. That's a perfectly good question and probably where I would start if I wanted to question what was here before the universe etc. More often than not an answer that is put forward is that space and time are concepts that only existed once the Big Bang occurred, ie the scientific community cannot give you an answer to that question, because time was immaterial. You cannot measure in time what didn't exist. Then the argument becomes rather circular and philosophical because it is open to anyone to say 'what put the Big Bang there etc'. I wouldn't be able to answer that, and the men and women that dedicate their lives to delving deeper into particle physics, and what gives matter its mass in attempt to try and get a grips on the early nano seconds of our universe, often end up raising more questions than answers. All the recent experiments at the LHC and at other labs around the world dedicated to particle physics are wrestling with an age old problem of trying to unify the strong force (gripping together of protons and neutrons in atomic nuclei). The weak force, which also known as the electroweak force as in the standard model of physics it is merged with electromagnetism (electrically charged particles). Finally gravity. Gravity has long since been the force they have found hard to adapt to any unifying theories. As such, many of the experiments being carried out today at the particle physics level, are to understand, how, if at all gravity can be linked in any way, shape or form to those at the sub atomic level. So far, it has raised more questions in addition to giving us new theories, as there is still a disconnect between gravity and the standard quantum model.
This brings me onto my next point about the possibility of people believing in a multi-verse. Gravity's effects can be seen by the orbit of planets around our sun or galaxies around black holes, because they are of such a scale. When we consider that all the matter that is visible to us in our universe only constitutes 6% of the total matter, then we have to make up another 94% from somewhere. They say 34% of this is dark matter, and 70% dark energy. Now I have read about both of these subjects, but not being from a scientific background, anything I write on here will be sketchy at best. The reason I mention these topics is because I believe in the theory that both dark matter and dark energy have a part to play in why gravity is such a comparatively weak force in our universe. I think the simplest way to explain it is that when scientists observe stars billions of light years away, very occasionally they notice a shift in position or something they can't account for (ie dark matter (essentially particles popping in and out of existence and how they interact with that star)). I think, although I can't be too sure as I am writing all this off the top of my head, that some scientists propose the interaction between dark matter, gravity and the stars is ever so slight, because there are multiple universes, and each exist inside a bubble that gravity has to essentially pass through, lessening the force of that interaction each time. I give this this theory even more of my time when you consider the scale of the universe. I think the furthest measured or known observable point in our universe is 30 billion light years away (in a universe that is constantly expanding too). Now when we consider that a light year is in actual distance 5,700,000,000,000,000 (trillion - I hope that's the correct amount of zeros) km (I think km, not miles), that is a scale overwhelming to the actual size of us and our planet. That's a universe of 100 billion odd galaxies, each with a 100 billion odd stars. This is where my head really cannot get to grips with the vast enormity of what is out there. But I believe if this sort of scale/size is true, then what is to say ours is the only universe? Our place in the uni/multiverse is governed by our size, our technology and our physical understanding of something potentially way beyond what our brains are built for.
I also use this size and scale to suggest that we are categorically not the only form of even intelligent life in the universe. We've been studying various moons of planets in our solar systems and ones that purport to have microbial primitive life forms on, and there is strong evidence the possibility of remote life can exist (see water bears for this - they are essentially things found on earth that exist in extreme temperatures, possibly even space). Now I believe that if you have a universe of the size of ours, coupled with the fact that each star of certain size goes through the same process at its core of nuclear fussion, creating the same elements that exist here on earth, then you'd have to be pretty dismissive to say there isn't other intelligent life out there. If you believe writers like Erik Von Daniken, we have already been visited by such life. People might think I am silly mentioning what are essentially aliens, but some of his writing leads some interesting questions that can be tied back to faith and religion. I'm going to start with a basic argument of his. If you go back to say 4-5000 bc, one of the first established civilisations were the Sumerians in Northern Iraq. The artefacts that they have left behind from that time talk of flying Gods and strange beings that were more often than not etched into stone and monuments. Now Von Daniken reckons that if you were around at that time and you saw such a flash in the sky or being of that form that you had never seen before, what or how are you going to make any sense of it? He purports that it is the same for every culture across 1000s of years. The Greeks and the Romans had similar 'Gods'. Poseidon lived under the sea, Zeus rode a chariot across the sky. Could this not have been extra terrestrial beings that people at that time could not make any sense of?
I am a radical atheist with strong anti- theist leanings. Losing my religion was one of the most liberating, joyous and life affirming events in my existence. I believe in secular Government and education and strongly recommend reading at least;
Richard Dawkins, " The God Delusion", - systematic, humorous, logical, dispassionate, point by point, demolition of religion.
Sam Hill " Letter to a Christian Nation"
Christopher Hitchins " God is not Great"
& Peter Boghossian " A Manual for Creating Atheists " Argues that atheists should actively seek to liberate people from their religion and provides a detailed method for achieving this.
If there is a God, the best thing that can be said is that basically he is an underachiever. All religions are the same guilt, with different holidays.
PS COYR's!
Yeah but...
What was the 'beginning'?
Can you whisper it to me, I won't tell.
Seriously? - Between ourselves, ..... roughly 14 billion years ago - about tea time.
Recommend " A Universe From Nothing" Lawrence Krauss - No God required!
I'm not saying that a God was required for 'the beginning' not at all.
