In matters which not religion, I ask ''YOUR'' opinion and honesty to yourselves!

[james blunt]

It is well known that religion spent most of history arguing whom was correct in their beliefs. It is well known that religion and science have been locked in a mind battle for years.

In a quest to answer and find my own version of life , and what is ''everything'', I have come across of what I deem to be really poor logic and ideas by all parties involved. Often perspective views that define the very definition of an axiom or any sort of rational thought.

Now to define the extent of this, and I do not mean to offend anyone, it is an ''idiocracy'' and borderline madness by all parties involved. Myself as a neutral observer, is sitting here in disbelief of how anyone could be so mindless.

If you really understand life, then some of you will recognise the discipline you inherited of belief or education from thy fathers or thy mothers or by educational means. This being just a part of a stereotypical society and not being an absolute.

All religion recognise a God, and if we are honest with ourselves, we all recognise that creation is the first form of psuedo-science type thinking.
Religions also recognise that God created everything, God is all around us and we can with a certainty all agree that God is not seen.
Religions also recognise that God is immortal and there is some form of eternal existence in a paradise afterlife for those whom do not sin.

A realm outside of our realm that presently science could not prove to be falsifiable by having visual limitations and seeing a black ''background'' of space.

I do not wish to offend anyone or anyone's belief , however, to me, and how I perceive the information, the author of the bible or any other religious manuscripts was thinking about space.

My assumption and logic -

God is all around us - space is all around us

God is not seen - space is ''transparent''

God is immortal - space can not be destroyed and is immortal

God created all - without space to exist in , nothing can exist, not even a God

My logic tells me, that even if I agreed their was another realm , a Heaven that existed, then this realm would sill need space to exist in, God would still need space to exist in.

My answer to what everything is , space is ''everything''.


I argue these words can not be argued, these words are of truth's, challenge is all, to repeat thy words that false my truth's, thou not write truth's like this, thou will not repeat the truth's of the truth's I present before you, it is not of I to argue, it is I speak of the truth's , tell no lies before you, to present what we are, we not lie about God, we not lie about science, we speak of the truth or lying is for sinners.

 

[Pudding]

What is the topic to debate about?

 

[Aupmanyav]

All religion recognise a God, and if we are honest with ourselves, we all recognise that creation is the first form of psuedo-science type thinking.
Religions also recognise that God created everything, God is all around us and we can with a certainty all agree that God is not seen.
Religions also recognise that God is immortal and there is some form of eternal existence in a paradise afterlife for those whom do not sin.

- All religions do not accept existence of God. Take Buddhism, Jainism and my brand of 'advaita' (non-dual) Hinduism.
- My brand of 'advaita' (non-dual) Hinduism does not even accept the existence of what is perceived. It calls it illusion. Buddhism says that all things are created by association (skandhas) and nothing is permanent (atta). Jainism says that universe is eternal.
- My brand of 'advaita' (non-dual) Hinduism does not accept death, heaven and after life. Buddhist too, do not accept heaven and after life.

Therefore, all unproved assumptions.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Goes without saying everything needs a space in which to exist. Is possible that space has been placed as to prevent contamination of one space to another by means of an unbreachable space inbetween.

 

[Nakosis]

For me the perception of space is an illusion, as well the perception of God is an illusion.

Illusion doesn't mean that experiencing an illusion isn't a real experience, it only means I don't trust my perceptions enough to bet the farm on them.

Kind of like watching a movie, the drama on the screen becomes your experience of reality for a few moments. Light, colors and the perception of space yet there is nothing really there. Easy to understand the mechanics behind a movie, we just don't understand well enough the mechanics which create our perception of "space'.

If you want to hold space in reverence, it's about equal to holding anything else one perceives to be true in reverence. The trick is in not trying to insist everyone else has to hold the same reverence you do.

 

[Riverwolf]

It is well known that religion spent most of history arguing whom was correct in their beliefs.

It's also "well-known" that Columbus was the first European in the Americas.

It is well known that religion and science have been locked in a mind battle for years.

Just as it's "well-known" that Columbus argued for a scientific round Earth against the religious-minded church that insisted on a flat Earth.

