Have God and or the afterlife been disproven yet via science an theory?

[Htvfd460]

The notion that there is a heaven and hell as a consequence to our imposed will on others here on earth is an intriguing Christian concept, but can it be disproven with an incomplete understanding of physics and science?

 

Newton helped to begin the understanding of physics and science in a world that was opposed to proving that God's design could be figured out. He provided a foundation to work off of for later generations to expand on humanity's understandings. Later Einstein provided us with a great leap forward and furthered the foundations.

 

Quantum physics came along and Schrödinger's cat was put into a box, and to this day that cat is both dead and alive in our minds. With that thought, the cat still exists and has transcended existence through time as an absolute reality via the interpretation of the thinker/contemplating mind. Logically the cat is dead by now, but we contemplate it as both alive and dead at the same time to this day. The concept of God has lasted centuries in the same way. If man was created in the image of God, are we the reflection or the continuation of the first being? Via science we are aware of evolution, but do we take into account self awareness and the leap when humanity became a new conceptualizing existence? Which came first, the chicken, or the egg?

 

Stephen Hawking had said there is no God, then later recanted. As an intellectual leader does his recant reflect Einstein's 'known' quote about his understanding bringing him closer to God?

 

From the Big Bang theory, string theory and parallel universes humanity may just be getting to a way to prove that a heaven and hell could exist. If the universe as we know it came from the pinprick tear of another membrane we would have to take into consideration the ordinal Omega. The theory that the universe is finite or limiting in size has been disproven, and we now know that it is increasing at an exponential rate thanks to Alex Filippenko and his team. Where did the universe come from? That is an origin, a 1 to create an infinite.

 

The alpha is #1 in Greek numerals. Omega is beyond infinite mathematically (looks like a lowercase w but half of infinity as a letter). It's a translation from the original language but still a continuation of the "book".

 

Large Hardon collider is being used to dissect particles and understand how physics work on that scale. With quantum mechanics, the theory is that an electron may be in two places at once as in the theory of quantum entanglement. In other words one can be any where at any time. The Hardon particle has been proven as a fact, so the rest still needs to be proven or disproven before we will know.

 

If we truly believe that energy can not be created or destroyed, is it possible that our energy is capable of transcending to another parallel universe via quantum physics? Would that be what is known as heaven or hell? Or are we stuck in the confines in what we are limited to understanding that is an incomplete science?

 

In summary the idea that this universe came from somewhere else, the possibility of parallel universes, and existence in multiple places at once may be the road to proving that there is transcendent existence. Alpha as origin as the beginning and omega being beyond infinity covers all, either as a cycle or as a finite description of infinity as all encompassing or all knowing.

 

It's a personal concept so rip it up and challenge it. I know that this is the the most controversial subject, so feel free to question my theory. A discussion and thought is what I'm looking for and I haven't found anyone else that is willing to challenge my concept. I need your help to press further into this idea. I hope that I provoke you into debate.

[dsayers]

Do you mind if I ask why you're invested in whether there is a heaven and hell or not? By that I mean: What difference would it make? Not saying you shouldn't be curious about such things, but I am curious as to why you're curious

 

As for the titular question, doesn't the word "afterlife" sort of indicate that there's no life after life ends, because it ended?

[Wuzzums]

Have my imaginary friends been disproven by science and theory?

[neeeel]

The notion that there is a heaven and hell as a consequence to our imposed will on others here on earth is an intriguing Christian concept, but can it be disproven with an incomplete understanding of physics and science?

 

I am not sure it can be disproven. But it can be rejected until further evidence.

 

 

With that thought, the cat still exists and has transcended existence through time as an absolute reality via the interpretation of the thinker/contemplating mind. 

 

 

No it doesnt and no it hasnt

 

Logically the cat is dead by now, but we contemplate it as both alive and dead at the same time to this day. 

 

 

No we dont

[Guest Gee]

There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.

[thebeardslastcall]

If someone expects a non-existence to be 'proven' scientifically they fundamentally misunderstand what science does. Sciences measures things that exist only and trying to apply a scientific standard against the non-existent makes no sense. This is asking to measure the distance of something which doesn't exist and saying it hasn't been proven or disproven what the length of this non-existent entity is, when it has no length and by its non-existence can't be measured to any distance.

