The Faith & Religion mega Thread

“Everything's been said, but it needs saying again.”
― Ernest J. Gaines, Conversations with Ernest Gaines

And as that evolves we can stop saying\believing some of *#it, a'duuu! Ê: what happens if we keep honoring thy neighbor's who kill in the name of or cherishing diamonds\gold and so on???

PHP Code:

          ,--.!,
       __/   -*-
     ,d08b.  '|`
     0088MM     
     `9MMP' 


Look at the rings on those fingers in the houses of go*ld and grand.

Originally Posted by jamison20000e “Everything's been said, but it needs saying again.” ― Ernest J. Gaines, Conversations with Ernest Gaines{...}

Oh but come on already! We have evidence of creation possibility 24/7 today. Humanity and other lifeforms create and design since ancient past(buildings for example) and now we have other ways to see that intelligent design is possible. Take robotics for example: We will soon see working human-like robotic machine with AI inside and such and bit sooner it will be improved to point of nonrecognition from average human.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov
Even scientists who work with robotic science show possibility that humanity(and even more life) might have been result of Alien|God. Why is it that we have multiple pieces of evidence of creativity design but can't put them all together? It is up to individual to take route to truth but if you wont consider all available routes it might take too much time.

Originally Posted by Arcane Oh but come on already! We have evidence of creation possibility 24/7 today. Humanity and other lifeforms create and design since ancient past(buildings for example) and now we have other ways to see that intelligent design is possible. Take robotics for example: We will soon see working human-like robotic machine with AI inside and such and bit sooner it will be improved to point of nonrecognition from average human.

You are just moving the goalposts. If we are possibly created because we can create things (actually, we can't, we can just form materials), who created our creator, and who created that creator and that before and before and before ... .
That is answering nothing at all.
By the way, there is no evidence for creationism at all (and intelligent design is just creationism in disguise). You just assume that there is evidence.

Even scientists who work with robotic science show possibility that humanity(and even more life) might have been result of Alien|God.

Link to a source please.

Why is it that we have multiple pieces of evidence of creativity design but can't put them all together? It is up to individual to take route to truth but if you wont consider all available routes it might take too much time.

Substitute "creativity design" with "evolution" and you have just perfectly described yourself. Only that there is plenty of evidence for evolution that stands up to the scientific method but none at all that for creationism/intelligent design that can do that.

There are three deaths. The first is when the body ceases to function. The second is when the body is consigned to the grave. The third is that moment, sometime in the future, when your name is spoken for the last time.

― David Eagleman, Sum: Forty Tales from the Afterlives

Individual creations will die but some conscious-entity (or ies) existing eternally, deciding at some point, to set all space and time into existence is a farce.

Money talks!

I'll not deny, I heard it once: It said, 'Goodbye'.

Originally Posted by Arcane Oh but come on already! We have evidence of creation possibility 24/7 today.

Nope, fraid not. You can't have the possibility of finding positive evidence for something for which there is no possibility of finding negative evidence. If there is no possibility of finding negative evidence for creationism then it's not theory but merely dogma lacking any empirical content.
jdk

Hence, make-believe vs think.

Let's step back one (or more) order(s) of magnitude from any sort of evidence for anything, let alone some omnipotent entity, pre-existing The Universe (and therefore, independent of it, outside it). Let's deal with this "Alien" issue. Hey I loved 2001:A Space Odyssey the movie and the book, and OK von Daniken was entertaining, if viewed from a Comedy persepective, but here's the true skinny.

First, Distance

The distance to the nearest star is 40,100,000,000,000 kilometers. To even get started on such a journey one must be capable of Escape Velocity just to get clear of Earth's gravity and that speed is 40,320 km/h. This is still, for us, not a trivial speed. Please consider how expensive and prohibiting it is even lower speeds with some profit motive as in communication satellites are still rare compared to common travel.

For the sake of giving you the benefit of a leap of advances let's assume that somehow we find a way of economically increasing that speed by a factor of 10.... so, roughly 400,100 km/hr. BTW this speed is way beyond present technology, roughly 10 times the fastest thing we've ever built, Voyager 1 Even at 10 times what we can do now, the time to travel at that fantastic speed to our nearest star is roughly 12,000 years. It could easily take 1,000 years just to learn how to achieve such speeds economically, assuming Homo Sapiens manages to survive that long, another considerable assumption, not yet in evidence.

So do you see that in order to even get that down to a somewhat manageable 12 years travel time, we have to go 10,000 times faster than we presently can? Please don't try to insert something like "managed wormholes" here because the energy to accomplish that is many orders of magnitude greater than that to achieve such phenomenal speeds. It is quite within the realm of reason that it will take 100,000 years of human existence before we can achieve such controlled power and that assumes that having control over such immense power doesn't wipe us (or any other possible civilization) out of existence


With the vast number of stars, and apparently the decent percentage of some sort of planetary systems, the odds for extraterrestrial life are very high, but not at all a certainty. The number of those that achieve some level of intelligence is by nature a few orders of magnitude less. However we have exactly zero idea that any civilization can survive the path to Solar System travel, let alone Interstellar travel, since we have yet to do it and so far, no evidence that any others exist, let alone achieve that. We have however achieved some reasonably advanced and capable means of communication, so, the odds are that we would be aware of other life forms through communication LONGbefore one could visit the other.

