1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Science, religion and the truth

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by mikkel_the_dane, Mar 17, 2020.

  1. WhyIsThatSo

    WhyIsThatSo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2020
    Messages:
    1,087
    Ratings:
    +136
    Religion:
    Christian Gnostic
    Then I suppose all the "evidence" you need will surely come
    when your time comes.
     
  2. WhyIsThatSo

    WhyIsThatSo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2020
    Messages:
    1,087
    Ratings:
    +136
    Religion:
    Christian Gnostic
    The symbol is that of the "Demiurge", the "god of this world".
    The symbolism of the serpent eating it's own tail (ouroborus) is that of perpetual DEATH.
    Everything
    here "eats" (consumes) itself, in order to "live".

    In other words, it is NOT what you think it is.
     
  3. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    9,482
    Ratings:
    +5,996
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    The evidence of relativity, redshift, and the cosmic radiation background all point to a beginning of the universe, currently thought to be about 13.8 bn ya. Cosmologists therefore enquire into the nature of that origin, whose nickname is the Big Bang, since it was followed by the expansion of the universe to what we presently see.

    The Big Bang may have been the closest physics can come to a single point. Or it may not. Look at the evidence, form testable hypotheses, test them (including modeling them on big computers), and repeat. Like all science, it's a work in progress.
    The only reason you know there are questions about gravity out there is because astronomers found them and realized their significance. You seem to be accusing science of having put forward wrong hypotheses, whereas you should be applauding them ─ the whole point of hypotheses in science is that they may turn out to be right or wrong and either result is informative.
    How do you suggest they proceed instead?
    Now you're just being snarky. What they actually did was make the observation, Hey, according to our present understanding of gravity, that galaxy doesn't appear to have enough mass to maintain the shape it does ─ our present theories say it should have an extra n kg of mass. Is it our theories or our observations? Let's find out. And they've been working on finding out since the issue surfaced. (In fact the apparent disparity had been noted earlier, from memory in the 1930s, but wasn't then followed through.)

    So what's your beef?
    No, instead they said, "We have a problem which we'll name 'dark matter' after one of our hypotheses."
    How does your idea stand up when tested according to the normal practices of astronomy and physics?
    As I said "dark energy" is the name of a problem, not an answer ─ same as "dark matter".
    The evidence says the universe is expanding with increasing velocity. You may be right that the expansion is an illusion and the observed redshift has another cause. But you may also be wrong. We simply don't have clear answers at this time.

    And those answers, when we get them, will be no more absolute than any other conclusion of science ─ though they will be the best available.
     
    #403 blü 2, Mar 21, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2020
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. Aupmanyav

    Aupmanyav Be your own guru

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    27,719
    Ratings:
    +12,583
    Religion:
    Atheist, Advaita (Non-duality), Orthodox Hindu
    That is 'maya', our illusion, Mikkel. There is no you or me. What is, is Brahman only.
    :) Though there is no proof other than virtual particles, I have a lingering doubt that existence is no different than non-existence, just phases. 3,000 years ago, RigVeda said:

    "sato bandhumasati niravindan hṛidi pratīṣyākavayo manīṣā ll"
    Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.
    Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.
    :) Yeah, just like all other perceived and non-perceived things, I think I am that.
     
    #404 Aupmanyav, Mar 21, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2020
  5. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    9,118
    Ratings:
    +2,298
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    What if the best way has a limit as to what it can answer? Some answers to questions in science in effect unknown?

    Regards
    Mikkel
     
  6. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    9,118
    Ratings:
    +2,298
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    You are not doing science. If you were doing science, you could refer to the scientific theory of "there is no you and me". You are doing religion or philosophy.
    Here is a test for you using science: What happens when you observe the world? Well, you and I are in it. What happens when you try to observe "maya"? You can't because it is an idea in your mind, thus not science.

    You can have your subjective religion and I accept you believe in it, but stop claiming it science as natural science. It is not science.

    Regards
    Mikkel
     
  7. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    9,482
    Ratings:
    +5,996
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    I know it has such limits ─ they're inherent in the method (at least as it presently stands). A system based on empiricism and induction is never protected against unknown unknowns, nor guaranteed to find or to solve known unknowns. Even if science ever answers all the questions of eg physics, and describes the nature of nature and the cosmological history of nature perfectly, there'll be no way of knowing or showing that's the case.

    There'll only ever be the best answer at that time ─ subjective element (as previously discussed) and all.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,010
    Ratings:
    +538
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    Native said:
    If the Universe doesn´t fit the theories, we just invent matters and calculations which fits our initial idea
    I know :) But just adding unobserved matters and energies isn´t a strict scientific method. That´s the bad point in modern cosmological science.