 

Then there is the theorizing the length of this non-existent entity. Theorizing the length based on what and if the thing has no existence there is no way to evaluate the theories of length of this non-existent entity. All you can do when dealing with the non-existent is to check the idea against rational and logical standards to see if the idea even holds of logically and could theoretically be true, but that still gives no reason to think the thing actually exists, merely that based on current understanding it may theoretically be possible. Believing something to be true based on this extremely flimsy standard isn't useful. If this is your flimsy standard and you use it to reject the logic and reasoning someone has provided as to why these things don't or can't exist then you're in the realm of anti-intelligence or anti-philosophy and there's no point in having a discussion with such a person because there is nothing to argue as the person is in an untouchable region of beliefs untouchable by reality or reason.

 

Since science doesn't apply to the non-existent, saying something hasn't been disproven doesn't mean it isn't complete non-sense or a disingenuous belief. The mere question tends to put forward a false non-applicable standard to confuse the less intelligent. This tactic is dishonest and unkind and generally gives people an excuse to believe in non-sense as if it is, might be, or is at all likely to be true. This notion tends to turn an impossible or extremely unlikely idea into an idea that should be given serious consideration as if the person can reasonably take the position that it's probably true when such a belief has not been earned by reason and evidence.

[Htvfd460]

Do you mind if I ask why you're invested in whether there is a heaven and hell or not? By that I mean: What difference would it make? Not saying you shouldn't be curious about such things, but I am curious as to why you're curious

 

As for the titular question, doesn't the word "afterlife" sort of indicate that there's no life after life ends, because it ended?

 

I over heard a kid ask her mom if the mean kid in school was going to go to hell when he died. And before her mom could answer she started to cry. I don't know what the mother said because I moved on to the rest of my shopping.

I contemplated the dream my cousin had the night before finding out that my grandfather had died on my mom's side. He dreamed that my grandfather said good bye and that he loves everyone and had to go. It wasn't my experience, but the timing was impossible to disprove. But the psychology of a dream is that all people in a dream are projections of who we interpret them to be.

So I wondered if he went to heaven or hell, because growing up I had believed in Christianity. One day I just stopped believing. Then years later the girl's question just resparked it. My own experience of coming close to death didn't get me to question if there was a heaven or hell or if God exists, and that was between when I stopped believing and the kid's question. Now every so often friends will repost iflAthiesm stuff like the fire and brimstone stuff, and a couple have posted that if science can't prove its real than its not real. So I wonder If there is a way to prove the existence of God with science. Christianity has been pretty oppositional towards science for a long time. Like evolution vs creationism, public schools teach evolution and that pretty much disproves creationism with facts. So for some people out there science has disproved God hell and heaven. if no one can fathom or understand God (per the bible), is that an omission of the rest of humanity together? Has science reached a point where some aspects can be answered/fathomed? At the same point if it was solved, that would destroy faith.

 

The term afterlife to me isn't really the complete notion of death considering the language of the time wasn't as diverse as the English language is today in the US. Language today is articulate and precise, even mailable and evolves. Back then they didn't have many words to work with, so some terms meant multiple things depending on the context. And spelling was more phonetic vs today's structured rules. So I don't really hold the reinterpretation of the words in the bible to be a perfect translation.

But when I see a dead person, they are lifeless, and that's a very stable condition. The electricity that continually provides a person to be alive just stops existing in the body similar to a flatline. It burns off and what ever it is that's producing the electricity stops making it. After life as we experience it ends, the ability to detect it also ends.

 

That's why I have vested and what lead up to it as a concept. Though the way i described the cause and path of the concept, isn't in a clear format, I want to challenge it.

[Htvfd460]

Do you mind if I ask why you're invested in whether there is a heaven and hell or not? By that I mean: What difference would it make? Not saying you shouldn't be curious about such things, but I am curious as to why you're curious

 

As for the titular question, doesn't the word "afterlife" sort of indicate that there's no life after life ends, because it ended?