Next, TIME

Since Radio transmissions began for us around 1900, so we have been broadcasting for a little over 100 years and these travel at the speed of light! many many orders of magnitude higher than the above mentioned traveling speeds. Surely at that incredible speed we have reached other civilizations, right? Well, look at this and decide for yourself

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily...2012/3390.html

At least in 1000 years it will be 10 times bigger and still growing even if we are no longer around to add to it. Let's be really optimistic and fill the whole square in that picture, say.... 1,000,000 years!!!! Some roughly humanoid creatures did exist back then, our distant ancestors, but Modern Humans, Homo Sapiens, have only been around for 1/10th that time, 100,000 years at highest estimates. For a species to survive for 1,000,000 years is an unusual event, and a huge accomplishment, especially for one that progresses rather than "stuck" in an age-old form like cockroaches, crocodiles, and horseshoe crabs, but let's assume we make it. If we consider the age of our Universe we can see that it is possible for 14,000 x 1,000,000 year old civilizations to have come and gone with nothing but radio waves and a few probes as a monument to the fact they ever existed.

Put it all together - Distance and Time The odds that we are now, have ever been, or will be visited by aliens in even the next 1000 years, is vastly lower odds than you winning every lottery on the planet on the same day.

The estimation of these odds are based on actual events. So these apparent odds can change if we even actually discover some lifeform of any kind other than Earthborn. The closest we have gotten so far is what might be the effects left by some microscopic bacteria from millions of years ago on Mars.

The bottom line is that it is ignorant and/or irresponsible to talk about Aliens as any sort of Deus ex Machina involved in our history. It never ceases to amaze me that so many people dismiss Evolution which is supported by overwhelming evidence, yet fantasize about Aliens with none.

Dang... had to mention aliens didn't you? Let me fantasise a bit...

If the universe had, so far, produced 14,000 civilisations that had achieved radio communication, then it would be reasonable for some of them to have progressed further, and for some to have developed an interest in the universe's origins. Suppose one civilisation discovered a mechanism by which the universe could have spontaneously arisen, and extrapolated the exact conditions needed. If the civilisation had similar values to ours, then at least some individuals would want to test the theory empirically; so, imagine that some research group manages to coax a small area of vacuum into producing a miniature universe. It may be small enough to fit on a bench, but it would prove the concept; and the group's PhD students could spend the next two years examining its structure before it finally implodes.

Now, suppose the mini-universe had its own laws of physics, including sufficient gravity for any matter within it to clump together into stars and galaxies. Being smaller it might well run faster than the "real" or original universe, which would make it a handy demonstration - assuming it was possible to look inside. Soon other researchers would be making their own miniverses, refining the technique, and one or two entrepreneurs would eventually start selling miniverse kits to the better-funded schools.

What would happen if a miniverse developed intelligent life? Would it know it was in a miniverse? Would there be a great ethical debate about the suffering of the miniverse inhabitants?

Now, when H. sapiens learns to either duplicate or breed something that occurs naturally, we generally try to improve on the original; and if it's useful, we make them in large numbers. How many natural nuclear reactors are there in the world? How many artificial ones?

So, if some race, somewhere, lasted long enough to produce a universe, it's not too much of a stretch to suppose that artificial universes would soon outnumber "natural" ones. If universes take too much energy for an advanced race to produce in large numbers, then the chances are that spontaneous universes will be even rarer. So, numerically at least, there's a good chance that our own universe is artificial in origin.

To push this line of reasoning even further (and risk getting more on-topic ), if you had a miniverse and could communicate with the inhabitants, what would you do? Employ a Star Trek-style non-interference policy? Occasionally get in touch and encourage them to avoid the mistakes your race made? Maybe suggest a few guidelines, and point out how good their world would be if they'd just stop bickering and be nice to each other? And if they chose to ignore you, would you be tempted to put them out of their misery and start all over again?

An infinity of universes + an infinity of miniverses + an infinity of parallel universes + an infinity of parallel miniverses. Mindboggling!!! Whooooooooooooeeeeeeeeeeee!!!

Originally Posted by Pastychomper If universes take too much energy for an advanced race to produce in large numbers, then the chances are that spontaneous universes will be even rarer.

How do you come to that conclusion. Energy produced by mankind so far in its entire existence is laughable when you compare it with energy produced by our rather small sun in a second. And there are suns far larger than ours out there and other types of things out there produce even more energy than suns.

Disclaimer: I know that you can't produce energy, it is rather a transformation, but for means of this discussion the term produce is good enough, I would think.

