Gravity and the Expanding Universe

[firedragon]

Buddha never asked his disciples to explore the universe or the world. He expressly said that things which have no relation to your happiness and well-being should not be contemplated on. He termed them as useless deliberations (Acinteyya*). Buddha was a thoroughly practical person. These are the reason why Buddhism disappeared from India. The Buddhist scholars made Buddhism too difficult for common people to understand.

* ".. imponderable or incomprehensible. They denote four issues that should not be thought about, since this distracts from practice, and hinders the attainment of liberation" Acinteyya - Wikipedia

You see, you missed the question. I didnt ask your view about the Buddha.

Since you said that you studied the Thripitaka enough to know "the intent" tell me what is the so called intent you gathered from studying the Thripitaka?

If you want me highlight it again here you go. "THRIPITAKA".

There you go. I asked again.

 

[rrobs]

I wouldn't be using the elusive and highly theoretical idea of an intelligent designer to prove anything.

Obviously the current data is insufficient to decide the matter. So we remain agnostic and think about an experiment that could answer the question.
Well, at least those of us who are scientists or scientifically minded. The creationists think about ways to ignore reality.

How arrogant to think science has a corner on reality. Funny thing is, the more research, the more reality changes. What kind of reality is that?

 

[rrobs]

Given that creationists have a massive problem with accepting reality, I suspect that that is not the final word. But at least for now it is the preliminary verdict on what can be taught as science at schools. And ID isn't.

So reality changes? Interesting.

 

[firedragon]

Given that creationists have a massive problem with accepting reality, I suspect that that is not the final word. But at least for now it is the preliminary verdict on what can be taught as science at schools. And ID isn't.

What reality are you referring to? What is this reality that creationists have a problem accepting as you said?

 

[Heyo]

What reality are you referring to? What is this reality that creationists have a problem accepting as you said?

5 Planes of Existence

 

[firedragon]

5 Planes of Existence

"Real are all those things that can be measured with a scientific instrument, repeatedly, objective and independent. Particles, forces and fields are real (and nothing else is). Reality is the subject of the "hard" sciences, physics, chemistry, biology, etc."

Thats your reality. And this is what "creationists as a whole" are unable to accept?

So with what kind of research have you established your reality that ""creationists as a whole" are unable to accept this reality"? Whats the sample size, whats the error margin estimated, whats the sampling methodology, whats the hypothesis, whats the testing methodology?

If not did you just contradict yourself by making up your own reality in your mind with out anything real as you yourself had given above?

 

[Heyo]

How arrogant to think science has a corner on reality. Funny thing is, the more research, the more reality changes. What kind of reality is that?

The (hard) sciences are the faculties dealing with reality. So, yes, they have reality pretty much cornered. Theology should deal with the spiritual. But greedy as theologians are, they try to infringe on the turf of the scientists - and make clowns of themselves.

 

[Heyo]

So reality changes? Interesting.

Reality doesn't change. Sometimes our perception of reality changes but in this case it might be that the law changes. Laws aren't real.

5 Planes of Existence

 

[rrobs]

The (hard) sciences are the faculties dealing with reality. So, yes, they have reality pretty much cornered. Theology should deal with the spiritual. But greedy as theologians are, they try to infringe on the turf of the scientists - and make clowns of themselves.

You have it backwards:

1 Cor 3:19,

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
​

The funny thing about Christians is that they all used to be just like you, i.e. a non-Christian. As such they've seen it from both sides of the fence. Maybe they discovered something you have yet to discover? Or are you a prognosticator and know, like many Christians knew at one time, that you will never ever become a Christian?

 

[rrobs]

Reality doesn't change. Sometimes our perception of reality changes but in this case it might be that the law changes. Laws aren't real.

5 Planes of Existence

I would sure agree that our perception of reality changes. As such, science has little knowledge of reality. The more they perceive the more they learn. It would be foolish to think science has a corner on cosmology.

Science is good for catching buses and airplanes, but it's useless in formulating a truth.

 

[alsome]

Realty passes like the time of the period of "now", it is a memory !

 

[Heyo]

You have it backwards:

That's a matter of perspective. But I should have expected it. Religion reverses everything.

 

[rrobs]

That's a matter of perspective. But I should have expected it. Religion reverses everything.

Ever consider that it's everything reversing religion?

According to the scriptures:

1. God is peace - the word "peace" is used over 400 times. Look them up before making a decision. It's the scientific method.
2. God is freedom - the word "freedom" is used over 60 times. Look them up before making a decision. It's the scientific method.
3. God is strength - the word "strength" is used over 230 times. Look them up before making a decision. It's the scientific method.

I trust you see the pattern. If you've not looked up all usages of the words peace, freedom, and strength, the honest and scientific thing to say is, "I don't know." Only after doing your own research do you even have the right to make a statement as to what's what. You don't have to believe me or anybody else. The scriptures are readily available for anyone who wants to know what they say. Of course few read them before dismissing them and making sweeping declarations about how screwed up they are. Not very good science at all.

 

[Arthur P. Dent]

Well if you look at things objectively, life always only comes from previous life. That is the only scientific fact we can draw on. Never anywhere has life been shown to originate from non-life. Never anywhere has intelligence ever been seen to develop from nonintelligence. And something cannot come from nothing. Or perhaps you are like the adherents to Dawkins "nothing is something."