 

I over heard a kid ask her mom if the mean kid in school was going to go to hell when he died. And before her mom could answer she started to cry. I don't know what the mother said because I moved on to the rest of my shopping.

I contemplated the dream my cousin had the night before finding out that my grandfather had died on my mom's side. He dreamed that my grandfather said good bye and that he loves everyone and had to go. It wasn't my experience, but the timing was impossible to disprove. But the psychology of a dream is that all people in a dream are projections of who we interpret them to be.

So I wondered if he went to heaven or hell, because growing up I had believed in Christianity. One day I just stopped believing. Then years later the girl's question just resparked it. My own experience of coming close to death didn't get me to question if there was a heaven or hell or if God exists, and that was between when I stopped believing and the kid's question. Now every so often friends will repost iflAthiesm stuff like the fire and brimstone stuff, and a couple have posted that if science can't prove its real than its not real. So I wonder If there is a way to prove the existence of God with science. Christianity has been pretty oppositional towards science for a long time. Like evolution vs creationism, public schools teach evolution and that pretty much disproves creationism with facts. So for some people out there science has disproved God hell and heaven. if no one can fathom or understand God (per the bible), is that an omission of the rest of humanity together? Has science reached a point where some aspects can be answered/fathomed? At the same point if it was solved, that would destroy faith.

 

The term afterlife to me isn't really the complete notion of death considering the language of the time wasn't as diverse as the English language is today in the US. Language today is articulate and precise, even mailable and evolves. Back then they didn't have many words to work with, so some terms meant multiple things depending on the context. And spelling was more phonetic vs today's structured rules. So I don't really hold the reinterpretation of the words in the bible to be a perfect translation.

But when I see a dead person, they are lifeless, and that's a very stable condition. The electricity that continually provides a person to be alive just stops existing in the body similar to a flatline. It burns off and what ever it is that's producing the electricity stops making it. After life as we experience it ends, the ability to detect it also ends.

 

That's why I have vested and what lead up to it as a concept. Though the way i described the cause and path of the concept, isn't in a clear format, I want to challenge it.

[dsayers]

I wonder If there is a way to prove the existence of God with science

Wouldn't this be antithetical? If you could touch God, then it wouldn't be special. The reward comes from believing without knowing for certain, right?

 

I think you're approaching the subject matter backwards. If I described a triangle square to you--that is, a two-dimensional object that has exactly 3 sides and exactly 4 sides simultaneously--there would be no value in contemplating whether or not the object I describe can be proven with science. Because rational thought indicates that it CAN'T exist.

[Htvfd460]

 

 

The notion that there is a heaven and hell as a consequence to our imposed will on others here on earth is an intriguing Christian concept, but can it be disproven with an incomplete understanding of physics and science?

 

I am not sure it can be disproven. But it can be rejected until further evidence.

 

With that thought, the cat still exists and has transcended existence through time as an absolute reality via the interpretation of the thinker/contemplating mind.

 

No it doesnt and no it hasnt

Logically the cat is dead by now, but we contemplate it as both alive and dead at the same time to this day.

 

No we dont

First quote- I agree it can be rejected.

 

Second quote- there was no physical cat, it was the thought of the cat that existed. The experiment itself is the absence of a tangible proof, yet it is necessary for the cat to exist in the experiment to provide proof that quantum superposition wouldn't work on objects. To this day, for the thought experiment to exist the cat has to either live or die if the poison is released, but before that it has to into the box alive or the experiment would be null.

 

Third quote- it's highly improbable that the cat would survive over 70 years so it's logical that it would be dead by now. As the thought experiment though it can either alive or dead, there is no rational of it existing in a state of limbo or between 2 outcomes or existing as both at the same time.

 

Einstein wanted to replace the poison with an explosion. Some question if it was crazy because the box would blow up, but the Geiger counter is reacting to a release of energy, the hammer swings and releases energy, and an explosion would be more energy being released.

[Htvfd460]

Wouldn't this be antithetical? If you could touch God, then it wouldn't be special. The reward comes from believing without knowing for certain, right?