    Native said:
    The "truth" is in this case is that the scientific method demands repeatable experiments and as such, the very Big Bang fantasy isn´t even a scientific theory.
    I most certainly would call it a "time travel" when standard cosmologists refers to the 13.8 bill. years age of the Universe from a zero point when even "time began". An idea which of course can´t be repeated anywhere as science claims as a method.

    Native said:
    Shortly described: From the viewpoint of the Earth they assume an expanding motion of gas and dust to spread out in the Universe where gases and dust and collapse into all kinds of galaxies, stars and planets via gravity. I see no descriptions of the other three fundamental EM forces in this process.
    Don´t you tell me what I dont understand as long as the TOE isn´t found! And you can take off explaining to me how a Universe can be created from a "super-cell" in a singularity. That should keep you busy for a while :)

    So: "Gravity wasn't present until it split off from the other three forces"!?

    I of course don´t believe in a BB fantasy of creation but THAT´S interesting. So GRAVITY IS A RESULT of the other three fundamental EM forces? Or at least it was once unified with the other three fundamental EM forces at at time?

    Here I really believe you :) Where did you get that excellent information from? Links please.
     
    #408 Native, Mar 22, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2020
  9. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,010
    Ratings:
    +538
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    IMO the religion have not been divergent over the course of history, What IS divergent is the historic interpretation and understanding of the religious and mythological telling of the creation which has changed a lot as materialism and technology prevailed.

    In my profile signature I say and claim that:
    We all live on the same Earth; in the same Solar System; in the same Milky Way galaxy and in the same part of the observable Universe. These facts really constitutes the cultural Stories of Creation.

    The very same facts of course also constitutes the very basics of the cosmological science. When studying Comparative Religion and Comparative Mythology it is remarkable how similar these cultural stories are.

    In this sense there APPARENTLY IS ONE HUMAN TRUTH in the religious stories of Creation. The same cannot be said about the standing cosmological science which struggles in the search for One Theory of Everything where the problem is to unify the fundamental forces - where especially "gravity" is the naughty one in the cosmological classroom. Or the EM is if one believes in gravity :)

    The present and most divergent understanding of the myths of creation is that "God created everything in the Universe", but in fact, the ancient cultural myths "just" tells of the creation in our local galaxy, the Milky Way, but some more elaborated cultural stories even speak of some basic and general principles of creation in the pre-conditions of this creation, i.e. from "chaos to cosmos".

    It´s somewhat fine that modern cosmological science can get remarkable telescopic images of cosmos far beyond our galaxy, but these still-images demands pondering based on natural philosophy in order to interpret the motions and the connections to a lot of other cosmic scenarios. Modern science reaches mechanically far out in space and at the same time modern science don´t even understand the motions in our local galaxy and what forces is implied in its formation.

    The mechanical way and the mythical/spiritual way of understanding cosmos should really be the same - and in some areas they are too if interpreting the myths correctly - but the big difference is that the world perception in ancient myths is CYCLICAL and ETERNAL and not LINEAR and limited by a beginning as in modern science.

    Regarding the historic divergence of religious understanding, it is also important to deal with the way former cultures got their knowledge of the creation. This of course implied physical observations of the human surroundings ON and ABOVE the Earth, but it also implied SPIRITUAL and INTUITIVE informations from both areas.

    Throughout history several persons have had some remarkable experiences of cosmic informations and even the smallest native tribe in the world had individuals who frequently practiced the connection between "this and the other world", which of course just is "the other side of the coin".

    Today such experiences is defined as "Devine Inspirations" and "Revelations" in where "a divine being" or force is thought to correspond with an individual but it really doesn´t mind how this is interpreted. The fact and essence is that humans can have inspirations of cosmos and of the very creation in our local galaxy itself. It´s just the human brain corresponding with the "universal brain".

    Well well :) Compared to the several thousand years of natural and spiritual experiences of ancient telling of the Creation, which seems to be very similar all over the world and an Unity as such, modern cosmology is just "a new baby in the family". A baby which needs to learn and connect the dots of creation, i.e. a Theory of Everything.

    I hold my coins on the ancient human physical and spiritual experience to any time.
     
  10. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,010
    Ratings:
    +538
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    Native said:
    Yes I can. It resembles the very contours of the Milky Way when described as a celestial Serpent which encircle the entire night Sky above the Earth on both hemispheres.
    First: You´re quoting out of context which is added later in the tread.

