Personal Religious Practices

[Marvin]

Still no answer for where the materials that created the BB came from. You said it was some dense ball, and sure that's possible. Where did it come from?

It didn't come from anywhere, because that implies a dimension of time.

Interesting point about time, but the universe is where all matter resides therefore it contains all space. I would argue that there is nothing larger than the universe containing the universe. Assuming time is not a force (thus having some physical property (energy) in this universe) then it may just be an overall property of existence. From my limited study of physics and philosophy I really do not know any decent way to quantify it.

Yeah that's how I think about it.

I would argue that God and His domain are possibly outside our current ability to perceive. So what is getting more predictable exactly? There are some things I feel science does not have a good explanation for. Like particle-wave duality and double-slit diffraction. I have this friend who spends all his time trying to prove everything is waves, and so that inspired me to do a report for an Englishn class (argumentative essay) about that concept. Another friend gave me a physics book from the 60s. It said "although we know a photon to be a quantum, and thus impossible to split, we must assume that somehow it does split in order to explain double-slit diffraction." (paraphrasing) The thing is that sometimes the scientific community becomes so invested in an idea that rather than pursue the truth they pursue the idea. Recently I read that double slit diffraction is explainable by holes in cardboard causing photons to simultaneously exist in multiple dimensions at once and then manifesting itself against the wall. I want some magical inter-dimensional cardboard.

I'm saying the same thing about about God, kinda. Like there might be a god, but if its impact is indistinguishable from nature, what's the difference?

Wave/particle duality and related theories are part of science and are always being improved.

Anyway, you see this line of thinking often in the pursuit of grant money. For example some egg association says they want a study that shows if eggs are bad for your heart or not, and the study says they are great. Then some group of animal rights people want a study that shows eggs are actually bad for you and it does.

Scientific studies are actually very reliable and not really affected by the money in any but the most exaggerated situations. All the data is there for you to read. The problem is that few, few people are qualified to derive conclusions from that data.

 

[StallChaser]

Still no answer for where the materials that created the BB came from. You said it was some dense ball, and sure that's possible. Where did it come from?



Interesting point about time, but the universe is where all matter resides therefore it contains all space. I would argue that there is nothing larger than the universe containing the universe. Assuming time is not a force (thus having some physical property (energy) in this universe) then it may just be an overall property of existence. From my limited study of physics and philosophy I really do not know any decent way to quantify it.



I would argue that God and His domain are possibly outside our current ability to perceive. So what is getting more predictable exactly? There are some things I feel science does not have a good explanation for. Like particle-wave duality and double-slit diffraction. I have this friend who spends all his time trying to prove everything is waves, and so that inspired me to do a report for an Englishn class (argumentative essay) about that concept. Another friend gave me a physics book from the 60s. It said "although we know a photon to be a quantum, and thus impossible to split, we must assume that somehow it does split in order to explain double-slit diffraction." (paraphrasing) The thing is that sometimes the scientific community becomes so invested in an idea that rather than pursue the truth they pursue the idea. Recently I read that double slit diffraction is explainable by holes in cardboard causing photons to simultaneously exist in multiple dimensions at once and then manifesting itself against the wall. I want some magical inter-dimensional cardboard.

Anyway, you see this line of thinking often in the pursuit of grant money. For example some egg association says they want a study that shows if eggs are bad for your heart or not, and the study says they are great. Then some group of animal rights people want a study that shows eggs are actually bad for you and it does.

These things always become a problem of infinite regress. This came from that, but what created that? Doesn't matter if it's some sort of super singularity or a god. It becomes something we don't have the answer to. I would defer to science, because that's at least an evidence-based attempt. Any religion that honestly believed it was true would agree, because science is aimed at finding the truth, which according to true believers is the same as their own religious belief.

 

[just some jerk]

It didn't come from anywhere, because that implies a dimension of time.

I'm saying the same thing about about God, kinda. Like there might be a god, but if its impact is indistinguishable from nature, what's the difference?

Wave/particle duality and related theories are part of science and are always being improved.