 

I think you're approaching the subject matter backwards. If I described a triangle square to you--that is, a two-dimensional object that has exactly 3 sides and exactly 4 sides simultaneously--there would be no value in contemplating whether or not the object I describe can be proven with science. Because rational thought indicates that it CAN'T exist.

Proving the existence doesn't require touching God. I'm not looking to shake his hand. Im questioning the approach in how God is interpreted. Alpha is #1 the very first, but in what way? The first human to transition as a new species and the origins of human DNA? Is God the creator of existence because he was the first to exist or is it from recognizing and being able to define his existence?

I just don't think the deity approach is realistic, it seems more like an interpretation that has so much fantasy and grandeur that to use it to define God has gone so far over the top to it can't even be credible.

 

I prefer the square triangle in the universe explanation, because it's more difficult to center. I can imagine the shape of a circle with three or four corners coming out of it which is neither and both at the same time. If I took a piece of paper and cut it into a square then drew a triangle on it I would see both at the same time in 2 dimensions. The same goes for a plane in the universe, since it has an edge that makes a shape, having a shape on that plane is 2 shapes. I can kind of break that a bit.

But try drawing two lines that don't touch and still cross over each other's path. It's still an oxymoron like a cat being dead and alive at the same time I get that part of it.

It's difficult to prove that something doesn't exist if it couldn't ever exist.

[shirgall]

Proving the existence doesn't require touching God

 

Proving the truth of any remarkable claim requires reliable, repeatable demonstration of all of the characteristics, behaviors, and attributes that the claim describes.

[dsayers]

I can imagine the shape of a circle with three or four corners coming out of it

 

Then it's not a circle.

 

which is neither and both at the same time.

 

Existing on a continuum means residing at a point on that continuum, not occupying ANY two points simultaneously.

 

If I took a piece of paper and cut it into a square then drew a triangle on it I would see both at the same time in 2 dimensions.

 

The paper and the graphite/ink on that paper are two different things and you know this.

[Htvfd460]

Proving the truth of any remarkable claim requires reliable, repeatable demonstration of all of the characteristics, behaviors, and attributes that the claim describes.

Einstein said that science brought him closer to understanding God. Stephen hawking backed off of his statement that God doesn't exist. Today the LHC is proving concepts from way back when that theories are correct in quantum mechanics/theory. Math and science are proving that what used to be a joke back in the day now actually has merit.

My question of: has science disproven heaven hell and God still stands. Who has held back science from the ability to prove a deity, Athiests or those who are religious? It surely isn't Athiests saying to stop science from seeking proof.

How can you get results if another force is holding the truth back from the tests?

 

Sorry if there is more psychology imbedded there than philosophy. But keep breaking it down. I appreciate it.

[Htvfd460]

 

I can imagine the shape of a circle with three or four corners coming out of it

 

Then it's not a circle.

 

which is neither and both at the same time.

 

Existing on a continuum means residing at a point on that continuum, not occupying ANY two points simultaneously.

 

If I took a piece of paper and cut it into a square then drew a triangle on it I would see both at the same time in 2 dimensions.

 

The paper and the graphite/ink on that paper are two different things and you know this.

Like i said it's neither and both at the same time.

 

If we are talking about 2 dimensions, X and Y, do they form a circle or square? 0 is the starting point of the plane that we are placing a shape on, itself forms either a circle or square. If only X and y axis than omega will be equal from 0 in 4 directions, if X+Y axis in all directions than its a circle. Thus that forms a shape, if we place a shape on that plane, no matter the amount of edges, it's a shape within a shape. Not omega like ohms but omega in lowercase similar to the infinity character split horizontally like a 'w'. It's beyon N.

If we are working on an infinit plane of any shape and we put on a set of skis that are both as long as omega as well, unless they are perfectly parallel they will always intersect. Either in front or behind the boots. Overlapping them without contact on a flat 2 dimensional plane is the oxymoron. And if those lines are an atom or bus wide it will not make a difference in the fact that they will have to contact each other to overlap one another. All other parameters are irrelevant to the point. Color, translucency, width, material and so on can not change the fact that they will intersect when applied with Equal Infinits. It would be impossible for it not to happen. An oxymoron is simply an impossibility no matter how it is stated.