Wow... where to begin...

\\"life always only comes from previous life."\\ So far. Just because something cannot be explained today, that does not automatically relegate it to "GOD"!!! We are in fact getting tantalizingly close to understanding abiogenesis. Quick question, if (when) science finally unravels the mystery of abiogenesis, will you have an existential crisis and suddenly not believe in god?

\\"Never anywhere has intelligence ever been seen to develop from nonintelligence"\\ There is a TON of evidence and free classes at your fingertips on the Theory of Evolution. I am not about to try to teach you that complicated science on a discussion group.

\\"And something cannot come from nothing"\\ This is a little more tricky as "nothing" is a much more complicated "thing" than appears at the surface. I am assuming you are OK with "god" having always exited forever and ever. So what not the Universe in some form or other? And before you scream "BIG BANG!!!", please do some research on the Big Bang and claim we sprang into existence from "nothing"... or better, site your reputable source (i.e. astrophysicist et al.) that states the Big Bang came from "nothing".

 

[Arthur P. Dent]

Not saying you are wrong, but I'm not sure where you're going with this. What is the relationship between a deck of cards and the universe? Also, what does miracles have to do with the OP?

Not so much addressing the "Universe" as I am the ToE (Theory of Evolution). People who scream, it's all CHANCE and therefore impossible typically fail to grasp 2 key points. One is time... as in... T---I---M---E!!!! Humans live an average 80 years or so. We can kind of grasp a few centuries. But 4.54 BILLION years (+/-1%) is just too big for the human brain to fully comprehend and why I refuse to debate a YEC. If the universe was truly 6 to 12K years old, then I would agree 100% that the ToE is impossible.

To the card analogy, I was trying to elucidate how just because something seems impossible "due to odds", it actually occurs all the time. And the more time you have, 4.54 BILLION years, the more likely it is to occur. Now to take the analogy one step further. If I were to start flipping cards one at a time and stop and reshuffle every time the card I was looking for didn't come up, then YES, the ToE would be much more implausible but this is NOT how evolution works! In the ToE analogy, as soon as I get the ace of spades (desired effect), I would pick up the REMAINING cards and shuffle them and go again. One the 2 of spades come off first, then I have the ace and deuce and pick up the REST of the cards and repeat. In this manner, a "guided" manner, I would get my "perfect" hand in a FRACTION of the time it would take me from COMPLETE randomness every time. (I really should make a video about this).

Hope that made sense and thanks for your question.

 

[Arthur P. Dent]

Then don't debate.

Agreed! William James stated, "Philosophy is at once the most sublime and the most trivial of human pursuits."

Truer words were never spoken IMHO!

 

[Heyo]

Ever consider that it's everything reversing religion?

As I just said, it's a matter of perspective. But at least we agree that we are not using the same dictionary. Even though English is not my first language, I think I'm pretty fluent and I usually have little difficulty understanding people or make myself be understood. But Religious is just not my language.
And since you refuse to speak English, I think this is going nowhere.
Have a nice day.

 

[Arthur P. Dent]

Ever consider that it's everything reversing religion?

According to the scriptures:

1. God is peace - the word "peace" is used over 400 times. Look them up before making a decision. It's the scientific method.
2. God is freedom - the word "freedom" is used over 60 times. Look them up before making a decision. It's the scientific method.
3. God is strength - the word "strength" is used over 230 times. Look them up before making a decision. It's the scientific method.

I trust you see the pattern. If you've not looked up all usages of the words peace, freedom, and strength, the honest and scientific thing to say is, "I don't know." Only after doing your own research do you even have the right to make a statement as to what's what. You don't have to believe me or anybody else. The scriptures are readily available for anyone who wants to know what they say. Of course few read them before dismissing them and making sweeping declarations about how screwed up they are. Not very good science at all.

I would argue in fact the the road to atheism is littered with bible that have been read cover to cover! The problem I find with most christians who have "read and studied" the bible, is that they have only done so in an exegetical fashion. Once you start actually studying the BIBLE itself, it all unravels in fairly short order... I will link a EXCELLENT class that is offered for free from the Yale Theology Department and that is taught in a non biased manner... just a history of the anthology of 66 short stories that most call the "bible". There's a Semester on the Old Testament as well as a Semester on the New Testament. Both are freaking awesome! If you want to be intellectually honest with yourself, I suggest you study the bible without the "guided tour" of evangelicals telling you what this means and what that means to them.

Introduction to the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) | Open Yale Courses

 

[Arthur P. Dent]

As I just said, it's a matter of perspective. But at least we agree that we are not using the same dictionary. Even though English is not my first language, I think I'm pretty fluent and I usually have little difficulty understanding people or make myself be understood. But Religious is just not my language.
And since you refuse to speak English, I think this is going nowhere.
Have a nice day.

\\"My aim is to attack ideas, not people.
I like you. If I didn't like you, I wouldn't talk to you."\\ <-- That is freaking awesome! I am going to shamelessly steal that!!!!

 

[Heyo]

\\"My aim is to attack ideas, not people.
I like you. If I didn't like you, I wouldn't talk to you."\\ <-- That is freaking awesome! I am going to shamelessly steal that!!!!

Have at it.
I put it into my .sig as I can be quite blunt. I just like clear language to get to the point and maybe even a compromise.