|
| Thread: poll: Should we believe in God or no? (inspired by french mathematician Pascal) |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Sha_Men
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jack-Of-No-Trades
|
posted August 17, 2001 05:56 AM |
|
|
Some words...
For Bort...
Very good answer. I didn't find really any weak points your answer and also you aren't so enthuastic to blame everybody else here like some others here. Points you are making are really good questions but I'm not the right man to answer those.
For Arachnid...
Religion is really big factor in somebodys life. You should know that and respect that. Of course other thing is should they be reading this if they get offended.
For Aerial...
Don't say like that to Ozzy. That doesn't really prove any point.
Let's not goto too directly saying who is right or wrong. Let's just state our opinions about our believes without trying to put the other side down.
Shall we?
____________
Catch the vigorous horse of your mind.
|
|
ozzyosbourne
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
Riddler of the Sky
|
posted August 17, 2001 06:49 AM |
|
|
Well said Sha_Men.
____________
Life is like a carousel. Spinning fast you got to ride them well. The only time you speak is in your dreams.
|
|
Ichon
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
posted August 17, 2001 08:48 AM |
|
|
Hmm...
Quote:
Faith. Science doesn't involve faith, and it's been churning out technological improvements based on the scientific method since Francis Bacon. Nobody has ever invented anything useful based on religion.
Why do you think science doesn't involve faith? That is sort of a funny idea. Do you know how often scientific theory changes? People forget science is only a possible explanation, not the answer. Taking it as an answer takes as much or more faith than religion since everyone admits man is falliable, at least religion claims to come not from man, but from an infalliable architect of all things.
If you say you are aware that science is only a bunch of theories concocted to explain things until a better explanation arrives, than you've admitted you are still in a search for belief, for what is science but the must basic function of religion? A search for answers...
|
|
Sha_Men
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jack-Of-No-Trades
|
posted August 17, 2001 09:03 AM |
|
|
Said this already...but
I think science and logic have everything to do with believe. Just look history. How many theories about different subjects there are. Despite saying that science is "objective" it never is it only tries to be. It's all about believing into things like evolution. We of course can find different things that we say are fact.
In fact I believe that everything is believe.
You must believe you are born just to remain sane.
You can't even really say what you did yesterday for fact. You just believe what you did yesterday. You must believe that yesterday was real to be able to live.
Of course there is chance that you don't remember anything like in Alzheimer. I was once in surgery and I was anesthetized. When I was waking up (I was at sleep) I didn't know was I real or not. Everything was dark and I was alone. I have never been so afraid as that one time despite being in fights or accidents. I didn't remember anything from my life. But something came from deep down from my mind. I'm really close to my sister you know and she came to my mind first. That thought about my sister made believe life existed. Then moment after that (don't know how long it was) I was awake in the hospital room where people from the surgeries where sleeping.
Believe and you can go on. Without believe you just end up crazy.
____________
Catch the vigorous horse of your mind.
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 17, 2001 09:11 AM |
|
|
Coldfyrius stated “Science doesn't involve faith, and it's been churning out technological improvements based on the scientific method since Francis Bacon. Nobody has ever invented anything useful based on religion”
Now if you believe that science doesn’t involve faith then you really need to understand philosophy 101…look into idealism, materialism, etc.
As far as religion never inventing anything useful...it has brought about lots of good..just in USA such organizations as Red Cross, YMCA, World Vision, various missions that help the poor were created by believers to help others.
Believers in God were the first to create/initiate hospitals, universities (Oxford, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Cambridge et.--123 universities/colleges in USA have their origins in Christian founders), education programs (McGuffy Readers), abolition of slavery in USA, civil liberties, capitalism (John Calvin, Adam Smith) even modern science (The Royal Society of London, Johannes Kepler, Joseph Lister, Pasccal, Isaac Newton, Lord Kelvin, Tobet Boyle, Louis Pasteur).
Believers in God were the first to stop child murder/infanticide, cannibalism, gladiator tournaments, etc.
Believe in God inspired the great Constitution of the USA(50-52 out of the 55 who penned the constitution were Christians). Belief in God inspired the first printing press (Gutenberg).