[shirgall]

My question of: has science disproven heaven hell and God still stands.

 

It's your claim that it does, it's up to you to do the groundwork. I do not have any particular need to disprove 10,000 other supernatural claims that you don't believe either.

 

For example: has science disproven that Mjölnir was made by Sindri and Brokkr?

[vahleeb]

First of all it is the duty of those that make extraordinary claims to bring evidence. The claim is that "God exists" not that it doesn't. The reason why that is the extraordinary claim is because it is putting forth non-intuitive theories about the behaviour of matter.

 

Even still, science and math in particular has given us the method of "reductio ad absurdum" which states that we can temporarily accept as truth any statement and then examine all the derivates of that statement and if we find a contradiction to already established truths/axioms then we can refute the initial acceptance of the statement and consider it false.

 

The problem of positing that God exists is leading off the top of my head to the following two blatant contractions of axioms that can be derived: the existence of consciousness without matter and the inability of an all-powerfull being to change their mind because of their all-knowing nature. The first is a contradiction of the laws of nature as they have been observed scientifically in every observation since science started recording experiments, the second is a literal contradiction in terms that is proposed by the qualities of God and cannot be sidestepped in any way.

 

As far as after life is concerned, I put forth an article I wrote awhile back on the subject that looks at things from a similar perspective: https://bukman.wordpress.com/2015/09/23/20150923-at-the-core-of-it-all/

[dsayers]

Einstein said that science brought him closer to understanding God. Stephen hawking backed off of his statement that God doesn't exist.

You said this already and they were appeals to authority the first time (read: not proof).

 

Like i said it's neither and both at the same time.

I reject your claim that saying something makes it so. You asking the question appears to me to be a farce as you do not seem to be the least bit curious or open-minded.

[Htvfd460]

It's your claim that it does, it's up to you to do the groundwork. I do not have any particular need to disprove 10,000 other supernatural claims that you don't believe either.

 

For example: has science disproven that Mjölnir was made by Sindri and Brokkr?

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.

[vahleeb]

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.

 

That's called confirmation bias. You remember this well timed dream, as opposed from all the other times you had traumatic dreams involving loved ones where nothing happened afterwards.

 

One night a few years ago, two months after my father had suffered a TIA (transient ischemic attack) I had this nightmare about my mother having a heart attack while I was with her. As I woke up in the middle of the night, in the pitch dark room, the image of my dad's face formed out of the darkness in front of my eyes and then it faded away as I woke up in a state of fear. My father had not been a part of the dream at all. I waited up for the next couple of hours unable to sleep to receive a "fated" call. 

 

Luckily, it was just weird brain connections and my dad is alive and well today. I'd like to re-extend the invite to read through the article that I linked above.

[Htvfd460]

You said this already and they were appeals to authority the first time (read: not proof).

 

I reject your claim that saying something makes it so. You asking the question appears to me to be a farce as you do not seem to be the least bit curious or open-minded.

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.

[Htvfd460]

That's called confirmation bias. You remember this well timed dream, as opposed from all the other times you had traumatic dreams involving loved ones where nothing happened afterwards.

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)

[dsayers]

Are Hawking and Einstein not authorities of science?

So if Hawking said 2+2=5, it would be true because he's an authority of science, right?

 

We are on the same page, but stuck on semantics.

We are not on the same page and the point of contention is methodology. You think that saying something makes it so and that things can be themselves and the opposite of themselves simultaneously. As an aside, citing "semantics" is intellectual sloth; If you did not accept that words have meanings, you wouldn't be making use of specific words.

 

I think your time would be better spent figuring out why you need these things to be true so badly that you would throw out anything that flew in the face of your baseless conclusions.

[shirgall]

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.

 

The problem is that once you have accepted a supernatural state such as heaven, you now have to select among several mutually exclusive versions of it, each of which has absolute conditions and learned authorities with advice for becoming a member. Where do you invest your time? How do you choose?

 

Once you leave the world of empirical data and logical inference you still have to make value judgments... but you no longer have a reliable universal system for evaluating them.

[Htvfd460]

So if Hawking said 2+2=5, it would be true because he's an authority of science, right?