I suppose I am saying that science is very very unlikely to be able to explain 'the beginning' either. We look back at the first billionth of a second after the apparent big bang, we reckon it happened 14 billion years ago (don't know how a year was calculated then before we had a sun and moon to order time for us), but in the end we come up against the question I proposed earlier...what banged, how did it exist if what banged was the start of existence, how did it happen, what did it bang into?
If science answers those questions, with the proof and evidence many in this thread demand, then that will be blimmin good going. There may not, incidentally, be many steps between scientific 'theory' and religious 'faith'.
I reckon it was on those starry nights, kids in bed, bellies full, that mankind started having conversations about 'where did it all come from', and 'what's it all about'. It is from those conversations that mankind struggled to make sense of it all. Originally from Religions, and lately from science, but just as religion won't find the answers to the big questions, neither will science.
Science however does provide us with a good practical basis to get through our lives, and at it's very best some aspect of religious thought provide some of us with a good moral basis to get through our lives.
Incidentally this has been a great thread, not because I can prove it, not because I have faith that it is, but because the phenomenology of the number of posts suggests so.
The age of the Universe is calculated using two different methods. One is measuring the speed and distances of galaxies. We know that all Galaxies in the universe are moving apart, we know that at one time they were very close together. Measure their speed against the rate of Universe expansion and it comes to about 13.7 billion years ago. The second is measuring the oldest star clusters in the known universe. There are some orbiting our Milky Way that are 13 billion years old. We do not need our own star to measure this time.
OK, thanks for that, I almost understand. I suppose it might be more comprehensible to an idiot like me if we said 13.7 billion earth years ago. Are the rules different for the other universes?
Sorry, yes earth years would make it more clearer. Obviously there was no earth for 9.5 billion years of that, but its the only way for us to comprehend it.
My thoughts were too long so having to break this up into different posts - hope it reads okay.
This is a great thread to discuss. On a personal level I was raised a catholic, baptised and took holy communion, but was never confirmed. I believe that if you are brought up this way then it does play a part in what you believe and whether or not you have faith. However, I am also deeply into reading about science, the universe and astro/particle physics. The more I read about such matters, convinces me we are all born of the stars (not some sort of zen, hippy philosophy), but actually put together by the birth and death of stars and all the matter and elements that occur when a star is going through its various stages of life. A lot of theory is embedded in the Big Bang and now things like cosmic inflation, dark matter and even dark energy. People often ask 'what came before the Big Bang' when trying to understand what put us here if it wasn't a higher being or some sort of creationism theory. That's a perfectly good question and probably where I would start if I wanted to question what was here before the universe etc. More often than not an answer that is put forward is that space and time are concepts that only existed once the Big Bang occurred, ie the scientific community cannot give you an answer to that question, because time was immaterial. You cannot measure in time what didn't exist. Then the argument becomes rather circular and philosophical because it is open to anyone to say 'what put the Big Bang there etc'. I wouldn't be able to answer that, and the men and women that dedicate their lives to delving deeper into particle physics, and what gives matter its mass in attempt to try and get a grips on the early nano seconds of our universe, often end up raising more questions than answers. All the recent experiments at the LHC and at other labs around the world dedicated to particle physics are wrestling with an age old problem of trying to unify the strong force (gripping together of protons and neutrons in atomic nuclei). The weak force, which also known as the electroweak force as in the standard model of physics it is merged with electromagnetism (electrically charged particles). Finally gravity. Gravity has long since been the force they have found hard to adapt to any unifying theories. As such, many of the experiments being carried out today at the particle physics level, are to understand, how, if at all gravity can be linked in any way, shape or form to those at the sub atomic level. So far, it has raised more questions in addition to giving us new theories, as there is still a disconnect between gravity and the standard quantum model.
This brings me onto my next point about the possibility of people believing in a multi-verse. Gravity's effects can be seen by the orbit of planets around our sun or galaxies around black holes, because they are of such a scale. When we consider that all the matter that is visible to us in our universe only constitutes 6% of the total matter, then we have to make up another 94% from somewhere. They say 34% of this is dark matter, and 70% dark energy. Now I have read about both of these subjects, but not being from a scientific background, anything I write on here will be sketchy at best. The reason I mention these topics is because I believe in the theory that both dark matter and dark energy have a part to play in why gravity is such a comparatively weak force in our universe. I think the simplest way to explain it is that when scientists observe stars billions of light years away, very occasionally they notice a shift in position or something they can't account for (ie dark matter (essentially particles popping in and out of existence and how they interact with that star)). I think, although I can't be too sure as I am writing all this off the top of my head, that some scientists propose the interaction between dark matter, gravity and the stars is ever so slight, because there are multiple universes, and each exist inside a bubble that gravity has to essentially pass through, lessening the force of that interaction each time. I give this this theory even more of my time when you consider the scale of the universe. I think the furthest measured or known observable point in our universe is 30 billion light years away (in a universe that is constantly expanding too). Now when we consider that a light year is in actual distance 5,700,000,000,000,000 (trillion - I hope that's the correct amount of zeros) km (I think km, not miles), that is a scale overwhelming to the actual size of us and our planet. That's a universe of 100 billion odd galaxies, each with a 100 billion odd stars. This is where my head really cannot get to grips with the vast enormity of what is out there. But I believe if this sort of scale/size is true, then what is to say ours is the only universe? Our place in the uni/multiverse is governed by our size, our technology and our physical understanding of something potentially way beyond what our brains are built for.
