The God Thread

[nuckin_futz]

On 12/19/2023 at 8:13 AM, Bob Long said:

 

I have a lot of relatives like this back on the prairies. There's no middle ground. Its why we really need to protect our charter and not let things get the way of the US where "religious freedom" is driving too much policy.

 

 

[Bob Long]

1 minute ago, nuckin_futz said:

 

 

Barry saw it coming for sure.

[RupertKBD]

Apropos of nothing but there's a question in Trivial Pursuit, "Which former US politician had a vanity license plate that read AU H2O?"

[nuckin_futz]

On 12/19/2023 at 8:05 AM, Optimist Prime said:

When a person has been indoctrinated from birth to believe something, by the time they are 8 even, let alone 80+ you will never get them to not believe it. 

Cults are a weird thing, and some of the largest of them, Christianity and Islam among the giants on this earth are the weirdest, yet somehow get by using the idea that since so many believe it, it must be true. 

 

Accept in a few very rare circumstances like former Klansmen seeing the light and changing their ways this is very true.

 

People often say you cannot change/kill an ideology. This is not true at all. It's very difficult to change someone's personal ideology but you can change a collective ideology.

 

After the Hamas attack 2 and a half months ago I saw the Star of David projected on (If I recall correctly) the Brandenburg Gate. You would have been shot on site for doing this 80 years ago. Would not have been possible to do this even in the 50's, 60's 70's or 80's. But today there it is. How is this possible? Because all those people with that ideology were left to die out like dinosaurs and take their ideology with them. The younger generation is educated on a better way and after a few generations you have changed the collective ideology.

 

Same thing in Japan. During WW2 the Japanese were aggressors and sadistically brutal. Now they are among the most peaceful and docile people on Earth. Same thing there, educate the young ones and let the dinosaurs die out.

 

It's why every time I see data on the numbers of Atheists and Agnostics rising I get a bit of a boner.

Edited December 23, 2023 by nuckin_futz

[Gurn]

3 hours ago, Bob Long said:

 

Paul sounds like a dick.

He also sounds like he was into hallucigens

Really- met Jesus, on the road, years after Jesus died.

 

truly funny shit.

[4petesake]

49 minutes ago, Gurn said:

He also sounds like he was into hallucigens

Really- met Jesus, on the road, years after Jesus died.

 

truly funny shit.

 

Hunter Thompson vibes.

One toke over the line sweet Jesus

[Sharpshooter]

1 hour ago, Bob Long said:

 

Barry saw it coming for sure.

That’s why he secretly smoked when Michelle wasn’t around. 

[Sharpshooter]

1 hour ago, RupertKBD said:

Apropos of nothing but there's a question in Trivial Pursuit, "Which former US politician had a vanity license plate that read AU H2O?"

That’s Gold(water) Jerry! 

[NewbieCanuckFan]

 

 

[TheBearded1]

Considering the story about the Nephilim:

 

Imagine, in today's world, a race of alien beings landing on planet earth, raping women, and producing offspring that formed an entire different species?    Taking the story of the Nephilim, that seems accurate.

 

[RupertKBD]

11 minutes ago, TheBearded1 said:

Considering the story about the Nephilim:

 

Imagine, in today's world, a race of alien beings landing on planet earth, raping women, and producing offspring that formed an entire different species?    Taking the story of the Nephilim, that seems accurate.

 

 

I hadn't noticed it being mentioned, but AFAIK, the idea of aliens being able to produce offspring with humans is basically impossible.

 

I looked up Nephilim and the consensus seems to be they were human, (if they actually existed) described as especially large and strong. What makes you think they might have been aliens?

Edited December 24, 2023 by RupertKBD

[The Lock]

15 minutes ago, TheBearded1 said:

Considering the story about the Nephilim:

 

Imagine, in today's world, a race of alien beings landing on planet earth, raping women, and producing offspring that formed an entire different species?    Taking the story of the Nephilim, that seems accurate.

 

 

The likelihood of aliens being even remotely humanoid is improbable, let alone being able to "rape women" and "produce offspring".

 

If you need proof of this, take a random non-human in the world and... erm... you know, see if it works....

Edited December 24, 2023 by The Lock

[TheBearded1]

6 minutes ago, RupertKBD said:

 

I hadn't noticed it being mentioned, but AFAIK, the idea of aliens being able to produce offspring with humans is basically impossible.

 

I looked up Nephilim and the consensus seems to be they were human, (if they actually existed) described as especially large and strong. What makes you think they might have been aliens?

the Sons of God went into earthly women?

 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nephilim

 

[Rob Eh]

11 minutes ago, TheBearded1 said:

the Sons of God went into earthly women?

 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nephilim

 

 

That still doesn't suggest the sons of god were alien, especially if we were created in his image. 