I don't remember ever saying this. Unless perhaps some quantum effect occurred whereas in the other uncertainty, I didn't TYPE it.

 

[Marvin]

I don't remember ever saying this. Unless perhaps some quantum effect occurred whereas in the other uncertainty, I didn't TYPE it.

Whoops, copied the wrong name.

 

[klystron]

It didn't come from anywhere, because that implies a dimension of time.

Conservation of energy.

I'm saying the same thing about about God, kinda. Like there might be a god, but if its impact is indistinguishable from nature, what's the difference?

Nature is either a) designed or b) autonomous. God is sentient (at least according to most religious views)

Wave/particle duality and related theories are part of science and are always being improved.

I used to agree until I saw that inter-dimensional photon crap.

Scientific studies are actually very reliable and not really affected by the money in any but the most exaggerated situations. All the data is there for you to read. The problem is that few, few people are qualified to derive conclusions from that data.

There are only two responses to this, and I'm not sure which is more appropriate.

1) You have never been part of an academic research environment.

2) You have been part of an academic research environment.

In either case, one could draw such a conclusion as "they are not affected by money."

I fall into the #2 category. The work I did had no agenda behind it. The grant came from a blanket of grant money designed more to research whatever than to research one specific goal. That said I helped with some proposals and saw many pursuits of things related to all manner of "controversial" things from global warming to proving company A's product is best for application X.

I'm not saying that this has happened with global warming (would certainly derail the topic lol) but consider the following scenario:

Some scientists say that man-made global warming may be an issue. The government puts out an RFP for an academic study. Three teams are awarded grant money and they all do their study.

Scenario 1: all three teams say "there's no problem" and the whole thing goes away.

Scenario 2: One team says there is a significant problem, and the other two say there is not. Now RFPs open up for peer review of the results by other teams.

Scenario 3: All three teams say "OMG significant evidence we are all going to die needs further study"

Now there are new RFPs with 10x the money than before and everyone is trying to get a piece of it.

Academic research/grant money is one of the few areas where government is proactive instead of reactive. Remember that the people running these research projects (professors) have their salaries based on how much grant money comes in. In my department salaries (public information) ranged from 57k (no grants) to just over $200k (lots of grants).

These things always become a problem of infinite regress. This came from that, but what created that? Doesn't matter if it's some sort of super singularity or a god. It becomes something we don't have the answer to. I would defer to science, because that's at least an evidence-based attempt. Any religion that honestly believed it was true would agree, because science is aimed at finding the truth, which according to true believers is the same as their own religious belief.

Agreed we need an evidence based approach from the science side. Nobody should fault a religious man for saying "God created the universe" because that is what faith is. Despite all evidence (and God made us able to collect evidence) we believe that He created it.

In terms of science, one should not say "there's no way some god created the universe" until the evidence backs it up. It's acceptable to say "we think the universe started with some big bang triggering near-infinite expansion of dense matter" or whatever. Some religious people will say that such a thing is impossible, and others will say it may be possible because that could be how God did it.

As a religious person who also happens to be a scientist by profession/education I would like to scientifically know the answer as to the creator of the universe. I would also, with my statistical background, think that a few minutes and a few dollars of my life to hopefully go to heaven is not a high price to pay compared to those who do nothing to go to heaven and then find out that their beliefs were wrong.

That's also what I have agreed with my mormon friends. If I'm right they will go to heaven anyway. If they are right then when I die they will do a baptism of the dead for me and my spirit will gladly accept!

 

[Marvin]

Conservation of energy.

Not following how that's violated.

Nature is either a) designed or b) autonomous. God is sentient (at least according to most religious views)

People frequently philosophize about alternative theories of god, like what if earth is god or the universe is god, things like that. I'm saying that's definitely possible, but without sentience it's really kinda stretching the traditional western understanding of the word "god".

I used to agree until I saw that inter-dimensional photon crap.

Eh, "interdimensional" isn't as shocking to me as it seems to other people. If there are other dimensions, they're too small for us to notice or care about.

There are only two responses to this, and I'm not sure which is more appropriate.

1) You have never been part of an academic research environment.