Believers in God inspired great music/literature/art (Bach, Michelangelo, Dickens, John Milton, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, etc)
Christians were the creators of the 12 step programs that have assisted millions of people to break their addiction to drugs/alcohol.
Yes there are atrocious things people did in the name of “god”...the crusades the inquisition...but I would argue they were not fighting as much for religion as for political power, not to mention on the whole….religion has brought far more good then bad.
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 17, 2001 09:20 AM |
|
|
Those who keep insisting that those who believe in God are stupid would be hard pressed to prove that...even the great Albert Einstein believed in God, let alone Kierkagaard, CS Lewis, Descartes, Galileo the list is endless of brilliant people who believed in God...so if you want to believe that they were stupid...well there is no use debating as you ignore reality. Also early American heroes were typically Christians also—Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, etc.
Arachnid…your statements about the Bible seem to misunderstand the Bible...no God didn’t write the Bible with his own hand…he inspired men to. Also I think you misunderstand “new versions”...there are no new versions that he created...there is the original text (when comparing the original to what we have now there are approximately 40 lines or 400 words that are in doubt in the New Testament) to which there are various translations…they all use a different phrasing and words here and there...but the underlying concepts remain the same. Also the transition from the Old Testament to the New Testament is quite fluid if you read it in its totality and understand the concept of progressive revelation.
Bort…you made thoughtful replies...but I think you might of missed something about the Problem of Suffering AKA Problem of Evil in relation to God’s existence. The most likely reason for suffering are not the answers that you said you heard...but the concept of free will...God had to allowed sin/evil/suffering to enable people to freely choose to be in relationship with him. He did not want to create robots...he wanted us to have a choice...not to be his slaves. The second you introduce free will into the world is the second that you introduce the potential for suffering into the world. He is both all powerful and can stop suffering and all loving in that he hates suffering…but for any true relationship with him to exist he had to temporarily limit his power to enable free will.
|
|
Sha_Men
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jack-Of-No-Trades
|
|
posted August 17, 2001 09:26 AM |
|
|
What?! Dargon...
Quote:
religion has brought far more good then bad.
Please in the name of your God...I think you have just started war here with those words...
Maybe it has bring happiness and hope to your life and many others as well. But I won't go into details what different religions have done right and wrong. The religion isn't the thing that has created those by itself. They are created because of different things. Yes, morale believes have might come from religion but not entirely. You can live has morals without religion, can't you?
Religion has many given things to peoples lives. But they are neutral things. It's everybodys choice to think if they good or bad. But saying that religion has bring more good than bad...I'm not saying it has bring more bad but...
I just want to say remember the medieval times where was religion then? Everywhere. Saying what people are how they must live etc. And punishment for going against the order of "God" was nothing else but death in way or another...
____________
Catch the vigorous horse of your mind.
|
|
Ichon
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 17, 2001 09:32 AM |
|
|
More good than bad?
Quote:
Believers in God were the first to create/initiate hospitals, universities (Oxford, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Cambridge et.--123 universities/colleges in USA have their origins in Christian founders), education programs (McGuffy Readers), abolition of slavery in USA, civil liberties, capitalism (John Calvin, Adam Smith) even modern science (The Royal Society of London, Johannes Kepler, Joseph Lister, Pasccal, Isaac Newton, Lord Kelvin, Tobet Boyle, Louis Pasteur). -
Some of that is incorrect, also I don't know how much credit religion should get for those ideas, the insitutions that bear their neams even are often older pagan concepts/structures that were merely renamed.
-Believers in God were the first to stop child murder/infanticide, cannibalism, gladiator tournaments, etc. -
There is more than one kind of religion you know... as much as some religions stopped those sort of things, other religions encouraged them.
-Believe in God inspired the great Constitution of the USA(50-52 out of the 55 who penned the constitution were Christians). Belief in God inspired the first printing press (Gutenberg). -
What inspired the Greeks then? And also the Roman Republic? No, I am sorry- the framers of bill of rights used authority of God, but if there were still a pantheon of Gods worshipped, than dollar bills would now say, "In Gods we trust." Or perhaps Jupiter or some other name. I'm glad you mentioned Gutenberg's press though, of all the things religion inspired that has changed the world more than anything. It also ended the lockhold religion had on people's modes of thought.
