Are the religious cling ons?

[Leonardo]

Why is it that so many religous need to have their cosmology and creation theories? If they didn't believe in those aspects of thier religion what would they really be guilty of?

Most if not all of religions describing the cosmos and creation are wrong. Mohammad claimed that god prevented the planets and stars from colliding, the Bible claims that the stars in heaven are signs from god, etc

All aspects of the physical world described by religion is wrong. And even when addressing religion's notion of creation when one asks: "So what was god doing before creation, sitting in the dark for an eternity?" This is the question that homes in the realization of the absurding for a universe to have an intelligent creator. If you allow me to explain; if god is eternal, meaning a causeless being, no begining or end, then before creation was an eternity as well!

So what intelligent being would sit in the dark for an eternity to suddenly and arbitrarily create a universe?

Perhaps religion should stick to the needs of those who are looking for hope to deal with despair, death and some sense of protection against evil, but leave the cosmology and creation alone...

 

[fallingblood]

Most of these creation stories weren't meant to be scientific explanations. They were myths. Many were intended even to be epics.

You're taking stories not meant to be literal, and acting as if they were. And really, such stories are a minor part of the religion. In fact, most deal a lot more with hope, love, etc. Taking a small part of religion, and not understanding it, really leads nowhere.

 

[Skwim]

Why is it that so many religous need to have their cosmology and creation theories? If they didn't believe in those aspects of thier religion what would they really be guilty of?

Most if not all of religions describing the cosmos and creation are wrong. Mohammad claimed that god prevented the planets and stars from colliding, the Bible claims that the stars in heaven are signs from god, etc

All aspects of the physical world described by religion is wrong. And even when addressing religion's notion of creation when one asks: "So what was god doing before creation, sitting in the dark for an eternity?" This is the question that homes in the realization of the absurding for a universe to have an intelligent creator. If you allow me to explain; if god is eternal, meaning a causeless being, no begining or end, then before creation was an eternity as well!

So what intelligent being would sit in the dark for an eternity to suddenly and arbitrarily create a universe?

Perhaps religion should stick to the needs of those who are looking for hope to deal with despair, death and some sense of protection against evil, but leave the cosmology and creation alone...

Religions exist in part to explain the whys and wherefores of the world and life, and a important aspect of this explanation is the beginning of it all. Hence, the various creation accounts. Having been included in religious texts they take on the same truth as everything else in these writings, and to dismiss any one part, a creation account in this case, establishes a precedent for dismissing any other part. Therefore, it often comes down to an all or nothing regard for these writings. Of course, as we've seen, some parts in some writings are not regarded as facts by various believers, but merely analogies, myths, fables, or whatever, which makes them easy to dismiss.

 

[Leonardo]

Most of these creation stories weren't meant to be scientific explanations. They were myths. Many were intended even to be epics.

You're taking stories not meant to be literal, and acting as if they were. And really, such stories are a minor part of the religion. In fact, most deal a lot more with hope, love, etc. Taking a small part of religion, and not understanding it, really leads nowhere.

Well no those stories were the explination for cosmology and creation in those ancient times and even the birth of Jesus is associated and predicted with astrology.

 

[godlikemadman]

Klingons?

Nahhhhhh....

 

[Jainarayan]

If they didn't believe in those aspects of thier religion what would they really be guilty of?

Not being a member of that religion.

Most if not all of religions describing the cosmos and creation are wrong.

The Hindu religion is the only one of the world's great faiths dedicated to the idea that the Cosmos itself undergoes an immense, indeed an infinite, number of deaths and rebirths. It is the only religion in which the time scales correspond, to those of modern scientific cosmology. Its cycles run from our ordinary day and night to a day and night of Brahma, 8.64 billion years long. Longer than the age of the Earth or the Sun and about half the time since the Big Bang. And there are much longer time scales still.

— Carl Sagan (1934-1996) famous astrophysicist.​

Portal:Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And even when addressing religion's notion of creation when one asks: "So what was god doing before creation, sitting in the dark for an eternity?"

"Never was there a time I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings, and certainly never shall we cease to exist in the future" - Bhagavad Gita 2.12 There was never non-existence or a "before creation"; creation has been from infinity and will be to infinity. It never began, and will never end.

"By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them [He, Krishna, is the source of them, they are not the source of Him]. And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me [He is untouched by the material creations]. Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer of all living entities, and although I am everywhere, still My Self is the very source of creation." - Bhagavad Gita 9.4-5.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Namaste Jai

Can you photoshop?

 

[Jainarayan]

Namaste Jai

Can you photoshop?

