What Happens to Us When We Die?

[BC1]

Well, that's where you're wrong. Application of scientific principals in an effort to better understand the things around us (in this case, the observable universe and questions of its origins) is science.

Much of what modern science has proven was in the Bible before the mathematics used to illustrate it were even created. What existed before creation is called a mathematical singularity. All mathematics break down in a singularity. Singularity has been proven to exist in a number of places throughout the our universe. And what if our universe is merely a bubble in a see of foam... billions of other universes where the laws of physics are different than in our universe. What if our universe was recursive in nature (quantum foam) having more dimension than science currently understands? Who could possibly say for sure who or what exists given these scientific theories? No one, that's who. Open your mind. Keep you eyes on the sky. We can't explain the things in our own skies let alone argue science v. theology with any real understanding. And what if God is a mathematician? What it there are billions of other galaxies? What if the physics of those universes allow multidimensional travel? There goes everyone's argument.

 

[hjon71]

34 total posts, all in this thread. Very strange. A new user to a gun chat site goes directly to this thread? Stinks like a fish house at high tide. So what's your other ID?

I use only this ID. I use it on a few other forums as well. I am new to this forum because I am pretty much new to handguns. I'm not really qualified to speak on carry issues because I don't carry yet. That's why I came here to read and to inform myself about the issues along those lines.
If you smell something hold your nose maybe??? It's not me.

 

[hjon71]

Much of what modern science has proven was in the Bible before the mathematics used to illustrate it were even created. What existed before creation is called a mathematical singularity. All mathematics break down in a singularity. Singularity has been proven to exist in a number of places throughout the our universe. And what if our universe is merely a bubble in a see of foam... billions of other universes where the laws of physics are different than in our universe. What if our universe was recursive in nature (quantum foam) having more dimension than science currently understands? Who could possibly say for sure who or what exists given these scientific theories? No one, that's who. Open your mind. Keep you eyes on the sky. We can't explain the things in our own skies let alone argue science v. theology with any real understanding. And what if God is a mathematician? What it there are billions of other galaxies? What if the physics of those universes allow multidimensional travel? There goes everyone's argument.

I very much agree with this. I do believe there are more dimensions that just the 4 we observe.

 

[billt]

Christians Don't Die.

Then how come we've had replace the Pope 266 times?

 

[Gregmm6]

Much of what modern science has proven was in the Bible before the mathematics used to illustrate it were even created.

Yes, and? Many things were written down in many places before science could be used to better understand the "why?" or "how?" behind them. Prehistoric man could observe the movement of the stars and planets millennia before the mathematics used to illustrate their movement was created. That's generally how science works. Something is observed, a question is formulated, studies are done, evidence is examined, and the question is answered.

What existed before creation is called a mathematical singularity.

Yes, and?

And what if our universe is merely a bubble in a see of foam... billions of other universes where the laws of physics are different than in our universe.

What if? That really doesn't have anything to do with my post. But, if such was the nature of existence then that's how it is. Continued scientific exploration of the universe around us will continue to increase our knowledge and understanding of it.

What if our universe was recursive in nature (quantum foam) having more dimension than science currently understands?

Science doesn't "understand" anything. It's not sentient. Science is what helps people understand and explain things. Anyway, if that is the nature of the universe, it changes nothing that I've posted. Continued scientific exploration of the universe around us will continue to increase our knowledge and understanding of it.

Who could possibly say for sure who or what exists given these scientific theories? No one, that's who.

Exactly, which is why continued scientific exploration of our universe is (I feel) so important. Striving for evidence to answer these questions is, I feel, one of the most fundamental and important things that humanity can do. Science is the tool that helps us do that.

We can't explain the things in our own skies let alone argue science v. theology with any real understanding. And what if God is a mathematician?

What if it is? Why are you asking me?

What it there are billions of other galaxies?

Scientific exploration of our universe has already led us to the conclusion that there are billions of other galaxies.
How Many Galaxies Are There?

What if the physics of those universes allow multidimensional travel?

That would be pretty cool.

There goes everyone's argument.

Not mine. My argument has nothing to do with those questions.