I also use this size and scale to suggest that we are categorically not the only form of even intelligent life in the universe. We've been studying various moons of planets in our solar systems and ones that purport to have microbial primitive life forms on, and there is strong evidence the possibility of remote life can exist (see water bears for this - they are essentially things found on earth that exist in extreme temperatures, possibly even space). Now I believe that if you have a universe of the size of ours, coupled with the fact that each star of certain size goes through the same process at its core of nuclear fussion, creating the same elements that exist here on earth, then you'd have to be pretty dismissive to say there isn't other intelligent life out there. If you believe writers like Erik Von Daniken, we have already been visited by such life. People might think I am silly mentioning what are essentially aliens, but some of his writing leads some interesting questions that can be tied back to faith and religion. I'm going to start with a basic argument of his. If you go back to say 4-5000 bc, one of the first established civilisations were the Sumerians in Northern Iraq. The artefacts that they have left behind from that time talk of flying Gods and strange beings that were more often than not etched into stone and monuments. Now Von Daniken reckons that if you were around at that time and you saw such a flash in the sky or being of that form that you had never seen before, what or how are you going to make any sense of it? He purports that it is the same for every culture across 1000s of years. The Greeks and the Romans had similar 'Gods'. Poseidon lived under the sea, Zeus rode a chariot across the sky. Could this not have been extra terrestrial beings that people at that time could not make any sense of?
Carrying on from Sebs question, the only thing I've read in terms of 'other universes' is Cosmologists have found circular bruises on cosmic wave background they they have theorised could be from another universe. When one universe ends, another begins, hence the 'big bang'. It would certainly tie in with the life/death cycle that occurs in every other aspect of the vast space we live in.
He basically says that in every religion, across all areas/cultures, they share a similar theme. Paying homage to a 'God' that was born of teachings 1000s of years old. Now I'm not sure about you, but we know people in those days didn't have the technology we have now. We know for sure they didn't have a clue what a tsunami or other natural disasters were. For example, how many times do you hear of religious stories that equate volcanic eruptions and earthquakes with the wrath of the Gods. My point is, absolutely no one of that era had the scientific knowledge we have had, so in all honesty, you can understand why such acts are attributed to the 'Gods'. I'm not saying extra terrestrial life is responsible for such natural disasters in ancient times, I'm just saying without knowledge, people need answers and perhaps more importantly they need belief and faith. How many religious Christian tapestries refer to 'angels' or bright lights in the sky. Again, could it be these 'angels' or bright lights were actually something else. There are numerous examples I could give, some theologians even argue where places central to biblical stories such as 'mount Sinai' really is.
I think even Buddhism isn't about a God as such, and more about a calendar or cycle of 5000 years before the next enlightenment or phase. My final little scientific argument is based on evolution. I really, really cannot see how anyone can go against this theory. DNA has long been established as being passed on through the genes of an individual to constitute the genetic make up of their offspring. If you trace our DNA back to a certain point in time, we all exist from a very basic organism that has adapted and mutated over time to suit its environment. Obviously that time scale is huge and you have to go back a lot of years. But it just took one slight mutation in the genetic code for brown bears to become polar. The best example I can give is a TED talk I watched about scientists trying to create a dinosaur from DNA they found in the fossils of ancient bones. What they actually found was that we already have dinosaurs' DNA amongst us today in the form of the farmyard chicken. They were able to trace back a certain type of dinosaur that had two legs for walking and running on, and two smaller front arms for holding prey with to eat. That same dinosaur shared the exact same skeletal structure with a chicken (albeit on a smaller scale) aside from where the dinosaur's bones had formed the smaller arms, something, somewhere along the line in the DNA of that chicken and its bones, had shaped it into a wing. If you want to watch it you can see it here http://www.ted.com/talks/jack_horner_building_a_dinosaur_from_a_chicken
For me, this just re-inforces, evolution, DNA and work people like Darwin established.
I know that with all the above there are still some questions science cannot answer. And I understand this is where people turn to religion, belief and faith. I have no problem whatsoever with anyone's beliefs provided they are not out to harm others. I guess the problem is those that control the teachings of any such beliefs (mine included) can manipulate and control how we are perceiving them and how they get people to pass on the message, this is where the problem is. As mentioned, I'm not qualified in any way shape or form to discuss these subjects, it is just what I've read. In addition, I've written it off the top of my head so if anything is factually incorrect, please let me know.
I am a radical atheist with strong anti- theist leanings. Losing my religion was one of the most liberating, joyous and life affirming events in my existence. I believe in secular Government and education and strongly recommend reading at least;
Richard Dawkins, " The God Delusion", - systematic, humorous, logical, dispassionate, point by point, demolition of religion.
Sam Hill " Letter to a Christian Nation"
Christopher Hitchins " God is not Great"
& Peter Boghossian " A Manual for Creating Atheists " Argues that atheists should actively seek to liberate people from their religion and provides a detailed method for achieving this.
If there is a God, the best thing that can be said is that basically he is an underachiever. All religions are the same guilt, with different holidays.
PS COYR's!
Yeah but...
What was the 'beginning'?
Can you whisper it to me, I won't tell.
Seriously? - Between ourselves, ..... roughly 14 billion years ago - about tea time.
Recommend " A Universe From Nothing" Lawrence Krauss - No God required!
I'm not saying that a God was required for 'the beginning' not at all.