2) You have been part of an academic research environment.

In either case, one could draw such a conclusion as "they are not affected by money."

I fall into the #2 category. The work I did had no agenda behind it. The grant came from a blanket of grant money designed more to research whatever than to research one specific goal. That said I helped with some proposals and saw many pursuits of things related to all manner of "controversial" things from global warming to proving company A's product is best for application X.

I'm not saying that this has happened with global warming (would certainly derail the topic lol) but consider the following scenario:

Some scientists say that man-made global warming may be an issue. The government puts out an RFP for an academic study. Three teams are awarded grant money and they all do their study.

Scenario 1: all three teams say "there's no problem" and the whole thing goes away.

Scenario 2: One team says there is a significant problem, and the other two say there is not. Now RFPs open up for peer review of the results by other teams.

Scenario 3: All three teams say "OMG significant evidence we are all going to die needs further study"

Now there are new RFPs with 10x the money than before and everyone is trying to get a piece of it.

Academic research/grant money is one of the few areas where government is proactive instead of reactive. Remember that the people running these research projects (professors) have their salaries based on how much grant money comes in. In my department salaries (public information) ranged from 57k (no grants) to just over $200k (lots of grants).

But the data is still there.

 

[Watcher]

People frequently philosophize about alternative theories of god, like what if earth is god or the universe is god, things like that. I'm saying that's definitely possible, but without sentience it's really kinda stretching the traditional western understanding of the word "god".

Not only that but it's not how God (or the Christian equivalent, Yahweh or Gehova as he is named) is described in the Bible.

If there is one thing that is more or less consistent in the Bible is that God is some kind of entity that lives above men and made them in his image (and I use the word consistent liberally). There're numerous chapters in the Bible where God does things and talks directly to his followers. IE: Giving Moses the tablets with the 10 commandments, one of which states "God is jealous". Which is a bit of a stretch if God is everything to "God has physical desires and God does stuff".

It also conflicts heavily with the theory of the Trinity (Jesus was God incarnate) because it's a pretty big stretch to think not only was God a man for 30 years, but he was also the planet/the universe/everything.

You'd have to either design your own religion (or just follow a deist point of view) or follow a more atheistic religion like Buddhism in order to justify the God is everything theory. Because Christianity doesn't really follow that line of reasoning. It really does read like "God is a guy who lives in the sky and orders you to kill people in his name." It also doesn't make particular sense why if God is everything why he punishes you for not believing in him.

Actually that last part doesn't make sense either way but that's a whole 'nother story for another day.

 

[StallChaser]

Agreed we need an evidence based approach from the science side. Nobody should fault a religious man for saying "God created the universe" because that is what faith is. Despite all evidence (and God made us able to collect evidence) we believe that He created it.

Faith is something that only applies to the individual with faith.

As a religious person who also happens to be a scientist by profession/education I would like to scientifically know the answer as to the creator of the universe. I would also, with my statistical background, think that a few minutes and a few dollars of my life to hopefully go to heaven is not a high price to pay compared to those who do nothing to go to heaven and then find out that their beliefs were wrong.

That's also what I have agreed with my mormon friends. If I'm right they will go to heaven anyway. If they are right then when I die they will do a baptism of the dead for me and my spirit will gladly accept!

This is known as Pascal's Wager. It breaks down when you realize there are an infinite number of possible theoretical religions, any of which could be in direct conflict with one another. So if a religion says it's good to wear blue, you might want to wear blue to hedge your bets and be good with it. But if another religion says NOT to wear blue, you're kinda screwed. It all cancels out in the end. In the absence of evidence, all possible theoretical religions are equally likely to be true.

 

[Watcher]

This is known as Pascal's Wager. It breaks down when you realize there are an infinite number of possible theoretical religions, any of which could be in direct conflict with one another. So if a religion says it's good to wear blue, you might want to wear blue to hedge your bets and be good with it. But if another religion says NOT to wear blue, you're kinda screwed. It all cancels out in the end. In the absence of evidence, all possible theoretical religions are equally likely to be true.

Pascal's Wager is worse than that, it's one of the laziest arguments for faith period.