 

[Gregmm6]

I'm not trying to trick, trap, confuse, etc.
When I say" ordinary behavior" I mean instinct. The" above and beyond" can't be instinct because it quite often goes counter to those instincts.

I agree that going "above and beyond" instinct is not instinct. What we're talking about here, though, is clearly not "above and beyond." It is, as you put it, something "that happens in all people naturally."

If you're trying to argue that doing what comes to "all people naturally" is not instinct, fine. Such an argument sounds kind of silly, but run with it if it works for you. But, to claim that something "that happens in all people naturally" is not ordinary is simply untrue.

If there is a view besides "happy accident" or "created" I'm unaware of it but willing to contemplate it if you care to elaborate.

Of course. I look at the universe and say "I don't know if space and time have always existed, our current understanding of our universe hasn't yet allowed us to answer that question. I've seen no evidence of any "creator", so I don't believe that one exists. That's another blank-spot when it comes to our current understanding of the universe. I don't know if the universe, or us, or anything has a purpose, or a "why?", but I'd like to know. I don't think that our universe is an "accident." Everything happens for a reason, nothing happens without a cause. I'd like to know that cause. I think that continued scientific exploration of our universe will get us closer to answering those questions."

 

[BC1]

Yes, and? Many things were written down in many places before science could be used to better understand the "why?" or "how?" behind them. Prehistoric man could observe the movement of the stars and planets millennia before the mathematics used to illustrate their movement was created. That's generally how science works. Something is observed, a question is formulated, studies are done, evidence is examined, and the question is answered.



Yes, and?



What if? That really doesn't have anything to do with my post. But, if such was the nature of existence then that's how it is. Continued scientific exploration of the universe around us will continue to increase our knowledge and understanding of it.



Science doesn't "understand" anything. It's not sentient. Science is what helps people understand and explain things. Anyway, if that is the nature of the universe, it changes nothing that I've posted. Continued scientific exploration of the universe around us will continue to increase our knowledge and understanding of it.



Exactly, which is why continued scientific exploration of our universe is (I feel) so important. Striving for evidence to answer these questions is, I feel, one of the most fundamental and important things that humanity can do. Science is the tool that helps us do that.



What if it is? Why are you asking me?



Scientific exploration of our universe has already led us to the conclusion that there are billions of other galaxies.
How Many Galaxies Are There?


That would be pretty cool.


Not mine. My argument has nothing to do with those questions.

Science? Evidence? The only thing science can explain is what exists within the known laws of physics, of which there is much unknown at the quantum level and which only exist in the known universe. Those laws didn't exist before the big bang, they don't exist at the center of a black hole and and may not exist in other universes, should there be more than one. I mention because you want proof of a creator. Proof outside of our realm of understanding (the here and now) is not possible as we don't understand the physics involved. We will likely never understand them. The reason I mention the singularity is because everything science knows, everything science believes by hypothesis is supreme ignorance. A singularity is the point where every last piece of science, mathematics and every idea based on it disappears. Singularity was present before the big bang. Anyone who argues atheism or theism does it on belief, not on science. Not on proof. When I said an unlimited number of galaxies I actually misspoke. I meant an unlimited number of universes where the laws of physics are different. At present there is only scientific knowledge of a single universe. There is no proof of any other, whether parallel, static or as quantum foam.
.
Early man did not have a way to understand and express what he saw and experienced. Thus the Bible is interpretive in nature. Those posters who read and take-it literally are wrong; both sides. The purveyors of the ignorant "sky daddy"comments are a great example. Interpretive in an ignorant sort of way. Considering how little about the natural world and other worlds we know, to suggest without proof there is no God is the ultimate ignorance.
.
In the beginning God created heaven and earth. Now who was God and how was it created? Was God nature?Was God a talented mathematician? Are we really just virtual objects in a simulation? Was the creation of heaven and earth actually the big-bang that became scientifically accepted thousands of years later?
.
God took a rib from Adam and made Eve. We now know that to be true with absolute certainty; depending on who Adam and Eve were. From both the fossil record and the life of single-celled organisms we know that directly from one organism came another. Only it was thousands of years after the scrolls were written that a microscope found the first single celled organisms. Hell, just 150 years ago no one knew what bacteria was. How ignorant to suggest we, as a scientific populace know anything at all. We're neophytes with huge egos regarding our own capabilities and knowledge. The single-celled organism splits and becomes two distinct organisms. Asexual reproduction in descriptive format by persons born thousands of years ago with no other way to explain their thinking. We know evolution is also real. We must concede that creation and evolution may be exactly the same thing. Perhaps evolution is the manner in which God created everything. Perhaps to evolve a tomato we must also have a weed. To evolve a man we must also have other mammals. Who here can explain the mind of their creator, or even begin to suggest who that creator was. Thus Einstein understood enough to be agnostic.
.
Old testament writings describe the tribes following lights and crafts in the sky. Religious paintings from 1,500 years ago showing disk-shaped objects. Exactly what we see flying around our skies today. Exactly what every government in the world refuses to discuss or acknowledge. Yet it is happening, as surely and plain as the nose on our face. Those who are laughing at the Bible and at religion have no basis to do so as science and religion are getting closer all the time.
.
My posts aren't to answer your specific comments but rather to expand on them. It's a conversation not a lecture or closed topic. My goal is to simulate thinking outside of the pro and anti-religion camps.