 

We are not on the same page and the point of contention is methodology. You think that saying something makes it so and that things can be themselves and the opposite of themselves simultaneously. As an aside, citing "semantics" is intellectual sloth; If you did not accept that words have meanings, you wouldn't be making use of specific words.

 

I think your time would be better spent figuring out why you need these things to be true so badly that you would throw out anything that flew in the face of your baseless conclusions.

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.

[dsayers]

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.

Precisely! And that's why you cannot regard "Hawking sez" as proof. Because he too is bound by the real world and so THAT is what we look to for proof.

 

there is an omission of data to prove either

Rejecting something is not the same as it not being valid. The square triangle is logically IMPOSSIBLE, yet you're still on about the possibility.

[A4E]

Have OP being a time wasting agent been disproven yet?

[shirgall]

Have OP being a time wasting agent been disproven yet?

 

The fact that Stefan never engages on the forums tells me all I need to know about the real world value of arguments here. I hope to inform or amuse (and be amused in the process) but I don't get too invested in it.

[Htvfd460]

The problem is that once you have accepted a supernatural state such as heaven, you now have to select among several mutually exclusive versions of it, each of which has absolute conditions and learned authorities with advice for becoming a member. Where do you invest your time? How do you choose?

 

Once you leave the world of empirical data and logical inference you still have to make value judgments... but you no longer have a reliable universal system for evaluating them.

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.

Have OP being a time wasting agent been disproven yet?

Can you clarify that for me? I don't know what OP is/means.

Precisely! And that's why you cannot regard "Hawking sez" as proof. Because he too is bound by the real world and so THAT is what we look to for proof.

 

Rejecting something is not the same as it not being valid. The square triangle is logically IMPOSSIBLE, yet you're still on about the possibility.

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?

[shirgall]

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.

 

 

The commonality I found in most religious texts is that the sins that it forbids to the flock are exclusively reserved for the anointed. You can't murder or seek revenge but your King and your God sure can, because reasons. The other commonality is enough stories that almost anyone can find something they can attach to, even though taken as a whole the doctrine is a mess of contradictory spaghetti.

 

Yes, community support is great, and shared values, but one does not need theology for this.

[Htvfd460]

The commonality I found in most religious texts is that the sins that it forbids to the flock are exclusively reserved for the anointed. You can't murder or seek revenge but your King and your God sure can, because reasons. The other commonality is enough stories that almost anyone can find something they can attach to, even though taken as a whole the doctrine is a mess of contradictory spaghetti.

 

Yes, community support is great, and shared values, but one does not need theology for this.

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?

[vahleeb]

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.

 

 

I don't think you're right about that. All the 3 main religions in the western world (judaism, christianity in all its sects and islam in all in sects) do not state to do no harm, they say don't kill other members of the same religion, while advocating for the killing of all non-believers, adulterers, homosexuals, etc. Just because you pick and choose what you like from "the religion" doesn't make it factual, spiritual and it sure as hell doesn't make it right.

[dsayers]

Because Hawking is a logical authority doesn't mean he is right without validation. Yes?

Yes, I will talk in circles with you! You had already said this. And then I said that this is the reason that pointing to Hawking fails and how pointing to that validation is where you find proof.

[shirgall]

Htvfd460, you have described the commonality between most religions as being kind to one another and grateful... Bill and Ted have summarized this into a more succinct form than the heavyweight indoctrination model of most religions and don't require you to have faith in something unprovable in the bargain. Have you come to the conclusion that religion is unnecessary on your own? Have you answered your own question? Bonus points for George Carlin appearing in religious allegories as Rufus.

[Htvfd460]

I don't think you're right about that. All the 3 main religions in the western world (judaism, christianity in all its sects and islam in all in sects) do not state to do no harm, they say don't kill other members of the same religion, while advocating for the killing of all non-believers, adulterers, homosexuals, etc. Just because you pick and choose what you like from "the religion" doesn't make it factual, spiritual and it sure as hell doesn't make it right.

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.

Yes, I will talk in circles with you! You had already said this. And then I said that this is the reason that pointing to Hawking fails and how pointing to that validation is where you find proof.

I appreciate the patience and the ball busting!