The alien theory comes from Zecharia Sitchen's 1976 book the 12th planet. This inspired Ancient Aliens. 

[The Lock]

On 11/30/2023 at 2:53 PM, Satchmo said:

I am the wrong person to ask to explain how quantum electrodynamics work.  Often I can read things and hang on by my fingernails, but not often enough.

 

But yeah, superposition is truly weird isn't it?  Won't get me trying to explain that one either.

 

As for string theory, it seems to have fallen out of favour over the last few years.   I'm happy to hear that because I never really liked it,  if only for the reason that it could never be proven empirically and could only be thought about.

 

Below BTW was what I was looking for when I found that article.   I must admit to being a materialist and seeing everything in terms of atoms.   I also have to remain open to Platonists and those who see life, religion, and the Universe in that way. 

Physicist and philosophy writer Freeman Dyson has suggested that one can broadly, if over-simplistically, divide "observers of the philosophical scene" into splitters and lumpers - roughly corresponding to materialists (who imagine the world as divided into atoms) and Platonists (who regard the world as made up of ideas).^[19]

 

I know this is a little older of a post at this point, but I have to agree that I also didn't like string theory. I also don't like how "convenient" the big bang is nor do I believe that, just because we can't see light beyond a certain point it isn't there.

 

Kind of random I know but still.

[Satchmo]

11 minutes ago, The Lock said:

 

I know this is a little older of a post at this point, but I have to agree that I also didn't like string theory. I also don't like how "convenient" the big bang is nor do I believe that, just because we can't see light beyond a certain point it isn't there.

 

Kind of random I know but still.

I'd completely forgotten about this bit of thread.   I was getting pretty sciencey and probably should have been in the Science thread.

 

To keep it religious, I'll mention that it was a Jesuit Priest who first proposed the Big Bang.   He thought it lined up well with Genesis.   I see how it could be called 'convenient' though - it is.   It's just a possible explanation of why everything that is currently expanding began expanding.  I bet if you were to read 'The First Three Minutes'  you might be swayed to accept it.  

 

Not sure what you mean about distant light. The Event Horizon?   

 

 

[The Lock]

5 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

I'd completely forgotten about this bit of thread.   I was getting pretty sciencey and probably should have been in the Science thread.

 

To keep it religious, I'll mention that it was a Jesuit Priest who first proposed the Big Bang.   He thought it lined up well with Genesis.   I see how it could be called 'convenient' though - it is.   It's just a possible explanation of why everything that is currently expanding began expanding.  I bet if you were to read 'The First Three Minutes'  you might be swayed to accept it.  

 

Not sure what you mean about distant light. The Event Horizon?   

 

 

 

So I'm coming at this strictly from a science perspective. In regards to distant light, light travels at.. well.. the speed of light. Therefore, the dimmer an object is (such as the farther away galaxies) the older it is as it needed time to to reach here for us to be able to see it. So through light, we can see back in time.

 

The Hubble telescope can only see so much far back. The James Webb telescope can see farther back than Hubble. There's already theories coming out that the big bang happed way earlier than expected since the JWST started working, creating some rocky ground for the theory itself.

Edited December 25, 2023 by The Lock

[Satchmo]

1 minute ago, The Lock said:

 

So I'm coming at this strictly from a science perspective. In regards to distant light, light travels at.. well.. the speed of light. Therefore, the dimmer an object is (such as the farther away galaxies) the older it is as it needed time to to reach here for us to be able to see it.

 

The Hubble telescope can only see so much far back. The James Webb telescope can see farther back than Hubble. There's already theories coming out that the big bang happed way earlier than expected, creating some rocky ground for the theory itself.

I get it now.   I have read at least a bit of what you are referring to and I know new questions are being asked based on what the Webb is reporting.   

 

That's all fine by me.     I am not tied to the Big Bang, but I still find it a very plausible explanation.    If it is tweaked - or even replaced though I'd say that's not likely -  that would be fine by me too. 

 

Too soon to tell though.   I'll wait a bit to see what becomes of this Webb stuff, and how irrefutable the proof is, before I change my mind. 

 

 

[Slegr]

On 12/24/2023 at 4:05 PM, The Lock said:

 

There's already theories coming out that the big bang happed way earlier than expected since the JWST started working, creating some rocky ground for the theory itself.

That doesn’t surprise me. The estimated date of the universe (13.7 billion years old) never made sense to me when the estimated date of our Earth is 4.5 billion years old. The universe is so massive, and the thought that this planet has been around for a third of the universe’s entire existence just doesn’t seem to add up.

Edited December 26, 2023 by Slegr

[Satchmo]

2 minutes ago, Slegr said:

That doesn’t surprise me. The estimated date of the universe (13.7 billion years old) never made sense to me when the estimated date of our Earth is 4.5 billion years old. The universe is so massive, and the thought that this planet has been around for a third of the universe’s entire existence just doesn’t seem to add up.