I suppose I am saying that science is very very unlikely to be able to explain 'the beginning' either. We look back at the first billionth of a second after the apparent big bang, we reckon it happened 14 billion years ago (don't know how a year was calculated then before we had a sun and moon to order time for us), but in the end we come up against the question I proposed earlier...what banged, how did it exist if what banged was the start of existence, how did it happen, what did it bang into?
If science answers those questions, with the proof and evidence many in this thread demand, then that will be blimmin good going. There may not, incidentally, be many steps between scientific 'theory' and religious 'faith'.
I reckon it was on those starry nights, kids in bed, bellies full, that mankind started having conversations about 'where did it all come from', and 'what's it all about'. It is from those conversations that mankind struggled to make sense of it all. Originally from Religions, and lately from science, but just as religion won't find the answers to the big questions, neither will science.
Science however does provide us with a good practical basis to get through our lives, and at it's very best some aspect of religious thought provide some of us with a good moral basis to get through our lives.
Incidentally this has been a great thread, not because I can prove it, not because I have faith that it is, but because the phenomenology of the number of posts suggests so.
The age of the Universe is calculated using two different methods. One is measuring the speed and distances of galaxies. We know that all Galaxies in the universe are moving apart, we know that at one time they were very close together. Measure their speed against the rate of Universe expansion and it comes to about 13.7 billion years ago. The second is measuring the oldest star clusters in the known universe. There are some orbiting our Milky Way that are 13 billion years old. We do not need our own star to measure this time.
OK, thanks for that, I almost understand. I suppose it might be more comprehensible to an idiot like me if we said 13.7 billion earth years ago. Are the rules different for the other universes?
Sorry, yes earth years would make it more clearer. Obviously there was no earth for 9.5 billion years of that, but its the only way for us to comprehend it.
You mentioned 'known universe' so I have assumed there are other unknown ones...in theory.
I am a radical atheist with strong anti- theist leanings. Losing my religion was one of the most liberating, joyous and life affirming events in my existence. I believe in secular Government and education and strongly recommend reading at least;
Richard Dawkins, " The God Delusion", - systematic, humorous, logical, dispassionate, point by point, demolition of religion.
Sam Hill " Letter to a Christian Nation"
Christopher Hitchins " God is not Great"
& Peter Boghossian " A Manual for Creating Atheists " Argues that atheists should actively seek to liberate people from their religion and provides a detailed method for achieving this.
If there is a God, the best thing that can be said is that basically he is an underachiever. All religions are the same guilt, with different holidays.
PS COYR's!
Yeah but...
What was the 'beginning'?
Can you whisper it to me, I won't tell.
Seriously? - Between ourselves, ..... roughly 14 billion years ago - about tea time.
Recommend " A Universe From Nothing" Lawrence Krauss - No God required!
I'm not saying that a God was required for 'the beginning' not at all.
I suppose I am saying that science is very very unlikely to be able to explain 'the beginning' either. We look back at the first billionth of a second after the apparent big bang, we reckon it happened 14 billion years ago (don't know how a year was calculated then before we had a sun and moon to order time for us), but in the end we come up against the question I proposed earlier...what banged, how did it exist if what banged was the start of existence, how did it happen, what did it bang into?
If science answers those questions, with the proof and evidence many in this thread demand, then that will be blimmin good going. There may not, incidentally, be many steps between scientific 'theory' and religious 'faith'.
I reckon it was on those starry nights, kids in bed, bellies full, that mankind started having conversations about 'where did it all come from', and 'what's it all about'. It is from those conversations that mankind struggled to make sense of it all. Originally from Religions, and lately from science, but just as religion won't find the answers to the big questions, neither will science.
Science however does provide us with a good practical basis to get through our lives, and at it's very best some aspect of religious thought provide some of us with a good moral basis to get through our lives.
Incidentally this has been a great thread, not because I can prove it, not because I have faith that it is, but because the phenomenology of the number of posts suggests so.
The age of the Universe is calculated using two different methods. One is measuring the speed and distances of galaxies. We know that all Galaxies in the universe are moving apart, we know that at one time they were very close together. Measure their speed against the rate of Universe expansion and it comes to about 13.7 billion years ago. The second is measuring the oldest star clusters in the known universe. There are some orbiting our Milky Way that are 13 billion years old. We do not need our own star to measure this time.
OK, thanks for that, I almost understand. I suppose it might be more comprehensible to an idiot like me if we said 13.7 billion earth years ago. Are the rules different for the other universes?
Sorry, yes earth years would make it more clearer. Obviously there was no earth for 9.5 billion years of that, but its the only way for us to comprehend it.
You mentioned 'known universe' so I have assumed there are other unknown ones...in theory.
Cabbles has gone in to excellent detail so his posts are well worth a read.
Known Universe is a term for what we, as humans, have detected in this universe. The furthest object we have been able to detect is 30 billion light years away (light year being the distance a light photon can travel in a year at just under 300 million metres per second). Factor in the universe is still expanding, its impossible for us to know our whole universe, so we label it our 'known universe'.
But, in theory, there could be other universes.
Furthermore, and even more confusing, some scientists believe there are other dimensions that we cannot see. For example, if you draw a line on a piece of paper, the only dimension it has is length, thats 1. Then add width, to make a square, thats 2. Then add depth, to make a cube, thats 3 and what we see around us. Time is 4, so what the cube was like in the past, the present and future. They believe there are another 6. The last few rely on other universes but my mind can't get round it all.