Oh my post from last night didn't stick? Too bad. I put something like (this is where my agnostic side pops in then) how (for eg trees) Olea europaea and Sequoiadendron giganteum boggle my mind from tiny(\seeds) to large(\plants) and way, way out live us (like solar systems.) Then had mentioned that if human life spans were currently 5,000 years each we'd still only have the knowledge we currently do (make-believe aside) and that new discoveries are made all the time and evolve (I of course worded it better than this (really ) and went on to close with something like) imagining humans far from now having 5,000 year life's and that there's an infinite amount of planets with ecosystems plus how we can think in smart ways of what will happen tomorrow but can never know...

"Submit Reply" ✔

Originally Posted by Pastychomper Dang... had to mention aliens didn't you? Let me fantasise a bit... If the universe had, so far, produced 14,000 civilisations that had achieved radio communication, then it would be reasonable for some of them to have progressed further, and for some to have developed an interest in the universe's origins. <snip> if you had a miniverse and could communicate with the inhabitants, what would you do? Employ a Star Trek-style non-interference policy? Occasionally get in touch and encourage them to avoid the mistakes your race made? Maybe suggest a few guidelines, and point out how good their world would be if they'd just stop bickering and be nice to each other? And if they chose to ignore you, would you be tempted to put them out of their misery and start all over again?

Actually this first assumption, that it "is reasonable for some of them to have progressed further" is a hugely important problem and when fully considered, the most compelling reason for SETI and other efforts to discover Life elsewhere. While it would be immensely instructive to even discover some alien moss, lichen, or even mold to see if it employs the Carbon Cycle and DNA as Earthbound Life does, still the Big Bonanza is discovering a civilization that managed to survive Industrialization, especially once it achieved any modicum of nuclear power.

These go somewhat hand-in-hand at least from our limited experience, since although written language turbo-charged external advancements, so far nothing has freed us from the incredibly slow change of Natural Selection which means we still carry around ancient (and incredibly stupid) agenda baggage, like blindly following leaders and endless, unsatisfiable desires for acquisition, not to mention the despicable Schadenfreude we all have in varying degrees, some (and often those very leaders we blindly follow) to psychotic levels.

The last part quoted above may be at least part of why we have yet to contact another "advanced" species in that they may be avoiding such as us. It is possible, though this forum is proof that it is exceedingly difficult, to communicate knowledge to benefit. However it seems impossible to impart Wisdom since in our experience it requires.... well, experience! Until we go through it and "feel it in our bones" it is somehow relegated to a less important part of the brain.

If some advanced civilization told us how to get past the danger of extreme power guided by primitive urges, how many would listen? How many, especially those invested in the Problem side, would argue "Well just because it worked for them....." or "How do we know they aren't leading us down a primrose path to destruction so they can have our planet?" etc etc etc ad nauseum.

Even now, with overwhelming evidence for Global Climate Change caused by or at least HEAVILY affected by human civilization and the burning of fossil fuels, we have those getting vastly richer every second from such industries spending huge sums of money to convince we cash cows that it is a fantasy and enacting laws to increase their returns and, what's vastly worse and unbelievably disgusting, to diminish the gains of others, even in health and education, and even those not in direct competition. This is obviously self-destructive yet we seem powerless to even set the record straight, let alone fix it.

Lets look at the "bright side" there's an atheist born or converted every second.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD How do you come to that conclusion. Energy produced by mankind so far in its entire existence is laughable when you compare it with energy produced by our rather small sun in a second. And there are suns far larger than ours out there and other types of things out there produce even more energy than suns.

Yes, that's probably the biggest leap in my fantasy, but even so I wasn't assuming that a miniverse would need to contain a large amount of energy, or that the miniverse-builders would need to transduce all the energy needed. The idea was that they found a way of causing universes to arise, and later learned to tweak it a bit.

I was relying on the assumptions that universes could arise naturally, and that the process could be jump-started. A bit like a group of desert nomads noticing that certain rock formations release water when broken, then later learning to drill holes and control the flow, even though they might never learn to 'make' or even purify water.


As to those miniverses being big enough for life to arise, I can think of 3 possibile mechanisms:

1. The miniverse laws of physics are sufficiently different to ours that it can exist on a small scale without getting too close to atomic scales, which implies that its equivalent of subatomic forces would also be scaled down.
2. The miniverse uses 'standard' atoms, but objects are still scaled down.
3. The miniverse is actually a full-sized universe, which somehow appears to be inside or accessible from the parent universe. Matter comes from a source outside either universe (wormhole?), or gets created ab initio in the early stages.

1 and 3 would both require at least some of the 'laws' of physics to vary between universes, which would imply that they get defined before, or during the earliest stages of, the big bang.

2 could still work if the laws were conserved, but there's an obvious limit on the number of nested universes you could have before they get too small for intelligent life. Plus it raises the question of whether the miniverse can be considered a true universe rather than a simulation of one.

Plus to mention; laws change even those of science, nothing's written in stone that can't evolve and\or dissolve.