Why?  There are still new stars being created as gravity brings things together.   I would think that somewhere out there planets are also still being formed.   Gravity is relentless but slow.

 

[Slegr]

Just now, Satchmo said:

Why?  There are still new stars being created as gravity brings things together.   I would think that somewhere out there planets are also still being formed.   Gravity is relentless but slow.

 

It feels like the universe should be a lot older than just three times as old as this rock we live on. Think about how big this universe is, and how small in comparison our solar system is, and how things can only travel as fast as light… it just feels like, to me, there would be a much wider gap between birth of universe and birth of Earth.

[Inkidu]

3 minutes ago, Slegr said:

It feels like the universe should be a lot older than just three times as old as this rock we live on. Think about how big this universe is, and how small in comparison our solar system is, and how things can only travel as fast as light… it just feels like, to me, there would be a much wider gap between birth of universe and birth of Earth.

 

Our current estimates of the age of the universe will some day look as ridiculous as the creationist age of 6kyo does to us. 

[112]

5 minutes ago, Slegr said:

It feels like the universe should be a lot older than just three times as old as this rock we live on. Think about how big this universe is, and how small in comparison our solar system is, and how things can only travel as fast as light… it just feels like, to me, there would be a much wider gap between birth of universe and birth of Earth.

I think it's difficult for humans to really understand astronomically large numbers, which just 1 billion is--and it's especially so when that billion represents years. A billion is a thousand millions, and a million is a thousand thousands. A billion years is a long, long time.

 

Meanwhile, the Big Bang was a massive and incredibly fast explosion; the universe essentially expanded from the volume of a grapefruit into an exponent of 80 of that within a second. For reference, 2^80 is 1 septillion, or 1 million billion billion. It puts everything into better perspective when you realize just how fast the universe expanded and how long 13 billion years really is.

[RupertKBD]

On 12/24/2023 at 3:34 PM, The Lock said:

I know this is a little older of a post at this point, but I have to agree that I also didn't like string theory. I also don't like how "convenient" the big bang is nor do I believe that, just because we can't see light beyond a certain point it isn't there.

 

Kind of random I know but still.

 

On 12/24/2023 at 4:01 PM, Satchmo said:

I'd completely forgotten about this bit of thread.   I was getting pretty sciencey and probably should have been in the Science thread.

 

To keep it religious, I'll mention that it was a Jesuit Priest who first proposed the Big Bang.   He thought it lined up well with Genesis.   I see how it could be called 'convenient' though - it is.   It's just a possible explanation of why everything that is currently expanding began expanding.  I bet if you were to read 'The First Three Minutes'  you might be swayed to accept it.  

 

Not sure what you mean about distant light. The Event Horizon?  

 

One of the things that has always bothered me about the BBT, is "Inflation"....basically something that they came up with that "explains" a major flaw in the theory itself.

 

We all know that the speed of light is a universal constant. Nothing can move faster....It's also widely accepted that the age of the known universe is just under 14 billion years...

 

A few years back, I read that the size of the known universe is in the neighborhood of 80 billion light years across.....but given the two above factors, this should be impossible. If the Big Bang happened 14 billion years ago and the universe expanded at the speed of light, then the size of the universe should be less than 28 billion light years from edge to edge....yet, it's roughly three times that....

 

Inflation gets into some quantum mechanics and photons "communicating" with each other and it probably all makes sense to a physicist (if not to a layman like me).....but, there's no getting around the fact that somehow the universe expanded at faster than light speed for a short time after the Big Bang....

[bishopshodan]

17 minutes ago, RupertKBD said:

 

 

One of the things that has always bothered me about the BBT, is "Inflation"....basically something that they came up with that "explains" a major flaw in the theory itself.

 

We all know that the speed of light is a universal constant. Nothing can move faster....It's also widely accepted that the age of the known universe is just under 14 billion years...

 

A few years back, I read that the size of the known universe is in the neighborhood of 80 billion light years across.....but given the two above factors, this should be impossible. If the Big Bang happened 14 billion years ago and the universe expanded at the speed of light, then the size of the universe should be less than 28 billion light years from edge to edge....yet, it's roughly three times that....

 

Inflation gets into some quantum mechanics and photons "communicating" with each other and it probably all makes sense to a physicist (if not to a layman like me).....but, there's no getting around the fact that somehow the universe expanded at faster than light speed for a short time after the Big Bang....

Thanks Rup , 

You inspired me to read a bit about it.

I liked this article because I almost understand some of what it is saying.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/04/12/how-come-cosmic-inflation-doesnt-break-the-speed-of-light/?sh=128900b91e40

 

 

Edited December 26, 2023 by bishopshodan