The only problem with Von Daniken's theories is that - like the bible - a lot of them were proved to be bull**** (way back in the seventies and eighties), thereby casting huge doubt over the rest of his ideas - like the bible.
Carrying on from Sebs question, the only thing I've read in terms of 'other universes' is Cosmologists have found circular bruises on cosmic wave background they they have theorised could be from another universe. When one universe ends, another begins, hence the 'big bang'. It would certainly tie in with the life/death cycle that occurs in every other aspect of the vast space we live in.
Again I've had to delete my original to fit the reply in. I never knew there was a limit to a post on CL until today:)
I've not read anything about circular bruises on cosmic wave backgrounds so thanks for that @ValleyGary, I will have a look. I know from what I have read that eventually the universe will use up all of its hydrogen and helium and stop creating stars and with it life. But if this does happen and in fact has happened with other universes prior and created our Big Bang, I'd be interested to know how the last throws of a universe can give rise to another. As I understand it, the Big Bang, required an enormous amount of energy, the closest to which we have in our universe are gamma rays or pulsars. I've read about these and know they have to do with the death of hyper giant stars and black holes, but again don't know enough to put into context what role they may have in a multiverse.
@sadiejane1981 fair play for sticking with it. When I got to the end and I saw it was 1200 characters too long I did question whether to stick it up. I actually think this whole thread is a brilliant discussion, and as mentioned I don't think anyone can dismiss anyone else's beliefs religious or non religious as long as they're not geared toward harming anyone else.
It might sound like too middle ground of an answer, but the more I have read about the known universe, the more I believe we are all too small a cog to categorically have an answer for everything around us. That is why I believe religion and faith are such a big part of civilisations.
The only problem with Von Daniken's theories is that - like the bible - a lot of them were proved to be bull**** (way back in the seventies and eighties), thereby casting huge doubt over the rest of his ideas - like the bible.
I haven't read chariots of the Gods, but I do think he asks some interesting questions of religion in general and there are a lot of historical and cultural places such as the caves of Derinkuyu in Turkey. It is hard to believe that that type of archeology and system could've been in place given the date the caves and the underground city was formed (circa 700 bc).
Most people who say they believe actually don't. Their actions in life and their behaviour would prove they don't. Their sadness and grief at losing someone close would also show they don't really believe. I know , harsh. However I am only stating facts. The wonderful Muslim martyrs of 9/11 knew they would kill. Muslims which is strictly forbidden in their religion, but they done it anyway. So, they could not have believed, just criminals.
The only problem with Von Daniken's theories is that - like the bible - a lot of them were proved to be bull**** (way back in the seventies and eighties), thereby casting huge doubt over the rest of his ideas - like the bible.
I haven't read chariots of the Gods, but I do think he asks some interesting questions of religion in general and there are a lot of historical and cultural places such as the caves of Derinkuyu in Turkey. It is hard to believe that that type of archeology and system could've been in place given the date the caves and the underground city was formed (circa 700 bc).
There is some real food for thought in his writings no doubt, but sadly he padded it out with ill researched and inaccurate claims which ruined his credibility to a certain extent.
But then again, to quote Mr Carlin, "What's the point in praying if it's already all been decided in God's 'Divine Plan?' What's the point of being a Supreme Being with a 'Divine Plan' if it can get screwed up by any schmuck with a $2 Prayer Book?"
Sometimes I really wish that people such as the guy you're quoting would either read the bible, ask questions, simply state why they don't believe or not say anything. How can you pull something apart and make arguments against it if you don't know about it? How can you argue against the theology of Christianity or any faith if you haven't read the book and understood it's context? Anyone who has read the bible will know of examples when God has heard the cries of his people and responded. For example, Hannah desperately pleaded and wrestled with God for him to bless her with a child and God responded. The Bible is clear about the power of prayer to change circumstances within his will. He says he longs to give us the desires of our hearts.
George Carlin was raised Catholic. I suspect he was more than familiar with the bible.
With a clearly poor understanding of the key themes of the book. I find it hard to believe that he knows the bible with comments like that. I have given an example from the bible that demonstrates my point.
That highlights perfectly the futility of a discussion about religion between someone who believes in it, and someone who doesn't. If the bible was 'true' then there wouldn't need to be an 'interpretation' of the themes in it. You can 'interpret' a book like 1984 however you want - because it's a 'fictional' book. You can't 'interpret' the Haynes Manual for a 1984 Ford Cortina - because it's a 'factual' book.
If you just take the bible as a bunch of stories to live your life by - I have no problem with that. I have problems with the content of a lot of them, and it's frankly ridiculous to live your life by some of them 2000 years later as they have zero relevance to how we live today - but as a concept, if you just take the 'peace and love' and ignore the 'eye for an eye' stuff, that's great.
What I do have an issue with, is people attempting to 'justify' their faith by trying to 'prove' that God exists. Surely, if God DOES exist, then why do you need to prove it?
Those that believe don't need to prove it because they have faith.
They are placed in that position by non believers that ask them to.
When those same non believers reject the evidence they are offered, which is of course their right, they then tend to get annoyed when the response from the believer is something like ok you disagree with my efforts then prove to me that God does not exist.
None of this would matter very much if it was possible to live and let live but governments of all hues advocate a "one size fits all" approach and that's where the problems and disputes start between the two sides in my view.