    Maybe you should try to avoid the dualistic and disconnected points of view in this? How can a symbol be both a demiurgic symbol of creation and death? The answer is of course Ouroborus represents BOTH: A circle of creation - as I also adds in the following comment in the thread.
     
  11. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,010
    Ratings:
    +538
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    Well, so you are learned by modern cosmologists who don´t even agree in making a reliable and testable theory of anything at all. It all just assumptions based on former assumptions which results in cosmological questions in the video below whether their theory is wrong and need serious reconsidering:



    This is excactly why I´m asking questions in the first place whereas you seem to applauding everything in modern cosmology without asking any critical and independent questions at all.

    Well, you now have a chance to think otherwise and for your self by watching the video. Have Fun :)
     
  12. Mock Turtle

    Mock Turtle Silent Generation - so don't expect much
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2018
    Messages:
    9,406
    Ratings:
    +5,009
    Religion:
    Fellowship of the Mutable (agnostic atheist)
    This is only from a limited perspective, since we know that there are so many different beliefs - from the one God, to many gods, to no gods, animism, universal consciousness, etc., such that this has been a divergent enterprise - of looking for meaning and filling the spectrum - so how can they ever come to agreement? Not think that many or most with religious beliefs truly believe their particular interpretation of reality? However, with science, this does aim to eliminate the explanations which don't accord with reality and hence does tend towards agreement or convergence.

    Anyway, surely it isn't the origins of the universe and such that is important, it is what follows on from this, and why there is such divergence (and leading to conflict). Humans just tend to do this.
     
    #412 Mock Turtle, Mar 22, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2020
  13. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,010
    Ratings:
    +538
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    Numbers of gods don´t have influences of the validity in general cultural story of creation. Such numbers/symbols only describe more or less details in the creation which of course is the same for everyone in every culture, even including present supporters of modern science :)

    If you have no clues of the essence in ancient religious Stories of Creation, you even cant´begin to make any comparisons at all.
     
  14. Mock Turtle

    Mock Turtle Silent Generation - so don't expect much
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2018
    Messages:
    9,406
    Ratings:
    +5,009
    Religion:
    Fellowship of the Mutable (agnostic atheist)
    Well obviously that makes perfect sense to you, since you have such a belief system, but unfortunately many with similar beliefs, but different, will disagree with you. Each espousing their belief they have as being the true account of reality, or whatever. Claim what you will but do not expect some of us to choose your account over any other. And as I said, it's not all about creation myths. Think that conflicts arising from all such beliefs are just to be expected?
     
  15. WhyIsThatSo

    WhyIsThatSo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2020
    Messages:
    1,087
    Ratings:
    +136
    Religion:
    Christian Gnostic
    What you don't understand is that "creation" is not a good thing.
    And the only "cycle" is that of death.
    This physical creation literally feeds of of itself, everything literally consumes everything else.

    The True God does not "create" life, He "Emanates" Life.
     
  16. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,010
    Ratings:
    +538
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    It´s not "my belief system" at all. I am talking of a COLLECTIVE system which origin from the study of Comparative Religions and Mythology. The very essence in these studies is just that there is a cultural agreement and not disagreements.
    I am just speaking of the very Creation Myths and nothing else here.
     
  17. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,010
    Ratings:
    +538
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    I don´t bother fighting with your dualistic terms. Take some time off and analyze what you write in the different sentences.
     
  18. WhyIsThatSo

    WhyIsThatSo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2020
    Messages:
    1,087
    Ratings:
    +136
    Religion:
    Christian Gnostic
    What is there to "analyze" ?
    Lets see, the minerals (dirt) feeds the plant, the plant feeds the animal/human, the animal feeds the human/animal,
    and the "powers that be" feed off of the mineral/plant/animal /human, that they "created".

    Nice arrangement huh ?
     
  19. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,010
    Ratings:
    +538
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    Oh yes indeed :) It´s called the cycle of Creation :)
     
  20. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    2,202
    Ratings:
    +370

    "I am" is necessarily a function of modern language. Our digital brains are formatted in an analog language and "I am" merely survives as a square peg driven into a round hole. I agree that "I am" is largely experienced in the context of spiritual/ intuitive framework but both intuition and spirituality are largely formatted in terms of language in a human brain programmed in analog language as we all are.

    The cart is consciousness and the horse is life. Life precedes consciousness and you go nowhere at all without the cart. Indeed these are so intimately connected one could say we ride bareback and that the brain body is so intimately connected they are one and they are virtually one with the horse as well.
     
Loading...