In case you're not understanding my historical references, Leif Erikson the Viking and his crew were the first Europeans in the Americas 500 years before Columbus, and the fact that the Earth was round was common sense during Columbus's time. Aristotle proved that the Earth was round 2600 years ago, and the Catholic Church regarded Aristotle as the absolute epitome of human intellectual understanding. The analogy is this: neither of your "well-known facts" have been demonstrated to be factual.

In a quest to answer and find my own version of life , and what is ''everything'', I have come across of what I deem to be really poor logic and ideas by all parties involved. Often perspective views that define the very definition of an axiom or any sort of rational thought.

Now to define the extent of this, and I do not mean to offend anyone, it is an ''idiocracy'' and borderline madness by all parties involved. Myself as a neutral observer, is sitting here in disbelief of how anyone could be so mindless.

If you really understand life, then some of you will recognise the discipline you inherited of belief or education from thy fathers or thy mothers or by educational means. This being just a part of a stereotypical society and not being an absolute.

All religion recognise a God, and if we are honest with ourselves, we all recognise that creation is the first form of psuedo-science type thinking.
Religions also recognise that God created everything, God is all around us and we can with a certainty all agree that God is not seen.
Religions also recognise that God is immortal and there is some form of eternal existence in a paradise afterlife for those whom do not sin.

While the religions that include all three of these qualifiers are major religions, they're only two: Christianity and Islam. That's not even remotely "all" religions.

A realm outside of our realm that presently science could not prove to be falsifiable by having visual limitations and seeing a black ''background'' of space.

I do not wish to offend anyone or anyone's belief , however, to me, and how I perceive the information, the author of the bible or any other religious manuscripts was thinking about space.

My assumption and logic -

God is all around us - space is all around us

God is not seen - space is ''transparent''

God is immortal - space can not be destroyed and is immortal

God created all - without space to exist in , nothing can exist, not even a God

My logic tells me, that even if I agreed their was another realm , a Heaven that existed, then this realm would sill need space to exist in, God would still need space to exist in.

My answer to what everything is , space is ''everything''.


I argue these words can not be argued, these words are of truth's, challenge is all, to repeat thy words that false my truth's, thou not write truth's like this, thou will not repeat the truth's of the truth's I present before you, it is not of I to argue, it is I speak of the truth's , tell no lies before you, to present what we are, we not lie about God, we not lie about science, we speak of the truth or lying is for sinners.

Thy argument is presented, yet no support is given.
Fancy Frenching words do not a truey make.
Plato, Aristot', and thinkers Hellenic
Falsely argued logic with naught a single test.
On Earth's shape the one did rightly prove,
And showing the split 'tween stories sad and glad.
On little else, howe'er, despite long thinking nights,
Was Aristotle right; nor Plato's fascist state.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

It is well known that religion spent most of history arguing whom was correct in their beliefs.

If only a mere ongoing "argument" was the worst crime we could attribute to religion(s).

I do not wish to offend anyone or anyone's belief , however, to me, and how I perceive the information, the author of the bible or any other religious manuscripts was thinking about space.

What leads you to that conclusion?

My assumption and logic -

Ooooh boy. "Assumptions and logic?" Here we go.

(((fastens seat belt)))

God is all around us - space is all around us

Yet only one of the two has been demonstrated to actually exist.

"Wheeeeeeeeeeeeee!"

God is not seen - space is ''transparent''

"Whooooooa!"

I hope you'll agree that there is a distinct difference between "invisible" and "transparent."

God is immortal - space can not be destroyed and is immortal

<<<ahem>>>

"के मजा!"

God created all - without space to exist in , nothing can exist, not even a God

Don't theists typically claim that their god exists outside of space and time and in fact transcends space and time?

My logic tells me, that even if I agreed their was another realm , a Heaven that existed, then this realm would sill need space to exist in, God would still need space to exist in.

So you're saying that even though theism postulates the existence of a non-temporal, non-spatial "realm" ... you're still convinced that such a "non-place" would need space and time to exist?

How does that work? Does your logic also tell you that gluten-free bread still needs gluten to be bread?

My answer to what everything is , space is ''everything''.

"The universe is everything?"

That's it? That's the exposé?

I argue these words can not be argued, these words are of truth's, challenge is all, to repeat thy words that false my truth's, thou not write truth's like this, thou will not repeat the truth's of the truth's I present before you, it is not of I to argue, it is I speak of the truth's , tell no lies before you, to present what we are, we not lie about God, we not lie about science, we speak of the truth or lying is for sinners.