-Christians were the creators of the 12 step programs that have assisted millions of people to break their addiction to drugs/alcohol. -
Well, that is just funny... many 12 step programs are now famous religious organizations its true, but it was a sometime pyschologist who had his liscense revoked and wanted a way to make money who wrote a book with the first 12 step program outlined.
-Yes there are atrocious things people did in the name of “god”...the crusades the inquisition...but I would argue they were not fighting as much for religion as for political power, not to mention on the whole….religion has brought far more good then bad.-
No, the worst thing about religion is that people who want those things you mentioned, political power, wealth, domination etc; use the faith of true believers to accomplish atrocities. Religion is a wonderful method since it is a closed system- God, translators, you. Of course the tranlators can say anything they want and if you beleive it came from God, well then, you are helping contribute to whatever selfish evil you are being used for. Any belief which doesn't question itself is inherently evil as there is no compromise and only one solution to a problem which a final authority beyond wordly law decides. I don't agree with everythigns science says, but the one thing about science is that is part of it's structure. I think science can be considered a type of religion, as can any organized format for defining life and our place in it. I still get disappointed when I flip through the TV channels and see the religios networks full of tanned, rolex and diamond festooned "ministers" asking for donations for God's greater glory. And millions of people motivated by something in themselves which yearns for acceptance and knowledge answer that call. How far is the ordained priest from those ministers? Not very far... religion is the greatest scam ever perpetrated upon people throughout history. Spirituality in your own private thoughts is the only thing which can accomplish anything anyway, so why does anyone want an intermediary between them and God? Two reasons, no confidence- or a complete trust that what is going on is by God's will and therefor can't be wrong, and since even priests don't recieve an answer to every prayer, how can they do any better?
|
|
Ichon
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 17, 2001 09:56 AM |
|
|
Fallacy here;
-the Bible...no God didn’t write the Bible with his own hand…he inspired men to. Also I think you misunderstand “new versions”...there are no new versions that he created...there is the original text (when comparing the original to what we have now there are approximately 40 lines or 400 words that are in doubt in the New Testament) to which there are various translations…they all use a different phrasing and words here and there...but the underlying concepts remain the same. Also the transition from the Old Testament to the New Testament is quite fluid if you read it in its totality and understand the concept of progressive revelation.-
Many Christian scholars love to bandy about that line that only 400 changes from original Bible till the present one, and all in minor things. Well, that is laughable as what they are actually saying is that they went back and looked through all the various early versions of the Bible and picked the one which most closely matched with generous intrepretations, the current one. There were so many different versions of the Bible even while Christ lived! To choose the one which you like best and then say it's correct, that means nothing. Even which books are now in the Bible wasn't firm until the first conclave where a few clerics choose the present day books from among the couple hundred that were already then circulating. And wouldn't you know it, but all those books reinforce the power of the then fledgling chuch as being God's authority on earth. The Bible we have today was created by the politics of men. You can take the words of anyone, and taking what you like out of context fashion something completely different from what was actually said.
Also the idea that only 'minor' changes in translation occured... well who decides what is minor and what isn't? Sure, a simple mistake in translation makes, "Thou shalt not murder" from "Thou shalt not kill." Of course it's very similiar, but a new church which needed the political goodwill of princes and kings couldn't be against all killing as some of it is state sanctioned afterall, so a small compromise is made... Then through in some of the common prejudices of the times, and "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife" is actually, "Thou shalt not covet your neighbor" or likely, "...your neighbors possesions." And then there is the whole notion of intrepretation. Even with totally accepting that the Bible is today literally the same as 2000 years ago, what does it mean? How can the same book that was used to sanction slavery and war, now sanction freedom and peace? Parables can be twisted to mean anything you wish to see in them. Aside from the big 10 which are pretty direct, most everything else is open to your own intrepretation.
Just examine what happened when the printing press spread...
