Htvfd460

Vahleeb- in response to your thorough retort. What is your stance on religion? You know a lot about the subject. But is it voodoo or is it real to you? I'm on the cups in some ways, but I don't think that religion knows better than science (which evolves unlike religion). Of all those books they are combined into the rolling papers at the knees of those sitting in their own pew. They pick it up read a few lines and feel good that they have practiced 2nd grade level reading aloud to their peers. Either soft or hard cover, it's one book that is held in hand and abided or they will suffer. I did come up with a God that isn't referenced via the bible in that he is just a person who represents the alpha, or first human to be a DNA farm. I don't think God would be the equivalent to Stalin or Hitler because they thought more of themselves over the people rather than just being the baby daddy. We know that Christians and Jews were not the first people on earth. The Chinese calendar goes way back before Jesus could have been a head board stain. And while on the subject, how gross is it that Adam an eve as grandparents have incest grand babies? Back to a reference to the bible and describing God, the common concept is that God is the creator of something or all. That would indicate he or she or Jenner is the first to come out and say: yup I did all that. Well as humans the first one would be able to make that claim. But they are dead now. Chilling in the past doing little to effect us now, other than being the first sperm donor. Heaven and hell are considered an after life. Hahaha! Like nonexistence is better than hell? Who wants to just poof!, never exist, not have an effect on the future or honor the past? At best we will be rotten meat for the worms to shit out. Then later we will be a rose! Funny how Christians use flower bouquets on a grave as a presentation to the rotting corps. Look into the Black Death on this one. Smelling posies might stop the bubonic plague but its also a better smell than a pile of corpses oozing glandular infections into the sweet country air. The goal to the afterlife is just setting a standard for one's self to reach for what is impossible. If it comes true than its pretty cool. If not, at least you tried while others just conformed to believing in what they are told to believe. What science does is follow the burden of proof. Ironically religions have been the biggest opposition to proving wtf is going on. What science does is follow the burden of proof. Ironically religions have been the biggest opposition to proving wtf is going on. There is more but this is more wandering than staying on the path of the subject matter that is the title of the post. That is more a reference to showing a dream to a 3rd person perspective. Dreams are simple since all involved are the construct of the dreamer's interpretation. If I dreamed of you, the form of you would be as I understand, and not your actual thoughts and consciousness. Dreams are complicated when an outsider of the psyche interjects with their own psychology. What I was attempting to say was that if I was thinking of a car, you can't cut my skull open and pull out that car and drive it around. At the best you can see it on TV as I see it. That doesn't count into the value of gravity or actuall molecules defining a weight. I can also dream of a car turning into an urn. That won't happen in reality. But how is it that electricity and liquids in the brain can transcend to a computer screen? You can't smell, touch, or hear it. But you can see that it is there in my brain. Previously the best way to convey a thought was via art, music,communication, or just making it. Now it's possible to think it and make it real via a computer algorithm. Does that transition from a brain to a screen make it really exist? Or does that just prove that we can study things in a new way?

The mobile version doesn't provide means of acessing reputation points. While in the full version it is accessible. Is it possible to add something to the menu bar to get to that feature, or add notifications to the "mobile version"?

I think it's more about the thought of the pink elephant being tangible. At that point we can't remove the elephant from the brain and put it on a scale to weigh it or touch it. But it can be observed via sensors and interpretive software to make an image on a screen as a 2d construct. The pink elephant holds the same value as Schrödinger's cat in that it existed in the brain as a thought but it was never really there. It was just a concept that came to fruition from the biochemistry and neurons and electrical pulses of his mind then later was transcended to paper and verbal communications. Now everybody can make the cat exist as a thought of their own mind. Today science Is able to observe the results of the biochemistry and interactions between neurons in a person's brain, and interpreting them via computer code to construct them as images. The objects as thoughts have no measurable weight, don't interact with other forces, and do not exist as a physical form. Now science is observing objects in people's brains that don't physically exist. The pink elephant isn't physically inside of the brain, but science has found a way to see this pink elephant and prove that it is there. and can manifest it into an image. http://news.berkeley.edu/2011/09/22/brain-movies/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/breakthrough-could-enable-others-to-watch-your-dreams-and-memories-video/

For me, the challenge is on conveying what I am questioning as a thought. So that I can express it with out the need for translation, and I have obviously been failing at that thus far. I'm not looking at religion as how it has been defined and perceived as a theology. I'm more focused on the domino effect that it has triggered by not creating an alliance with science. The premiss of what I'm trying to get discussion on is that religion (Christianity as the example) has been the main opposition to science's attempt to approach validation of the 'mystic' attributes behind the theology. The things I mull over for fun like parallel universes being something that could represent what heaven and hell are, are only an example. Someone could come along and say that dreams are a better example of heaven and hell. But I'm providing these as "theories" which if studied by science would be tested logically via the scientific method. I'm making an attempt to provide a hypothetical theory that could be approached for study. One that a scientist that wouldn't be hesitant to attempt based on the backlash of religions implementing force on him or her. That also includes public ridicule, because some people would present the possibility of a violent opposition on what they have been led to perceive as unreasonable by the more modern religious teachings (from the times of Newton to Einstein and maybe today). So what I think, is that religion is at fault for creating an environment where science has been painted as an evil has turned out to work against religion's attempt to become universal in acceptance. So to speak, their opposition to science is the pinochle act that drove the first nail into the coffin.