 

[Gregmm6]

Science? Evidence? The only thing science can explain is what exists within the known laws of physics, of which there is much unknown at the quantum level and which only exist in the known universe. Those laws didn't exist before the big bang, they don't exist at the center of a black hole and and may not exist in other universes, should there be more than one. I mention because you want proof of a creator. Proof outside of our realm of understanding (the here and now) is not possible as we don't understand the physics involved. We will likely never understand them. The reason I mention the singularity is because everything science knows, everything science believes by hypothesis is supreme ignorance. A singularity is the point where every last piece of science, mathematics and every idea based on it disappears. Singularity was present before the big bang. Anyone who argues atheism or theism does it on belief, not on science. Not on proof. When I said an unlimited number of galaxies I actually misspoke. I meant an unlimited number of universes where the laws of physics are different. At present there is only scientific knowledge of a single universe. There is no proof of any other, whether parallel, static or as quantum foam.
.
Early man did not have a way to understand and express what he saw and experienced. Thus the Bible is interpretive in nature. Those posters who read and take-it literally are wrong; both sides. The purveyors of the ignorant "sky daddy"comments are a great example. Interpretive in an ignorant sort of way. Considering how little about the natural world and other worlds we know, to suggest without proof there is no God is the ultimate ignorance.
.
In the beginning God created heaven and earth. Now who was God and how was it created? Was God nature?Was God a talented mathematician? Are we really just virtual objects in a simulation? Was the creation of heaven and earth actually the big-bang that became scientifically accepted thousands of years later?
.
God took a rib from Adam and made Eve. We now know that to be true with absolute certainty; depending on who Adam and Eve were. From both the fossil record and the life of single-celled organisms we know that directly from one organism came another. Only it was thousands of years after the scrolls were written that a microscope found the first single celled organisms. Hell, just 150 years ago no one knew what bacteria was. How ignorant to suggest we, as a scientific populace know anything at all. We're neophytes with huge egos regarding our own capabilities and knowledge. The single-celled organism splits and becomes two distinct organisms. Asexual reproduction in descriptive format by persons born thousands of years ago with no other way to explain their thinking. We know evolution is also real. We must concede that creation and evolution may be exactly the same thing. Perhaps evolution is the manner in which God created everything. Perhaps to evolve a tomato we must also have a weed. To evolve a man we must also have other mammals. Who here can explain the mind of their creator, or even begin to suggest who that creator was. Thus Einstein understood enough to be agnostic.
.
Old testament writings describe the tribes following lights and crafts in the sky. Religious paintings from 1,500 years ago showing disk-shaped objects. Exactly what we see flying around our skies today. Exactly what every government in the world refuses to discuss or acknowledge. Yet it is happening, as surely and plain as the nose on our face. Those who are laughing at the Bible and at religion have no basis to do so as science and religion are getting closer all the time.
.
My posts aren't to answer your specific comments but rather to expand on them. It's a conversation not a lecture or closed topic. My goal is to simulate thinking outside of the pro and anti-religion camps.