Suddenly the Church which had once controlled all access to religious thought, discussion, and authority faced splinter churches which intrepreted certain things differently and with the power of the printing press could spread those heretic ideas rapidly and broadly. This was serious enough to cause wars apparently- and the church never recovered, kind of interesting eh? And now the claim that it's all good and there are no mistakes?
|
|
Coldfyrius
Promising
Famous Hero
Vice-God for Marketing
|
|
posted August 17, 2001 02:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Faith. Science doesn't involve faith, and it's been churning out technological improvements based on the scientific method since Francis Bacon. Nobody has ever invented anything useful based on religion.
Why do you think science doesn't involve faith? That is sort of a funny idea. Do you know how often scientific theory changes? People forget science is only a possible explanation, not the answer. Taking it as an answer takes as much or more faith than religion since everyone admits man is falliable, at least religion claims to come not from man, but from an infalliable architect of all things.
Yes, I am aware that scientific theory changes frequently. and every time it does so it gets a little closer to the truth. The fact tht it does change to include new facts makes it a far more reliable guide to truth than religion. The fact that it can admit to mistakes mkaes it vastly more honest as well, since when religion flies in the face of facts it usually just does its best to bury them.
Quote:
If you say you are aware that science is only a bunch of theories concocted to explain things until a better explanation arrives, than you've admitted you are still in a search for belief, for what is science but the must basic function of religion? A search for answers...
I believe most current mainstream scientific doctrine, for now. I am, however, open to new theories, some of which make more sense than the currently popular ones. These I adopt. In that sense alone am I still searching for belief.
And about that "science is a religion" comment at the end:
Science = A search for truth based on experiments and theorizaton.
Religion = A search for truth based on making things up and setting fire to people who disagree.
____________
"All the punks are gonna scream, 'yippee!'/ 'Cuz it's the thing that only eats hippies."
-The Dead Milkmen
|
|
zonekill
Adventuring Hero
Wiedzmin
|
|
posted August 17, 2001 03:18 PM |
|
|
The question is not if u belive in God, but it is: do God belive in you?
____________
The Preacher
|
|
Zune
Adventuring Hero
of Tatalia
|
|
posted August 17, 2001 03:30 PM |
|
|
Comments to some of Incubus' claims
Quote:
why there are no miracles anymore.. like many ages back?
Miracles do happen, but for some reason nobody seem to know about them. For example, there are many examples of illnesses people have got rid of even if the doctors found no hope - I actually know some poeple who have. I even think that just that we live is a miracle.
Quote:
i don't play and talk to people who do believe.. they have a negative infuense toward me...]
Really? Does that mean that if you meet someone who believes in God, but you don't know that he does, he still makes a bad influence toward you? If not, why don't you talk to people you know believe in God? I have many friends that don't believe, but I simply avoid to discuss God if they don't want to. (Of course, it's something else if someone always tries to convince you that you're wrong.)
Quote:
I will choose hell.. i don't like boring heaven!
Nobody knows what heaven will be like. Who has said we can't do things we like to do on Earth, in heaven? Who knows, maybe we can play HOMM there, for example.
|
|
Avallach
Hired Hero
Disputo ergo sum.
|
|
posted August 17, 2001 04:18 PM |
|
|
While the paraphrase posted of Pascal's Wager may perhaps have been the simplest way of putting it, it wasn't necessarily the most accurate reflection of what he was saying. He was not saying that someone could fake their way into heaven by either going through the motions or getting into psychological tangles trying to 'make' themselves believe something they didn't. His approach was more along the lines that it was worth it to 'give it a go'. Assume that there is a God, and act accordingly - not by pretending, but by actively searching. In his society that would mean going to church, but as has been pointed out, in our society there are many different religions claiming to be truth. A modern equivalent of the Wager wouldn't be very different though: that it's worth it to investigate the claims of the major religions, to consider their plausibility, rather than just assume that all are false. It would be foolish to simply assume there is no God because that's what the media and popular culture say, or to consider religion's claims based on the straw men that are erected of them for the purpose of burning them down. It's easy to be an atheist, not because it's 'intuitively obvious' or any such, but because it simply involves conformity with what everyone around you is saying. I can respect people such as Hume who chose Atheism in a predominantly theistic culture, who had actually seriously considered the question before choosing the answer they considered on balance to be correct. But how many people these days could be said to have based their Atheism on similar consideration and reasoning? Some, certainly, and probably a greater proportion than is typical will be present in this thread, as those will probably be more inclined to discuss the matter. For the majority though, I don't think this is the case at all, which is quite amazing given the seriousness of the question, and the possible implications. Living in the Western culture that most of us do, Christians (and people of any religion, really) at least have to seriously consider the dominant alternative philosophy (in a broad sense, atheistic evolutionism), being bombarded by it as we are through the media. Not all, but more Christians will have truly examined Atheism than Atheists truly examined Christianity, and come to a conscious decision. For this reason I find it strange, but almost humorous in a way, when atheists claim (as they frequently do) that religion is for the weak. It is usually those same people who have never even tried to swim against the flow of the river that is the presiding culture, preferring just to let it carry them where it will. And to ridicule those who do otherwise.