Setting aside all of that pseudo-religious boilerplate, the notions that you've been awkwardly fondling around with here sound an awful (and I use that word in as charitable a sense as possible) lot like pantheism. It's not a new concept, nor is it anything all that special.

Unless you realize that it's basically one small step away from pure, unvarnished atheism.

 

[Tiapan]

I am all for pure, unvarnished atheism.

 

[Norman]

It is well known that religion spent most of history arguing whom was correct in their beliefs. It is well known that religion and science have been locked in a mind battle for years.

In a quest to answer and find my own version of life , and what is ''everything'', I have come across of what I deem to be really poor logic and ideas by all parties involved. Often perspective views that define the very definition of an axiom or any sort of rational thought.

Now to define the extent of this, and I do not mean to offend anyone, it is an ''idiocracy'' and borderline madness by all parties involved. Myself as a neutral observer, is sitting here in disbelief of how anyone could be so mindless.

If you really understand life, then some of you will recognise the discipline you inherited of belief or education from thy fathers or thy mothers or by educational means. This being just a part of a stereotypical society and not being an absolute.

All religion recognise a God, and if we are honest with ourselves, we all recognise that creation is the first form of psuedo-science type thinking.
Religions also recognise that God created everything, God is all around us and we can with a certainty all agree that God is not seen.
Religions also recognise that God is immortal and there is some form of eternal existence in a paradise afterlife for those whom do not sin.

A realm outside of our realm that presently science could not prove to be falsifiable by having visual limitations and seeing a black ''background'' of space.

I do not wish to offend anyone or anyone's belief , however, to me, and how I perceive the information, the author of the bible or any other religious manuscripts was thinking about space.

My assumption and logic -

God is all around us - space is all around us

God is not seen - space is ''transparent''

God is immortal - space can not be destroyed and is immortal

God created all - without space to exist in , nothing can exist, not even a God

My logic tells me, that even if I agreed their was another realm , a Heaven that existed, then this realm would sill need space to exist in, God would still need space to exist in.

My answer to what everything is , space is ''everything''.


I argue these words can not be argued, these words are of truth's, challenge is all, to repeat thy words that false my truth's, thou not write truth's like this, thou will not repeat the truth's of the truth's I present before you, it is not of I to argue, it is I speak of the truth's , tell no lies before you, to present what we are, we not lie about God, we not lie about science, we speak of the truth or lying is for sinners.

Norman: What is this thread about?

 

[columbus]

It is well known that religion spent most of history arguing whom was correct in their beliefs.

This is so wrong I stopped reading.
For most of history people mostly lived in tiny little worlds where nobody questioned the beliefs of the people around them. There was no arguing.

A lot of people still live in worlds like that.
Tom

 

[Skwim]

This is so wrong I stopped reading.
For most of history people mostly lived in tiny little worlds where nobody questioned the beliefs of the people around them. There was no arguing.

A lot of people still live in worlds like that.
Tom

I stopped after reading "It is well known that religion spent most of history arguing whom was correct in their beliefs. It is well known that religion and science have been locked in a mind battle for years." Blather like this doesn't deserve anyone's attention.

 

[james blunt]

me- the author of the bible or any other religious manuscripts was thinking about space.

nulius - ''What leads you to that conclusion?''

By discourse of the logic of a God and the comparatives to space.

me-My logic tells me, that even if I agreed their was another realm , a Heaven that existed, then this realm would sill need space to exist in, God would still need space to exist in.


nulius - ''So you're saying that even though theism postulates the existence of a non-temporal, non-spatial "realm" ... you're still convinced that such a "non-place" would need space and time to exist?

How does that work? Does your logic also tell you that gluten-free bread still needs gluten to be bread?''

Firstly , there is no space-time, time is dependent to an observer, something that can not be destroyed such as space, time is meaningless. You only observe your own time whilst waiting.

Space can be nothing else but infinite by axiom truths.

analogy-
There was two cavemen discussing the world and the first question was, how did we get here? what are we? with a blankness of minds they looked to the skies and the black background of space for answers.

Hug says ; ''we must be prisoners inside of a cave, and the distance glows of the night sky must line the caves ceiling like our fire lines our cave floor, because compared to my cave I observe dark walls, so maybe like the ants you have in that bucket, maybe we were put here or were made here and are within a cave''.