" I mention because you want proof of a creator. "

Then your understanding of my position and premise is flawed from the start. I do NOT want proof of any creator. I want greater understanding of our universe(s). Whether or not that scientific understanding includes proof of any creator doesn't much matter to me.

 

[BC1]

I look at the universe and say "I don't know if space and time have always existed, our current understanding of our universe hasn't yet allowed us to answer that question. I've seen no evidence of any "creator", so I don't believe that one exists. That's another blank-spot when it comes to our current understanding of the universe. I don't know if the universe, or us, or anything has a purpose, or a "why?", but I'd like to know. I don't think that our universe is an "accident." Everything happens for a reason, nothing happens without a cause. I'd like to know that cause. I think that continued scientific exploration of our universe will get us closer to answering those questions."

" I mention because you want proof of a creator. "

Then your understanding of my position and premise is flawed from the start. I do NOT want proof of any creator. I want greater understanding of our universe(s). Whether or not that scientific understanding includes proof of any creator doesn't much matter to me.

I understood your post quoted at top to mean you wanted proof of a creator.
.
I believe the complete opposite. Since we have no scientific proof it's my opinion that we don't have the ability to understand with certainty the things that are responsible for our being. it could very-well indicate a creator. It could indicate that as people, we're a very small part of the overall of beingness. What always intrigued me is the commonality of aerial phenomena sightings dating to biblical times. Exactly the same as today. I always laughed at those who said they saw things in the sky until one night in 1984. I was among thousands that night. And no one cared to explain or even look into it. Yet a book written 1,800 years ago offering a history and account of our world of thousands of years ago contains the exact same descriptions. I can't find any reason how this could be true. And if I hadn't seen it myself I'd still be laughing at the subject. That incident was a turning point in my life and beliefs. There is something very large and very important yet to be discovered by mankind. Possibly the exact reason no governments want to talk about it. A few years ago the Vatican announced that the discovery of such other life would not negate the teachings of religion or the existence of God. We definitely don't know everything.We're not even close. We discovered bacteria only 150 years ago. We're just an ignorant species bound by the limitations of our own minds and the world around us.

 

[Gregmm6]

I understood your post quoted at top to mean you wanted proof of a creator.

Right. Your understanding is flawed.

 

[BC1]

Right. Your understanding is flawed.

Then explain the statement you made in post 282. It's your statement not mine. What did you mean in saying "I've seen no evidence of any "creator", so I don't believe that one exists." Are you saying you only believe if there's evidence?

 

[Gregmm6]

Then explain the statement you made in post 282. It's your statement not mine. What did you mean in saying "I've seen no evidence of any "creator", so I don't believe that one exists."

I mean exactly what I posted, it's quite straight-forward. I've seen no evidence of a creator, so I don't believe that one exists. That statement has nothing to do with any desire or want for proof of a creator.

Are you saying you only believe if there's evidence?

When it comes to the existence of what's touted to be the greatest and most powerful thing to exist, yes.

 

[hjon71]

If you're trying to argue that doing what comes to "all people naturally" is not instinct, fine. Such an argument sounds kind of silly, but run with it if it works for you. But, to claim that something "that happens in all people naturally" is not ordinary is simply untrue.

“There is one thing, and only one, in the whole universe which we know more about than we could learn from external observation. that one thing is Man.”
We are men, so this gives us “inside information.”
Here we find the moral law – which we didn’t make, can’t forget, and know we ought to obey.
An outside observer, unable to communicate with us, would never know that this moral law exists.
If we were created by some “outside power,” how can we learn about “it?”
“If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe – no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or a staircase or fireplace in that house.”
It could show itself “as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way.”
We do find this, and the fact of it (the moral law) ought to make us suspicious.

 

[Gregmm6]

“There is one thing, and only one, in the whole universe which we know more about than we could learn from external observation. that one thing is Man.”
We are men, so this gives us “inside information.”
Here we find the moral law – which we didn’t make, can’t forget, and know we ought to obey.
An outside observer, unable to communicate with us, would never know that this moral law exists.
If we were created by some “outside power,” how can we learn about “it?”
“If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe – no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or a staircase or fireplace in that house.”
It could show itself “as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way.”
We do find this, and the fact of it (the moral law) ought to make us suspicious.