Sadly, no.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Mohammad claimed that god prevented the planets and stars from colliding, the Bible claims that the stars in heaven are signs from god, etc

I disagree with Abrahamic cosmology, but what makes these statements truly wrong?

If god is synonymous with all physical laws, god does 'prevent' the planets and stars from colliding.

If stars influence the mind of man, and they do, whether through wilful interpretation of them, or the interbraiding of cultural timekeeping into the patterns of the stars, the very repository of cultural knowledge, the cosmic manifestation of language, music and mathematics gleaned through the study of the star's patterns, then they are signs from god. That's not all they are, but they are that,

All aspects of the physical world described by religion is wrong.

All aspects of literal fundamentalism are wrong, whether the religion of spirit or the religion of science - not that science has to be made a religion, but it is, complete with its own inquisition.

[An excellent read, by the way, is RAW"s the New Inquisition, another is Kuhn's the Structure of Scientific Revolutions]

And even when addressing religion's notion of creation when one asks: "So what was god doing before creation, sitting in the dark for an eternity?" This is the question that homes in the realization of the absurding for a universe to have an intelligent creator. If you allow me to explain; if god is eternal, meaning a causeless being, no begining or end, then before creation was an eternity as well!

I think it's apparent that this is a 'what's north of north pole' question. Time doesn't exist in a meaningful sense "before" the universe is opened. There is no before but before the before. There is no before the before but the before.

Besides, other religions (and now, scientific cosmologies) hold that there are infinite universes, ceaselesly and eternally coming into being and going out of being, in rhythmic cycles, where the 'death' of one universe regenerates itself. bang crunch hop on pop.

Perhaps religion should stick to the needs of those who are looking for hope to deal with despair, death and some sense of protection against evil, but leave the cosmology and creation alone...

Or perhaps religion and science should work together to illumine eachother, and the path to a better tomorrow.

 

[Breathe]

Ahh, the joys of literalism.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Sadly, no.

Someone just shared with me this:

And the only way it could be better is if Sagan's head was shopped onto a dune-worm instead, with "GOD-EMPEROR SAGAN APPROVES!"

If you agree, find someone who can!

 

[Jainarayan]

If god is synonymous with all physical laws, god does 'prevent' the planets and stars from colliding.

Agree with this I do. :yoda: Even if one is a deist, the deist believes in an impersonal God who is like a clockmaker. The clockmaker completes the clock, winds it up and then it runs on its own. The deistic God sets the laws of the universe and it runs on its own. So those laws prevent the stars and planets from colliding (though sometimes there's an "oops!" ).

 

[Jainarayan]

Someone just shared with me this:

And the only way it could be better is if Sagan's head was shopped onto a dune-worm instead, with "GOD-EMPEROR SAGAN APPROVES!"

If you agree, find someone who can!

Who comes up with this stuff!? And I thought I had too much time on my hands at work.

 

[Reptillian]

Klingons?

Nahhhhhh....

Lol,I thought of the same Klingons when I saw the phrase cling ons in the title.

"Today IS a good day to die!!!"

 

[Leonardo]

If god is synonymous with all physical laws, god does 'prevent' the planets and stars from colliding.

No there is nothing that is preventing the stars from colliding and in fact collsion do occur amonst stars, planets and even galaxies.

If stars influence the mind of mind, and they do, whether through wilful interpretation of them, the interbraiding of his cultural timekeeping, the very repository of cultural knowledge, the cosmic manifestation of language, music and mathematics gleaned through the study of the star's patterns, then they are signs from god. That's not all they are, but they are that,

Ah..what? To say that the stars inspire humanity to think as a sign from god is truely misleading, since the statement that they are signs in religous text is in the context of astrology. Human language is something altogether removed from comosology other than the fact that the materials to build life come from stars but that's not a sign.

I think it's apparent that this is a 'what's north of north pole' question. Time doesn't exist in a meaningful sense "before" the universe is opened. There is no before but before the before. There is no before the before but the before.

Ah...no if you believe in an eternal god then its frame of reference of time does have an event before creation, such as its thoughts!

Besides, other religions (and now, scientific cosmologies) hold that there are infinite universes, ceaselesly and eternally coming into being and going out of being,

Those hypothesis are interesting fantasies, none of which is based on obersvation and none of which have any means of falsifying their claims!

in rhythmic cycles, where the 'death' of one universe regenerates itself. bang crunch hop on pop.

Actually the current obeseravation is an eternal expansion, which then leads to the big rip and a very cold and dark universe...

Or perhaps religion and science should work together to illumine eachother, and the path to a better tomorrow.

No need for religion...

 

[Jainarayan]

Ah...no if you believe in an eternal god then its frame of reference of time does have an event before creation, such as its thoughts!