Someone mentioned Occam's Razor. Basically, the Razor says that the theory with the fewest unfounded assumptions is more likely to be correct. How this is meant to be an argument for Atheism though, I'm unsure. At the highest level, I'd say the assumption of a Creator is simpler and more reasonable than a lump of matter that either always existed or that quantumly fluctuated it's way into existence, then exploded and happened by some chance to produce life. But that's just me. Really though, Occam's Razor shouldn't be invoked for answering metaphysical questions.
Quote:
Well, that is laughable as what they are actually saying is that they went back and looked through all the various early versions of the Bible and picked the one which most closely matched with generous intrepretations, the current one.
Yes, well that's very easy to claim isn't it, but what reason do you have (apart from cynicism in general) to suppose that this is the case? If you read anything on textual criticism from a source that doesn't try to distort it with vague claims such as you just made, you'd find that it's quite the contrary. It's close to a science, and one that is applied to many many historical documents, not just the Bible. The Bible however is the one for which there is the most overwhelming, objective evidence for having been transmitted with close to perfect accuracy in its entirity. There will always be nuances that aren't communicated accurately in translations, that's inevitable. What's important though is that we can know we have essentially the same greek and hebrew versions as were originally written.
Quote:
Just examine what happened when the printing press spread...
Suddenly the Church which had once controlled all access to religious thought, discussion, and authority faced splinter churches which intrepreted certain things differently and with the power of the printing press could spread those heretic ideas rapidly and broadly. This was serious enough to cause wars apparently- and the church never recovered, kind of interesting eh? And now the claim that it's all good and there are no mistakes?
Or to put it another way, the 'Church' had become rather corrupt from wielding political power as it did. Doctrines were introduced that had no biblical basis, and were enforced through the Inquisistion. Then came the Reformation, in which an effort was made to get back to what the Bible taught, doing away with man made traditions.
People can honestly interpret things differently, sure, but that's the flaw of humans, not God.
Quote:
The fact tht it does change to include new facts makes it a far more reliable guide to truth than religion.
Or it may just be that religion doesn't need to because it is truth, and has had no 'fact' contradict it.
____________
"Death slew him not, but he made death his ladder to the skies"
- Edmund Spenser, on the death of Philip Sidney
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted August 17, 2001 04:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Bort…you made thoughtful replies...but I think you might of missed something about the Problem of Suffering AKA Problem of Evil in relation to God’s existence. The most likely reason for suffering are not the answers that you said you heard...but the concept of free will...God had to allowed sin/evil/suffering to enable people to freely choose to be in relationship with him. He did not want to create robots...he wanted us to have a choice...not to be his slaves. The second you introduce free will into the world is the second that you introduce the potential for suffering into the world. He is both all powerful and can stop suffering and all loving in that he hates suffering…but for any true relationship with him to exist he had to temporarily limit his power to enable free will.