Vahleeb To address my statement of: "From what I have found the bible consists of different stories over a range of about 1500 years, and 40 writers. The Vatican has cherry picked the stories and omitted the most outlandish, and contradicting texts." Here are citations to provide a background of what I mean. Below the citations is a correction/ clarification of my statement. Multiple books written by 40 authors as http://www.truthnet.org/Bible-Origins/4_How_was_Bible_written/ The Vatican does alter the bible http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/sep/11/books.humanities The bible has been misinterpreted, and was altered with added phrases that were not in the original texts. (This alteration is more recent.) http://www.gotquestions.org/missing-verses.html The bible has been comprised lacking the omitted stories. And the Pope/pontiff (before the Vatican existed as a papal palace) approved omitting some books of the bible. http://www.catholicbible101.com/thebible73or66books.htm I will attempt to fix my error in saying it was the "Vatican" that altered the bible because it's not a place, it's the people who altered it. - Starting from the house of Fausta later becoming the apostolic palace of the Lateran then going to the palace of the Vatican. The locations were/are the apostolic palaces/papal palaces. The bible has been altered by these palaces as the group of people who made the decisions to omit books from the bible. With that addressed, the title of this topic is asking if science is the reason that people believe that God and or heaven/hell don't exist. The first paragraph is linking science and Christianity together as a relationship. The second provides how the relationship between the religion and science have been oppositional. The fourth paragraph is about continuing to provide conceptualization over time to the individuals, then I shifted to questioning if today the religion is even following the original understanding of what God was. Today God is considered a deity with impossible powers, but going back to the original term that has been translated and evolved in today's definition, we are probably wrong in what the terminology of what a God was back then. The hawking paragraph has been addressed, and my theory behind it was just confirmation bias. Next came proven scientific theories that may or may not prove heaven/hell. This is to provide reason that science isn't against the religious concept, but that it's still testing It as a possibility (even though Christianity has been against science for all this time, science has not given the cold shoulder to religion) Then I contrasted the scientific Alpha and Omega reference of the universe to the biblical reference of God as alpha and omega. The beginning/origin, and the unknown end/the infinite, to support that alpha and omega has not changed as a term. (The LHC paragraph has a flaw that I just caught. The God particle, or Higgs has been proven as a fact. "The *hardon* particle" is not what I meant to say. I find that to be a humorous auto-correct) The LHC has proven that the God (alpha and omega) particle exists, which was termed that way by quantum physicists. It's only one example that has been proven as an advancement in science. But what's more important is that Quantum physicists and mechanics want to advance beyond that first particle. I then presented my own theory of what could be the transition from life to the afterlife that I have imagined based on what I know of sciences. It's something I like to ponder. Christianity would call my free thoughts blasphemy. I then summarized the major points from my post where science could prove God heaven/hell in a realistic format that isn't a fisherman's story. Has science disproven God and or the afterlife? The irony of the question is that religion has been the one at the forefront of disproving God and the afterlife by hindering science's attempt to actually find proof. It's almost like a crusade against science but science is actually the Allie.

From what I have found the bible consists of different stories over a range of about 1500 years, and 40 writers. The Vatican has cherry picked the stories and omitted the most outlandish, and contradicting texts. Like reading the fantastic four comic books (there are a couple different series and writers have changed many times) and then watching the latest movie about it. Certain things are Altered because people may not like it, or it just doesn't make the new script exciting enough to get as many people into the theater. In the comic books Sue and Jonny storm are siblings, in the movie it's blatantly obvious that they aren't since the actor for the human torch is black and the invisible woman is white. It's the same title as fantastic four, but the origins are different and the story is altered from the original.

Was he a deity from the get go, or was he a person before he was transistioned into one? And does the Religion he is referenced in have the rule to not kill? If there is a commandment to not kill, then the agents are not abiding that rule. That would make the rule foulable and contradict itself.

He was good in Dogma too. "Be excellent to each other and party on dudes" the church of Bill and Ted has just one commandment. George Carlin has 3 commandments: Be respectful and faithful, don't kill, and keep your religion to to your self. I only had gone to church a handful of times. I had started questioning it before I started dating a pastor's daughter. That made for some interesting conversations. If there is a hell then I'm definitely going after what she and I did the last time I was in a church, and I still haven't been struck by Thor's lightning. But my main interest in starting this subject thread was more about the transition of life, and if the deity is a misconception. I see my mistakes on the point to point basis, except for if God may have been misinterpreted from the start. It seems to me that the perception of God as a deity is throwing off my suggestion of him being a bag of dried up bones or just the first human DNA.