This is working under the assumption that time is linear. Theoretical physicists are starting to posit that time is not necessarily linear.

Actually the current obeseravation is an eternal expansion, which then leads to the big rip and a very cold and dark universe...

Actually there's no consensus.

 

[outhouse]

Why is it that so many religous need to have their cosmology and creation theories? If they didn't believe in those aspects of thier religion what would they really be guilty of?

Most if not all of religions describing the cosmos and creation are wrong. Mohammad claimed that god prevented the planets and stars from colliding, the Bible claims that the stars in heaven are signs from god, etc

All aspects of the physical world described by religion is wrong. And even when addressing religion's notion of creation when one asks: "So what was god doing before creation, sitting in the dark for an eternity?" This is the question that homes in the realization of the absurding for a universe to have an intelligent creator. If you allow me to explain; if god is eternal, meaning a causeless being, no begining or end, then before creation was an eternity as well!

So what intelligent being would sit in the dark for an eternity to suddenly and arbitrarily create a universe?

Perhaps religion should stick to the needs of those who are looking for hope to deal with despair, death and some sense of protection against evil, but leave the cosmology and creation alone...

creation legends are for the most part are considered mythology

only a few countries have problems with literalism

 

[Shuddhasattva]

No there is nothing that is preventing the stars from colliding and in fact collsion do occur amonst stars, planets and even galaxies.

Under ordinary operating conditions, stars, planets and galaxies do not, and are not, colliding. From the perspective of the ancients, they were not colliding, the orderly motions thus imputed to the creator are more less the same as physical laws imputed to a creative event, or uncaused cause behind the event.

Ah..what? To say that the stars inspire humanity to think as a sign from god is truely misleading, since the statement that they are signs in religous text is in the context of astrology. Human language is something altogether removed from comosology other than the fact that the materials to build life come from stars but that's not a sign.

You misunderstand me, and I'm not sure if you have sufficient knowledge of anthropology to comment on this. Man's study of the stars, originating as astrology, caused the birth of mathematics. Moreover, the motion of the stars was the meter in which the history and culture of the people was encoded. Moreover, the matehmatical principles derived from the harmony of the heavenly bodies generated structured music. Moreover, language itself - its syntax, its phonemes, etc., drew from patterns observed in the stars.

Ah...no if you believe in an eternal god then its frame of reference of time does have an event before creation, such as its thoughts!

I think you are misunderstanding the idea of eternality. It's not an infinite length of observed time, god is beyond time, though god's play within time is infinite and eternal in the lower sense. Before creation, there is no time as such. The naked reality is revealed in which there is no creation, no intervening time, no destruction, everything just is at once. Also, there is no need for god to 'think,' in terms of a series of processes carried out to perceive or ascertian this or that. all is perceived at once, at all times, in nontime.

Those hypothesis are interesting fantasies, none of which is based on obersvation and none of which have any means of falsifying their claims!

You are not yet well educated enough in either philosophy or science to make this claim. You an fix that though and I have no doubt you will.

Actually the current obeseravation is an eternal expansion, which then leads to the big rip and a very cold and dark universe...

No, that's one of the current interpretations of 'current observation.' Also, big rip is not heat death. And the big rip is not incompatible with a regenerative universe. and if one considers a more computational, 'digital physics' view of reality, neither is heat death.

ever read asimov's the last answer?


GOD EMPEROR ASI-...ah nevermind.

 

[paarsurrey]

Mohammad claimed that god prevented the planets and stars from colliding, the Bible claims that the stars in heaven are signs from god, etc

Please quote the text of the relative verse from Quran, if you may.

Have you read the Quran yourselves or you get it from hearsay?

 

[fallingblood]

Well no those stories were the explination for cosmology and creation in those ancient times and even the birth of Jesus is associated and predicted with astrology.

No they weren't. If these stories were really the explanation for creation then we would expect to see just one per society. In the Hebrew Bible, we have two, and they contradict each other. Yet, they were placed in the same account. Not because they were thought to be historical fact, but because they were important as myths.

In fact, if you look at any number of societies in the ancient world, you will see numerous creation myths that emphasize different ideas. Hinduism is a wonderful example of this. And then if you look at the various commentaries on these creation stories (and I'm talking about even ancient commentaries) you will see that most did not think of these stories as factual. They were regarded as mythological stories.

As for the story of Jesus, it wasn't predicted with astrology. It wasn't even predicted. He was born, and a star guided people to where he was. It isn't astrology, it would have been a miracle. Not that the story is correct anyway. More so, many didn't consider it true from the get go anyway, but say it as mythological. We can know this because such stories were common in the ancient world and it was common to make such things up. They were meant to signify a special individual, not portray historical facts.