Huggy , the smarter of the two, sits and thinks for a while, then replies; '' When I am in my cave I observe a space within the cave , and outside of the cave is more space, so if we are in a space within a cave within a space within a cave, then that must mean that after that there is more space. I also observe that when the fire on the cave floor dims, the cave walls become a darkness and I can no longer see the cave walls compared to the walls of space. I also observe that when you walk away from me with your lit torch, eventually you and the torch vanish into the blackness of the night. Maybe the blackness of the walls of space are the same as the blackness of night, and we can just not see the objects that have vanished into the darkness, because at distance I can neither see you or the lit torch''.


Hug replies ; '' so how many times can we fit a cave inside of a bigger cave, and the bigger cave inside of an even bigger cave, and keep repeating this?''




Science says space itself is expanding, and after that there is nothing, impossible and comparative to a flat earth theory.

 

[james blunt]

Science are normally a loss for words as well. Thou shall only seek salvation by the truth , only the truth can become a harmony world of society.

Thou speak no words of truths, science speaks no words of truths, thou can not repeat my words of truth's, truth's speak no false tongue, truth's only have one answer,

 

[Tumah]

It is well known that religion spent most of history arguing whom was correct in their beliefs. It is well known that religion and science have been locked in a mind battle for years.

In a quest to answer and find my own version of life , and what is ''everything'', I have come across of what I deem to be really poor logic and ideas by all parties involved. Often perspective views that define the very definition of an axiom or any sort of rational thought.

Now to define the extent of this, and I do not mean to offend anyone, it is an ''idiocracy'' and borderline madness by all parties involved. Myself as a neutral observer, is sitting here in disbelief of how anyone could be so mindless.

If you really understand life, then some of you will recognise the discipline you inherited of belief or education from thy fathers or thy mothers or by educational means. This being just a part of a stereotypical society and not being an absolute.

All religion recognise a God, and if we are honest with ourselves, we all recognise that creation is the first form of psuedo-science type thinking.
Religions also recognise that God created everything, God is all around us and we can with a certainty all agree that God is not seen.
Religions also recognise that God is immortal and there is some form of eternal existence in a paradise afterlife for those whom do not sin.

A realm outside of our realm that presently science could not prove to be falsifiable by having visual limitations and seeing a black ''background'' of space.

I do not wish to offend anyone or anyone's belief , however, to me, and how I perceive the information, the author of the bible or any other religious manuscripts was thinking about space.

My assumption and logic -

God is all around us - space is all around us

God is not seen - space is ''transparent''

God is immortal - space can not be destroyed and is immortal

God created all - without space to exist in , nothing can exist, not even a God

My logic tells me, that even if I agreed their was another realm , a Heaven that existed, then this realm would sill need space to exist in, God would still need space to exist in.

My answer to what everything is , space is ''everything''.


I argue these words can not be argued, these words are of truth's, challenge is all, to repeat thy words that false my truth's, thou not write truth's like this, thou will not repeat the truth's of the truth's I present before you, it is not of I to argue, it is I speak of the truth's , tell no lies before you, to present what we are, we not lie about God, we not lie about science, we speak of the truth or lying is for sinners.

It sounds like you're just making a (not very good) case for pantheism.

 

[Riverwolf]

Science are normally a loss for words as well. Thou shall only seek salvation by the truth , only the truth can become a harmony world of society.

Thou speak no words of truths, science speaks no words of truths, thou can not repeat my words of truth's, truth's speak no false tongue, truth's only have one answer,

Such as the truth that thou art using 'thou' incorrectly, it would seem, because thou has not defined a specific person to whom thou art speaking.

"Thou" isn't sophisticated or learned or any smarty-smart-smart-smartiness. It's nothing but the singular second person pronoun. "You" was originally the plural second person pronoun. "Thou/me", and "you/we", as it were. It's also properly pronounced "thoo", in case you didn't know that part.

The reason I bring this up is because thy use of this archaic word doesn't make thy argument deep or substantial. It just makes thine argument appear pretentious.

 

[Riverwolf]

Science says space itself is expanding,

I don't think you understand entirely what is meant by this.

and after that there is nothing

I've never heard any scientific statement that beyond anything there is nothing. Perhaps scientists aren't speaking about what might lie beyond our expanding universe because they don't know what it might be, and are fully aware of this lack of knowledge.