Why do you settle on that one particular instinct (morality), which we know to be subjective, as proof of some god? It's just another trait of man that is extremely ordinary and far from uncommon.

“If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe – no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or a staircase or fireplace in that house.”
It could show itself “as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way.”

The architect could very easily walk through the door and show himself to us that way. Though, that's not got anything to do with the question of morality.

 

[hjon71]

Why do you settle on that one particular instinct (morality), which we know to be subjective, as proof of some god? It's just another trait of man that is extremely ordinary and far from uncommon.

Ordinary in that it is present in all people. Uncommon because it isn't from man; it is "above and beyond" us.
Some people say that there is no mystery in decent conduct because it’s good for the human race as a whole, so it’s a reasonable byproduct of evolution. This leads into a circular and meaningless argument.
“if we ask: ‘Why ought I to be unselfish?’ and you reply ‘Because it is good for society,’ we may then ask, ‘Why should I care what’s good for society except when it happens to pay me personally?’ and then you will have to say, ‘Because you ought to be unselfish’ – which simply brings you back to where we started.”

The architect could very easily walk through the door and show himself to us that way. Though, that's not got anything to do with the question of morality.

Your thinking is too narrow. This architect/creator isn't human.
"All I have got to is a Something which is directing the universe, and which appears in me as a law urging me to do right and making me feel responsible and uncomfortable when I do wrong. I think we have to assume it is more like a mind than it is like anything else we know – because after all the only other thing we know is matter and you can hardly imagine a bit of matter giving instructions."

 

[Gregmm6]

Ordinary in that it is present in all people. Uncommon because it isn't from man; it is "above and beyond" us.

What brings you to the conclusion that something that is "resent in all people" is above and beyond those people? It clearly isn't.

Some people say that there is no mystery in decent conduct because it’s good for the human race as a whole, so it’s a reasonable byproduct of evolution. This leads into a circular and meaningless argument.
“if we ask: ‘Why ought I to be unselfish?’ and you reply ‘Because it is good for society,’ we may then ask, ‘Why should I care what’s good for society except when it happens to pay me personally?’ and then you will have to say, ‘Because you ought to be unselfish’ – which simply brings you back to where we started.”

No, you do not have to say that. Well, I don't have to say that, I won't try to speak for you.

Your thinking is too narrow. This architect/creator isn't human.

You're the one that presented the analogy, not I.

"All I have got to is a Something which is directing the universe, and which appears in me as a law urging me to do right and making me feel responsible and uncomfortable when I do wrong. I think we have to assume it is more like a mind than it is like anything else we know – because after all the only other thing we know is matter and you can hardly imagine a bit of matter giving instructions."

Who are you quoting here? Also, some of your own insight and analysis would go further than simply posting the opinion of another.

 

[hjon71]

I've already quoted CS Lewis numerous times and stated openly this isn't my work. I have paraphrased and even borrowed from a summary of Mere Christianity found online. That in no way diminishes the nature of these posts.

 

[BC1]

I mean exactly what I posted, it's quite straight-forward. I've seen no evidence of a creator, so I don't believe that one exists. That statement has nothing to do with any desire or want for proof of a creator.




When it comes to the existence of what's touted to be the greatest and most powerful thing to exist, yes.

Then you have confirmed my statement. It stands. Without proof you don't believe in a creator. Well, you're here. So someone or something created you. Be it God or nature... you were created.

 

[Gregmm6]

Then you have confirmed my statement. It stands. Without proof you don't believe in a creator. Well, you're here. So someone or something created you. Be it God or nature... you were created.

Your statement was that I want proof of a creator. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, I want no such thing.

 

[BC1]

Your statement was that I want proof of a creator. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, I want no such thing.

It's called "if, then, else" logic. You made the statement above so it stands. Without proof you believe no creator exists. Very simple. Ever do any logic programming?
.
If

there were proof of a creator​

then

I believe​

else

I don't believe​