After the the rule of not killing another, at least as one of the 10 commandments, the suggestions of killing another person for any reason is a contradiction to that rule. That pricipal invalidates all of the texts stating to kill others who are not part of team-X. The same goes for the rest of the rules to be kind and respectful,they invalidate the claims that there are loopholes and exceptions to the principals. Since the bible was written from both fist and 3rd person perspective, the writer's agendas were easily injected at different points. The bible's architectural base is Jesus's teachings, but The rest doesn't coherently continue along those parameters, they go off course and deviate by adding justifications against the main principals. When they chose to culminate so many things into the bible that were beyond the main teachings, they added contradicting manuscripts that muddied the clear waters. I'm using the bible as the example because that's what I am more familiar with. I appreciate the patience and the ball busting!

I find that the forbidden aspect can be contradicted by simple kindnesses. It may seem inverse, but there is the positive of at least one of the acrchitectures where forgiveness of an oops or my bad or even I was totally in the wrong, is forgivable by owning up to it. But that forgiveness is more based on the person who the wrong has been done to rather than the deity who placed the rules to abide by. Similar to how law enforcement works. ( the spaghetti is having to pay a person for representation rather than having a simplified structure that all can adhere to and knowingly understand. Instead we would have to pay for somone else to be responsible for our outcome. And we don't have a way to measure their capability, the risks are endless until fruition. It's a true gamble). I agree, we don't need theology to be nice and grateful towards others. Sadly though theology is what is used to apply consequences. The US prison system vs the Swiss reform system provides a contrast. And that gets into ethics vs morality. That is where theology seems to meet the gap though. That is one point where my understanding is conflicted. How do you approach it?

The commonalities would be the best start, which are kindness and respect towards all and by all. Most religions state not to kill or harm others. I'd say stick with the universal rules. Most of the books have some history to them that has been verified as true events, though today there is better explanations of what really happened, like volcanoes, asteroids, floods and natural events. Those events were mystified as an act of a deity, but the events correlate as historical documentation of natural disasters between each other as separate religious texts. Take the ones that have the most accuracy of world events and there is a base to start from. Can you clarify that for me? I don't know what OP is/means. Because Hawking is a logical authority doesn't mean he is right without validation. Yes? I'm aware that it is impossible, my mind still wants to challenge it though. Just being honest is all. That's why I provided a scenario of skies crossing but not touching on a flat plane, it's also an impossible scenario. My concept and your's still provide an impossible logic, therefor my initial proposition that you originally cited is an invalid logic. I get that. Why is this still on the table?

If Hawking approaches his theories with mathematics and physics as the architecture for the logical approach he would prove that 2+2=5 is false. My point is that he has reason to suggest that God exists, and this comes after he had previously said that God does not exist. Currently there is an omission of data to prove either, but for him to say that God may exist means that something changed in his equation. You do realize that the reference of semantics is on my part, right? I'm not applying it to your explanation, I'm applying it to my interpretation. The way I process the square triangle is based on my ability to fathom it. My mind is distracted from the point you are trying to make because my thoughts are attempting to find solutions to the problem. But I am aware that two probabilities can not exist at the same time and that a single contradiction is fundamentally flawed and impossible to exist.

The parameters of the dream may need to be addressed for clarification. My cousin was home in Ohio when he had the dream the night that my grandfather passed away. My grandfather was in good health (and no indication of any problems), and in his vacation home in NH. My aunt was spending a night away (she wasn't a caregiver). So my cousin's dream took place in NH, my grandfather walked up to him in the driveway and he said "I have to go now, I just wanted to tell you that I love you all". Then he disappeared. after being awake for a few hours doing his normal routine, my cousin received the phone call that our Grandfather passed away. He explained his dream, and that was it. If the parameters hadn't been so well aligned I would have been able to debunk it. The other odd part was that he passed away on September 2nd between princess Diana August 31st and mother Teresa September 5th, that timing was the confirmation bias that I had accepted based on the "things happen in 3s". I see the coincidences of it, it's just Hard for me to get past how compelling the circumstances were. Now that the details of the dream are explained, I'd like more of your input and perspective and logic. (Sorry for skipping your previous response, I missed it, going to read your link now)

Are Hawking and Einstein not authorities of science? I understand your retort of the square circle. I provided my own analogy to provide an oxymoron with the skies idea. We are on the same page, but stuck on semantics. The square circle being both and neither at the same time is the equivalent to a cat being both alive and dead at the same time.

True. I'm saying that as a more broad statement though, and don't know how to convey it beyond a generalized blanket. I find that the religious leaders have held true science away from the religious, and it's reflected in a few ways. Evolution taught in public schools schools, churches calling science blasfamy, religious education systems to teach altered sciences to fit the religious platform, and they all have differences that clash. The element that disproves God hell heaven is the lack of attempt to provide proof, and for a portion of the population that's a means to explain the lack of an existence or that it has been disproven. My only proof to suggest an afterlife or at least some sort of mystical a transition is a well timed dream.