"When those same non believers reject the evidence they are offered, which is of course their right, they then tend to get annoyed when the response from the believer is something like ok you disagree with my efforts then prove to me that God does not exist"
I quite like this point. It is an acceptable approach to take to ask someone to prove something does not exist. I think it was Karl Popper's theory of falsification and terms like 'black swans don't exist' that are used in science, but I don't know if anyone has adopted this approach to religious arguments.
Basically his argument is that if a scientific theory can not be proved false, then it isn't a theory at all. Never thought that it could be applied in a religious context though. Good reference @LenGlover
Interesting thread. I am a humanist - which basically is an atheist with ethics as opposed to the caricature of atheists popular in the American media. I used to go to church a bit as a teenager, off my own bat as well as parents were classic CofE - put it on forms but never went or thought about it much. Nice people, but I couldn't sustain the faith idea and stopped going. By the time I was 18/19 I was full on atheist and have been ever since. I am probably less hostile to organised religion that I used to be, mainly because I don't think it is as much of a threat in this country and I would also pay tribute to the many good things that people do motivated by their faith (e.g. the Jimmy Mizen Foundation). I would like to see the country properly secular and things like the act of worship in schools and faith schools dropped. But I also think there shouldn't be discrimination against people for their religious beliefs, nor should any one group be privileged. As an example, the ruling against the air stewardess wearing a cross was daft unless all jewelry is banned at work, but the registrar who refused to conduct civil partnerships was right to lose - it was her job after all. If I lived in America or somewhere equally intolerant of non-belief (like the Arab countries), I would hope that I would act on it and I would certainly be a lot more militant about it. A lot of the criticism people like Dawkins and Hitchens get is for their confrontational style - I'm not a fan but then I live here - I think they are mainly addressing an American situation. If I was the only non-believer in town I'd want someone scoring some hard points against the people attacking me. They also spend a lot of time addressing the Biblical literalism/ Bishop Ussher interpretations that are the basis of much of the more militant faithful (and this sort of creationism has also been absorbed by Muslims). A very good mate of mine who has just died was a devout Christian. He had 2 science degrees and had no trouble reconciling his faith with science. After a couple of years of most of our social group taking the piss out of his beliefs, most of us just stopped because neither he nor we were going to shift. It's funny on one level as most Christians I know think my beliefs (that there is no God, that when you die that's it,you survive only in other people's memories) are far too hard. They're not comforting at all, but the alternative sounds so unlikely. After all, the one thing that must unite all Charlton fans is that if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. They also often make assumptions that I have no morals; but I do. As I am English, they are based on Christianity, but I'm pretty sure all religions have a variant on the golden rule.
It's funny on one level as most Christians I know think my beliefs (that there is no God, that when you die that's it,you survive only in other people's memories) are far too hard. They're not comforting at all, but the alternative sounds so unlikely.
To christians horrified at the idea of no afterlife I just say "I didn't exist for 13.8 billion years before I was born and it didn't bother me then"....
Comments
How can you reasonably believe what an anonymous religious leader wrote down in Greek 1900 years ago and well after the events took place (and later amended considerably in many aspects by scribes who didn't like the original very much) but not what a religious leader says now?
And what happens about the contradictory bits in the bible? Which is right and which is wrong?
I respect the right to hold Religious views, but in no way do I respect the actual views. I tend to find that this is rarely reciprocated by believers and in many cases most religions are intolerant of dissent.
Personally I actively seek to undermine peoples faith at every available opportunity by logical argument and the development of discrepancy. Religion is probably the most destructive force working against mankind.
Also if the is a God how do you explain Millwall?
I suppose I am saying that science is very very unlikely to be able to explain 'the beginning' either. We look back at the first billionth of a second after the apparent big bang, we reckon it happened 14 billion years ago (don't know how a year was calculated then before we had a sun and moon to order time for us), but in the end we come up against the question I proposed earlier...what banged, how did it exist if what banged was the start of existence, how did it happen, what did it bang into?
If science answers those questions, with the proof and evidence many in this thread demand, then that will be blimmin good going. There may not, incidentally, be many steps between scientific 'theory' and religious 'faith'.
I reckon it was on those starry nights, kids in bed, bellies full, that mankind started having conversations about 'where did it all come from', and 'what's it all about'. It is from those conversations that mankind struggled to make sense of it all. Originally from Religions, and lately from science, but just as religion won't find the answers to the big questions, neither will science.
Science however does provide us with a good practical basis to get through our lives, and at it's very best some aspect of religious thought provide some of us with a good moral basis to get through our lives.
Incidentally this has been a great thread, not because I can prove it, not because I have faith that it is, but because the phenomenology of the number of posts suggests so.
They are placed in that position by non believers that ask them to.
When those same non believers reject the evidence they are offered, which is of course their right, they then tend to get annoyed when the response from the believer is something like ok you disagree with my efforts then prove to me that God does not exist.
None of this would matter very much if it was possible to live and let live but governments of all hues advocate a "one size fits all" approach and that's where the problems and disputes start between the two sides in my view.
Especially when the thing you're trying to prove doesn't exist is apparently everywhere but invisible and can't physically be touched.
Neither can prove or disprove the others belief.
Maybe they're intertwined and we're all getting in wrong.
There is the flaw in your argument.
My earlier post regarding a view held by many that with no religion, there would be no wars was a somewhat provocative statement but one in which I believe there is a great deal of truth. Perhaps more succinct wording would be that rivers of blood have been shed in the name of religion over the centuries and as we are all only too aware, continues apace in these "enlightened" times.
Are the rules different for the other universes?