This is actually a pretty strong argument to reconcile the existence of suffering with the existence of an all powerful God (who happens to be all good). However, there are a couple of holes:
1. It fails to even address things such as ebola (very few people, of their own free will choose to have their organs explode), earthquakes, drought and Richard Simmons
2. Allowing somebody to make the choice to do something is different from actually allowing them to do it. The argument "well, we had to allow him choice" fails to hold water if it's the police saying it after they refused to intervene in a domestic dispute that they knew about and has now resulted in a dead mother, as well as a raped and dead daughter. Similarly, "they are a sovereign nation, and we have no right to interfere" is a weak argument when refering to, for instance, the ethnic violence that occured in Rwanda so recently. It is an even weaker argument in both cases if it is God saying it. In the first choice, the police may be able to plausibly say that they did not expect the dispute to get so out of hand, they thought he would just throw a few dishes and then pass out in his own vomit. God, however, being omniscient, would know the exact consequences of his, or other actions and as such would have been able to prevent the tragedy. In the second case, it is first of all hard to believe that there is anything that God doesn't have the right to do, interfering in a civil war being the least of them, and God would also not have to put any peacekeeping soldiers/aid workers at risk to stop the violence. In addition, if God didn't want to reveal himself , omnipotence surely would also include the ability to set up a series of coincidences (miracles?) that would eliminate the threat (after the decision to rape/murder/sell excersize tapes had been made) without anyone knowing that outside intervention had occured.
Free will's all well and good, as long as it doesn't involve a machette and somebody elses arm.
Personally, I think the most satisfactory answer would be an all good but not all powerful God (especially because that would make humanity's place in the universe that of God's helpers rather than God's servants). However, that seems to be a suggestion that people would not accept.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted August 17, 2001 04:32 PM |
|
|
Oh, and for the record, science involves a whole lot of faith. For instance, if I drop a rock and it falls with an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2, and I repeat the experiment 100 times, each time getting the same rate of acceleration, I will then formulate the theory that massive bodies are attracted to one another, and in the case of the Earth and a rock, this attraction is always in the form of an accelerating force of 9.8 N/kg. I am taking it on faith that 1. what I observe is what is really happening (pretty big leap, actually) 2. what I observe today is the same as what I will observe tomorrow 3. what I observe here is the same (with a different accelerating force) as what I will observe several billion miles from here 4. as well as all the standard mumbo jumbo of does the rock really exist and whatnot.
Doesn't mean science is wrong, though, I think it's got a pretty good track record. Plus, if I come down with cancer, you better believe I'm getting all of the scientifically formulated treatments rather than go to a faith healer.
Also, people, lay off the "Oh, yeah, well what about the Spanish Inquisition, that proves that religious people are a bunch of torturing loonies," because the argument could be just as easily made ,"Oh yeah, well doctors helped with the holocaust, that proves that you science types are a bunch of amoral loonies." Basically, people can be rat bastards regardless of their religious persuasion, just as they can be pretty nice people regardless of their religious persuasion.
|
|
Sha_Men
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jack-Of-No-Trades
|
|
posted August 17, 2001 05:27 PM |
|
|
The End is beginning is the end.
First I think both Avallach and Bort had excellent posts there. But because my english is lacking and I try to be in the surface in this philosophical discussion and not end up under water I think I pass to answer those now.
But philosophical posts aren't always meant to be commented anyway only seen as statement isn't that so?
I said earlier I was once part of group with people in which we talked about everything and philosophy was one issue. We happened to notice that asking questions was effective way to get things going on and therefore there should be always some questions at the end. So people would feel that they have to fill up something in thought that one just expressed. Another way is to put some kind of opinion or theory into the table and let people discuss it.
That's what I do now.
So...here's something that I say even if this puts me under water for second...
I have some thoughts how world ends and how it is created again. Well, I won't say how earth was created because that has been answered already by science and we can see that even bible has some mentions of that. However if you are very religious you might my thoughts post very offensive so please don't read any further. Also I'm really sorry this is so long post despite I said earlier in another thread I try to be shorted but you just can't say this in smaller message. These things I now said are picked from sources of philosophy.
I'm not real physicist so anybody who claims to be one and has gets some facts right I bow to him and left the stage for him. This is only very simplified version about this whole subject and has probably even more holes than swiss cheese.
So there is this place called universe. However you cannot look creation from outside because there is no real "outside" in the world. Everything is "inside" the universe. We think that there is another place which isn't the life we are currently living but instead some kind of heaver or hell...