The basic premise of Pascal's wager is "You lose nothing for believing in God. And if you say you believe and you were wrong then nothing bad happens. But if you say you don't believe and you were wrong then you go to hell".

Putting aside the ridiculous notion that all God cares about is believing in him, which is what a great deal of major sects of Christianity preach. (The biggest thing that made me an atheist was learning that). Pascal's Wager appeals to intellectual laziness.

As you pointed out, the argument falls apart immediately once you consider there are more religions than Christianity. But it's worse than that, the argument is simply wrong. It tries to assert "as long as you just lie to God and tell him that you believe in him, that's all that matters". Never mind the fact he can probably take a fucking guess that you don't actually believe in him. Major Christian apologists claim that you'll eventually believe in him if you just keep telling yourself you do. It essentially says "Don't worry. Just try and fool God and say you're a Christian and he'll let you in." Or it tries to claim you can choose what you believe in, like you can turn off your belief in poisonous spiders or your belief that you'll die if you jump out of a plane without a parachute.

 

[klystron]

Not following how that's violated.

It didn't come from anywhere, because that implies a dimension of time.

Once you say something didn't come from anywhere you say it's supernatural. Or a miracle.

Eh, "interdimensional" isn't as shocking to me as it seems to other people. If there are other dimensions, they're too small for us to notice or care about.

I took a class once where we spent an hour looking at the volume of n-dimensional cubes. Once you get to 7 I think it was the volume actually started to shrink for any cube with surfaces of size x. Kind of blew my mind.

But the data is still there.

We show record ice coverage in the antarctic wit h average ice melt this year and yet I still see the rise in sea level blamed on melting ice.

If there is one thing that is more or less consistent in the Bible is that God is some kind of entity that lives above men and made them in his image (and I use the word consistent liberally). There're numerous chapters in the Bible where God does things and talks directly to his followers. IE: Giving Moses the tablets with the 10 commandments, one of which states "God is jealous". Which is a bit of a stretch if God is everything to "God has physical desires and God does stuff".

I've always felt the whole "God want s you to worship him" thing was in-part worded by man because of the sheer awe that he felt (should feel?) for God. If God truly made us in His image, then that makes me wonder what He worships!

This is known as Pascal's Wager. It breaks down when you realize there are an infinite number of possible theoretical religions, any of which could be in direct conflict with one another. So if a religion says it's good to wear blue, you might want to wear blue to hedge your bets and be good with it. But if another religion says NOT to wear blue, you're kinda screwed. It all cancels out in the end. In the absence of evidence, all possible theoretical religions are equally likely to be true.

I didn't know it had a name. Interesting. I use this argument as a way to appeal to people who profess to be scientists as a sort of numbers-based argument. I do agree with you that if you take faith out of the equation it's likely any religion is just as likely to be true as another. However, I don't attempt to follow other religions only one.

Putting aside the ridiculous notion that all God cares about is believing in him, which is what a great deal of major sects of Christianity preach. (The biggest thing that made me an atheist was learning that). Pascal's Wager appeals to intellectual laziness.

As you pointed out, the argument falls apart immediately once you consider there are more religions than Christianity. But it's worse than that, the argument is simply wrong. It tries to assert "as long as you just lie to God and tell him that you believe in him, that's all that matters". Never mind the fact he can probably take a fucking guess that you don't actually believe in him. Major Christian apologists claim that you'll eventually believe in him if you just keep telling yourself you do. It essentially says "Don't worry. Just try and fool God and say you're a Christian and he'll let you in." Or it tries to claim you can choose what you believe in, like you can turn off your belief in poisonous spiders or your belief that you'll die if you jump out of a plane without a parachute.

I never learned all God cares about is believing in him. While that's a fundamental thing, the core tenant I learned is that the path to salvation is through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. God, the almighty, to better understand us, sent his only son to Earth to live amongst us and advocate for us when judgement day comes. On behalf of Christian apologists everywhere, I apologize to you for the poor message you have received.

Also, I would argue that blanket statements like "major Christian apologists claim..." appeal to intellectual laziness.