This is a great thread to discuss. On a personal level I was raised a catholic, baptised and took holy communion, but was never confirmed. I believe that if you are brought up this way then it does play a part in what you believe and whether or not you have faith. However, I am also deeply into reading about science, the universe and astro/particle physics. The more I read about such matters, convinces me we are all born of the stars (not some sort of zen, hippy philosophy), but actually put together by the birth and death of stars and all the matter and elements that occur when a star is going through its various stages of life. A lot of theory is embedded in the Big Bang and now things like cosmic inflation, dark matter and even dark energy. People often ask 'what came before the Big Bang' when trying to understand what put us here if it wasn't a higher being or some sort of creationism theory. That's a perfectly good question and probably where I would start if I wanted to question what was here before the universe etc. More often than not an answer that is put forward is that space and time are concepts that only existed once the Big Bang occurred, ie the scientific community cannot give you an answer to that question, because time was immaterial. You cannot measure in time what didn't exist. Then the argument becomes rather circular and philosophical because it is open to anyone to say 'what put the Big Bang there etc'. I wouldn't be able to answer that, and the men and women that dedicate their lives to delving deeper into particle physics, and what gives matter its mass in attempt to try and get a grips on the early nano seconds of our universe, often end up raising more questions than answers. All the recent experiments at the LHC and at other labs around the world dedicated to particle physics are wrestling with an age old problem of trying to unify the strong force (gripping together of protons and neutrons in atomic nuclei). The weak force, which also known as the electroweak force as in the standard model of physics it is merged with electromagnetism (electrically charged particles). Finally gravity. Gravity has long since been the force they have found hard to adapt to any unifying theories. As such, many of the experiments being carried out today at the particle physics level, are to understand, how, if at all gravity can be linked in any way, shape or form to those at the sub atomic level. So far, it has raised more questions in addition to giving us new theories, as there is still a disconnect between gravity and the standard quantum model.
This brings me onto my next point about the possibility of people believing in a multi-verse. Gravity's effects can be seen by the orbit of planets around our sun or galaxies around black holes, because they are of such a scale. When we consider that all the matter that is visible to us in our universe only constitutes 6% of the total matter, then we have to make up another 94% from somewhere. They say 34% of this is dark matter, and 70% dark energy. Now I have read about both of these subjects, but not being from a scientific background, anything I write on here will be sketchy at best. The reason I mention these topics is because I believe in the theory that both dark matter and dark energy have a part to play in why gravity is such a comparatively weak force in our universe. I think the simplest way to explain it is that when scientists observe stars billions of light years away, very occasionally they notice a shift in position or something they can't account for (ie dark matter (essentially particles popping in and out of existence and how they interact with that star)). I think, although I can't be too sure as I am writing all this off the top of my head, that some scientists propose the interaction between dark matter, gravity and the stars is ever so slight, because there are multiple universes, and each exist inside a bubble that gravity has to essentially pass through, lessening the force of that interaction each time. I give this this theory even more of my time when you consider the scale of the universe. I think the furthest measured or known observable point in our universe is 30 billion light years away (in a universe that is constantly expanding too). Now when we consider that a light year is in actual distance 5,700,000,000,000,000 (trillion - I hope that's the correct amount of zeros) km (I think km, not miles), that is a scale overwhelming to the actual size of us and our planet. That's a universe of 100 billion odd galaxies, each with a 100 billion odd stars. This is where my head really cannot get to grips with the vast enormity of what is out there. But I believe if this sort of scale/size is true, then what is to say ours is the only universe? Our place in the uni/multiverse is governed by our size, our technology and our physical understanding of something potentially way beyond what our brains are built for.
I also use this size and scale to suggest that we are categorically not the only form of even intelligent life in the universe. We've been studying various moons of planets in our solar systems and ones that purport to have microbial primitive life forms on, and there is strong evidence the possibility of remote life can exist (see water bears for this - they are essentially things found on earth that exist in extreme temperatures, possibly even space). Now I believe that if you have a universe of the size of ours, coupled with the fact that each star of certain size goes through the same process at its core of nuclear fussion, creating the same elements that exist here on earth, then you'd have to be pretty dismissive to say there isn't other intelligent life out there. If you believe writers like Erik Von Daniken, we have already been visited by such life. People might think I am silly mentioning what are essentially aliens, but some of his writing leads some interesting questions that can be tied back to faith and religion. I'm going to start with a basic argument of his. If you go back to say 4-5000 bc, one of the first established civilisations were the Sumerians in Northern Iraq. The artefacts that they have left behind from that time talk of flying Gods and strange beings that were more often than not etched into stone and monuments. Now Von Daniken reckons that if you were around at that time and you saw such a flash in the sky or being of that form that you had never seen before, what or how are you going to make any sense of it? He purports that it is the same for every culture across 1000s of years. The Greeks and the Romans had similar 'Gods'. Poseidon lived under the sea, Zeus rode a chariot across the sky. Could this not have been extra terrestrial beings that people at that time could not make any sense of?