In this theory there is no such place or it is the universum itself.
Now you know how some stars explode or collapse and go into black holes? Theory of black holes isn't really holding yet but I think it will later on do it. Some claims that where universum "ends" (There is theory that space is like fabric that goes into wrinkles in some places) there is huge differences with time and place when we compare to those we are used to. This same happens close to black holes. Gravity is so strong it wrinkles part of space. If you could take that gravity and move closer to the black hole you could move back and forth in time. This theory is also used with science fiction term "worm hole".
Now...
Universum is spreading (theory) all the time from the time it created itself. After some time it will start to shrink. Then finally it starts to collapse. All atomes will go together and if you know what happens when you hit atomes with other atomes you know what happens. Mass is so huge that gravity is phenomenal. Time and place aren't the same anymore. Pressure puts universum into very small shape but we cannot know how large universum is as we cannot understand it as whole. Then there is the end. No space, no time, no real materia only this force. Universum goes small stage where it can be called as "singularity". Then it explodes. Spreading itself into itself. As you know you cannot really spread fabric too much or it will tear apart. If this happens this rip will end up being black hole or such.
But as said this is hard to understand if you think universum from outside it as many people do to get overall understanding. "End of the world" happens to those who are living then and I suppose all life is gone long before that universum ends just because life needs particular circumstances to be able to exist. Of course we can start to argue what is living and what is not but I won't go there now...
Even this theory doesn't tell which is the X-factor or does answer people are so fond of (me too) why?
People like to yell that question unless they are very sure into which they believe (be it god or science or anything) in and in many cases this prevents them asking that question at all.
I think it's echo thing. If you yell WHY?! to universum you get answer WHY?!
So it's all you and your silly head that has gone nuts. Nothing else.
____________
Catch the vigorous horse of your mind.
|
|
Incubus
Disgraceful
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted August 17, 2001 05:54 PM |
|
|
whaha you fool.
There is no god... No heaven... No hell.. No Devil.... No Angel.. No miracles.. That's all more fairytales then the minotaur stories.. and If a friend believes.. i will keep ontelling him that god sucks and isn't real... 2 people stoped believing.. i'm a ANTI-Disiple for god >;o)
I talk people away from god! MAY MY SOUL BURN IN HELL! (if there is one?)
Sorry to say this again.. but i think you are all fouls to believe this snow.. i think you iq may be high on some facts but in this fairytales fact is very VERY low..
The End(death) is like the beginning(before birth)
And ozzy.. Why i still live? I hate God i'm anti-god.. Ive never been in a hospital! I think you need to see a docter and fast.. and he don't protect us but this fairytale god is the starter for many wars.
____________
|
|
Sha_Men
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jack-Of-No-Trades
|
posted August 17, 2001 06:05 PM |
|
|
Hell...
If there is Christian God or how some say how he is I'm pretty sure I'm going to hell. That's because I have done some things in my life that are bad ,maybe not true evil but bad. I do those because of my better kbowledge in that time. However I never regret anything that I have done. If I have sins I let them be so we see ya in hell Incubus then...
I have always somehow liked the idea having cup of afternoon tea with the devil. I think we could make up some very interesting discussion. Maybe he would end up sending me to heaven just because he doesn't want hear me anymore...
LMAO
____________
Catch the vigorous horse of your mind.
|
|
Zune
Adventuring Hero
of Tatalia
|
|
posted August 17, 2001 06:18 PM |
|
|
|
Sha_men, according to the bible, whether you go to heaven or hell doesn't depend on how many sins you do but simply on whether you believe.
|
|
ozzyosbourne
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
Riddler of the Sky
|
posted August 17, 2001 06:21 PM |
|
|
people say Self-Sacrifice automaticly gets you into Heaven?? well if thats true ill continue my life.. then ill save someone by stepping in front of a bullet when im old.. and get into heaven and live it up there for eternity.. its all worth it.. LOL!
____________
Life is like a carousel. Spinning fast you got to ride them well. The only time you speak is in your dreams.
|
| |
|
|