We can be friends, though. If Glenn Beck and Penn Gilette can be friends and discuss religion and Christian history then surely we can as well.

 

[Drawets Rednaxela]

We've never gone to church even for Christmas or Easter. Not much to say about it really.

I've never been to church for anything other than weddings, baptisms, a school field trip and that one time I helped repaint the nearby community center. Very few members of my extended family are hard Christian. Even our former matriach who passed away last Spring was a Humanist.

 

[Holdek]

Once you say something didn't come from anywhere you say it's supernatural. Or a miracle.

Particles have been observed to come in and out of existence in vacuums. That's not a miracle. T he inherent instability of a vacuum could be what caused the bang in the first place.

All of the questions posed about the beginnings of the big bang have had various scientific theories explaining them without the need for "God did it." The most common one is that the big bang was a space-time singularity of infinite density where the time itself began at the bang.

 

[Watcher]

I've always felt the whole "God want s you to worship him" thing was in-part worded by man because of the sheer awe that he felt (should feel?) for God. If God truly made us in His image, then that makes me wonder what He worships!

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.

It's the first commandment. It was written on stone tablets and given directly to Moses. It's laid down as one of the laws the Jews had to follow.

If you're going to claim that this was embellishment than what exactly was embellishment and what is nonfiction? Because this is a fairly important part of the Bible and one of the cornerstones of the entire religion and it's the first commandment. That's not all either.

"I am Jehovah, and there is none else; besides me there is no God. I will gird thee, though thou hast not known me; that they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none besides me: I am Jehovah, and there is none else.

And if you believe in the trinity Jesus says this

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. "

""If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple."

~~

I didn't know it had a name. Interesting. I use this argument as a way to appeal to people who profess to be scientists as a sort of numbers-based argument. I do agree with you that if you take faith out of the equation it's likely any religion is just as likely to be true as another. However, I don't attempt to follow other religions only one.

What he stated was Pascal's Wager falls apart as soon as you introduce the fact there are other religions.

Like you can say "Well I believe in god because I don't lose anything and I won't go to hell if I do" but the fact of the matter is you have to determine which god. Is it Allah? Muslims have a Hell as well and state anyone who doesn't believe in their God goes to Muslim Hell as well. Thankfully Darkmatter2525 made a video about this that illustrates my point.

~~

Also, I would argue that blanket statements like "major Christian apologists claim..." appeal to intellectual laziness.

Pascal's Wager is a very old Apologetic and it is used in regular succession to this day, and has evolved a great deal from Pascal's original work.

When I stated "Major Christian apologists claim" what I meant was whenever you approach a big Creationist personality about the inherent flaws Pascal's Wager presents, like the one I mentioned where you essentially have to fool yourself into believing a God exists. They usually state that once you start telling yourself you believe in God you'll eventually begin to have faith in him. Which is why I made the comparison to things like poisonous spiders and jumping out of an airplane.

 

[Johnny Bravo]

I've never been to church for anything other than weddings, baptisms, a school field trip and that one time I helped repaint the nearby community center. Very few members of my extended family are hard Christian. Even our former matriach who passed away last Spring was a Humanist.

Never been to a baptism. Went to a church for a wedding once when I was 14, hated every second of it (probably because I was 14 at the time). I saw a play in a church once with a friend. For a while, when I was still seeing my dad, I would go to church with his family on the weekends. I was never actually inside the church, though, just the youth center. I suppose that counts as my first religious education. It was also the point when I started to realize that I disagreed with a lot of the stuff Christians believed. I didn't officially consider myself atheist until I became an adult, but I was agnostic for a long, long time, before I knew there was a word for it.

 

[Zeorus]

What he stated was Pascal's Wager falls apart as soon as you introduce the fact there are other religions.

Like you can say "Well I believe in god because I don't lose anything and I won't go to hell if I do" but the fact of the matter is you have to determine which god. Is it Allah? Muslims have a Hell as well and state anyone who doesn't believe in their God goes to Muslim Hell as well. Thankfully Darkmatter2525 made a video about this that illustrates my point.