He basically says that in every religion, across all areas/cultures, they share a similar theme. Paying homage to a 'God' that was born of teachings 1000s of years old. Now I'm not sure about you, but we know people in those days didn't have the technology we have now. We know for sure they didn't have a clue what a tsunami or other natural disasters were. For example, how many times do you hear of religious stories that equate volcanic eruptions and earthquakes with the wrath of the Gods. My point is, absolutely no one of that era had the scientific knowledge we have had, so in all honesty, you can understand why such acts are attributed to the 'Gods'. I'm not saying extra terrestrial life is responsible for such natural disasters in ancient times, I'm just saying without knowledge, people need answers and perhaps more importantly they need belief and faith. How many religious Christian tapestries refer to 'angels' or bright lights in the sky. Again, could it be these 'angels' or bright lights were actually something else. There are numerous examples I could give, some theologians even argue where places central to biblical stories such as 'mount Sinai' really is.
I think even Buddhism isn't about a God as such, and more about a calendar or cycle of 5000 years before the next enlightenment or phase. My final little scientific argument is based on evolution. I really, really cannot see how anyone can go against this theory. DNA has long been established as being passed on through the genes of an individual to constitute the genetic make up of their offspring. If you trace our DNA back to a certain point in time, we all exist from a very basic organism that has adapted and mutated over time to suit its environment. Obviously that time scale is huge and you have to go back a lot of years. But it just took one slight mutation in the genetic code for brown bears to become polar. The best example I can give is a TED talk I watched about scientists trying to create a dinosaur from DNA they found in the fossils of ancient bones. What they actually found was that we already have dinosaurs' DNA amongst us today in the form of the farmyard chicken. They were able to trace back a certain type of dinosaur that had two legs for walking and running on, and two smaller front arms for holding prey with to eat. That same dinosaur shared the exact same skeletal structure with a chicken (albeit on a smaller scale) aside from where the dinosaur's bones had formed the smaller arms, something, somewhere along the line in the DNA of that chicken and its bones, had shaped it into a wing. If you want to watch it you can see it here http://www.ted.com/talks/jack_horner_building_a_dinosaur_from_a_chicken
For me, this just re-inforces, evolution, DNA and work people like Darwin established.
I know that with all the above there are still some questions science cannot answer. And I understand this is where people turn to religion, belief and faith. I have no problem whatsoever with anyone's beliefs provided they are not out to harm others. I guess the problem is those that control the teachings of any such beliefs (mine included) can manipulate and control how we are perceiving them and how they get people to pass on the message, this is where the problem is. As mentioned, I'm not qualified in any way shape or form to discuss these subjects, it is just what I've read. In addition, I've written it off the top of my head so if anything is factually incorrect, please let me know.
Known Universe is a term for what we, as humans, have detected in this universe. The furthest object we have been able to detect is 30 billion light years away (light year being the distance a light photon can travel in a year at just under 300 million metres per second). Factor in the universe is still expanding, its impossible for us to know our whole universe, so we label it our 'known universe'.
But, in theory, there could be other universes.
Furthermore, and even more confusing, some scientists believe there are other dimensions that we cannot see. For example, if you draw a line on a piece of paper, the only dimension it has is length, thats 1. Then add width, to make a square, thats 2. Then add depth, to make a cube, thats 3 and what we see around us. Time is 4, so what the cube was like in the past, the present and future. They believe there are another 6. The last few rely on other universes but my mind can't get round it all.
Again I've had to delete my original to fit the reply in. I never knew there was a limit to a post on CL until today:)
I've not read anything about circular bruises on cosmic wave backgrounds so thanks for that @ValleyGary, I will have a look. I know from what I have read that eventually the universe will use up all of its hydrogen and helium and stop creating stars and with it life. But if this does happen and in fact has happened with other universes prior and created our Big Bang, I'd be interested to know how the last throws of a universe can give rise to another. As I understand it, the Big Bang, required an enormous amount of energy, the closest to which we have in our universe are gamma rays or pulsars. I've read about these and know they have to do with the death of hyper giant stars and black holes, but again don't know enough to put into context what role they may have in a multiverse.
It might sound like too middle ground of an answer, but the more I have read about the known universe, the more I believe we are all too small a cog to categorically have an answer for everything around us. That is why I believe religion and faith are such a big part of civilisations.
I quite like this point. It is an acceptable approach to take to ask someone to prove something does not exist. I think it was Karl Popper's theory of falsification and terms like 'black swans don't exist' that are used in science, but I don't know if anyone has adopted this approach to religious arguments.
Basically his argument is that if a scientific theory can not be proved false, then it isn't a theory at all. Never thought that it could be applied in a religious context though. Good reference @LenGlover
If I lived in America or somewhere equally intolerant of non-belief (like the Arab countries), I would hope that I would act on it and I would certainly be a lot more militant about it. A lot of the criticism people like Dawkins and Hitchens get is for their confrontational style - I'm not a fan but then I live here - I think they are mainly addressing an American situation. If I was the only non-believer in town I'd want someone scoring some hard points against the people attacking me.
They also spend a lot of time addressing the Biblical literalism/ Bishop Ussher interpretations that are the basis of much of the more militant faithful (and this sort of creationism has also been absorbed by Muslims). A very good mate of mine who has just died was a devout Christian. He had 2 science degrees and had no trouble reconciling his faith with science. After a couple of years of most of our social group taking the piss out of his beliefs, most of us just stopped because neither he nor we were going to shift.
It's funny on one level as most Christians I know think my beliefs (that there is no God, that when you die that's it,you survive only in other people's memories) are far too hard. They're not comforting at all, but the alternative sounds so unlikely. After all, the one thing that must unite all Charlton fans is that if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
They also often make assumptions that I have no morals; but I do. As I am English, they are based on Christianity, but I'm pretty sure all religions have a variant on the golden rule.