I know this is horribly pedantic, but....

Muslims, Jews and Christians worship the same God - "Allah" is just one of many Arabic names for God, akin to the Hebrew "Elohim" that you see in the Old Testament.

 

[Watcher]

I know this is horribly pedantic, but....

Muslims, Jews and Christians worship the same God - "Allah" is just one of many Arabic names for God, akin to the Hebrew "Elohim" that you see in the Old Testament.

Yes and I think that sorta is the most ridiculous part of the whole thing.

The Qur'an has this passage

"By the One in Whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, no one among this nation, Jew or Christian, hears of me then dies not believing in that with which I was sent, but he will be one of the people of the Fire.”

All three religions outright state "Unless you follow our interpretation, you go to Hell" despite worshiping the same Gods and reading from the same stories.

Otherwise Pascal's Wager could still apply to other religions like Hinduism, or even religions that aren't used anymore like Norse.

 

[Johnny Bravo]

I wish Norse mythology was the one true religion because it kicks complete ass.

 

[Surtur]

Otherwise Pascal's Wager could still apply to other religions like Hinduism, or even religions that aren't used anymore like Norse.

*waves hand* Um, Hi.

 

[Dollars2010]

Otherwise Pascal's Wager could still apply to other religions like Hinduism, or even religions that aren't used anymore like Norse.

Oh, hello.

 

[klystron]

Particles have been observed to come in and out of existence in vacuums. That's not a miracle. T he inherent instability of a vacuum could be what caused the bang in the first place.

All of the questions posed about the beginnings of the big bang have had various scientific theories explaining them without the need for "God did it." The most common one is that the big bang was a space-time singularity of infinite density where the time itself began at the bang.

Just because we do not observe something does not mean it does not exist. Also remember the fundamental quandary of quantum mechanics. The act of observing something often creates things to observe.

It's the first commandment. It was written on stone tablets and given directly to Moses. It's laid down as one of the laws the Jews had to follow.

Correct. I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion?

If you're going to claim that this was embellishment than what exactly was embellishment and what is nonfiction? Because this is a fairly important part of the Bible and one of the cornerstones of the entire religion and it's the first commandment. That's not all either.

The first commandment means that God is God. We aren't to worship other Gods. It doesn't say "you must bow down and pray to me 12 times a day and sacrifice your wife and first three cats to prove you love me."

When I stated "Major Christian apologists claim" what I meant was whenever you approach a big Creationist personality about the inherent flaws Pascal's Wager presents, like the one I mentioned where you essentially have to fool yourself into believing a God exists. They usually state that once you start telling yourself you believe in God you'll eventually begin to have faith in him. Which is why I made the comparison to things like poisonous spiders and jumping out of an airplane.

The issue I had with your post is this specifically:

Major Christian apologists claim that you'll eventually believe in him if you just keep telling yourself you do. It essentially says "Don't worry. Just try and fool God and say you're a Christian and he'll let you in." Or it tries to claim you can choose what you believe in, like you can turn off your belief in poisonous spiders or your belief that you'll die if you jump out of a plane without a parachute.

I've never ever heard anyone say that you have to "fool God" and I've never heard any Christian (and I live in the Bible belt I hear it whether I want to or not) that the only thing you have to do to go to heaven is believe in God. The fact that you make a blanket statement about "Christian apologists" saying that is either intellectually lazy or intellectually dishonest.

My big thing on the whole "religion vs science" thing boils down to this. As I've stated before I am a professional scientist. That said, I see a lot of agendas puhed in the scientific community. One of those is God does not exist despite no evidence to the contrary. It's extremely difficult to prove a negative. Any logic class will tell you that.

Logically I accept that there's a possibility that I am wrong. I'd love to see science prove it one way or another. However I would not throw the scientific method under the bus and just say "God does not exist, science blah blah" because that's just another excuse to not believe.

In conclusion, I apologize if my words were harsh in the previous post. I honestly read it as "Christian apologists claim you have to fool God" as opposed to you explaining your take on it. I wouldn't have been as negative if I had read it correctly.