are we all alone?

[swissknife]

I'm also really interested in Scientology\Dianetics.

no more of this church- and religion hijacking here anymore please.. :D

[smcfalls13]

Wow what a great thread...kinda like playing with nuclear power though...hope everyone can keep from having a "meltdown".

I've been pleasantly surprised so far. For such a sensitive topic, we're getting along remarkably well. *knock on wood*

Too much to read here now, I'll have to come back to this thread in a little bit.

[zenheretic]

New Testament [/B] portion) is very clear about the "way of salvation" and it's the narrow way through faith in Jesus Christ.

So I wonder what the difference is between the New Testament and the Old Testament? Why was it rewritten? I would tend to hold the the Old Testament in higher regard considering it would be closer to "truth" in terms of when written.

Cynically, it sounds like the New Testament is way to stick it to the Jewish faith. Why? Well I can't claim to know much about the Jewish religion, but I kinda got the impression the Ten Commandments and most of the Bible is "their" stuff. Since I know the Jews don't hold Jesus in quite the same esteem as their Christian brothers it would pretty much exclude all Jews from salvation as they don't accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour etc etc., if one follows the New Testament.

So under the New Testament, a person who followed those 10 laws written in stone for their whole Life be they Jew or just a good person, no matter what they will burn in **** as they know the message of Jesus yet don't accept him as lord/savior etc etc.? Hmmmm. No wonder most of Europe's church numbers are dropping.

[zenheretic]

I've been pleasantly surprised so far. For such a sensitive topic, we're getting along remarkably well. *knock on wood*

Too much to read here now, I'll have to come back to this thread in a little bit.

Yes Scott but you will note that the truly wise forumites avoid this thread like the plague! :p

[BlackNinja]

no more of this church- and religion hijacking here anymore please.. :D

No problem but, assuming you read the entire post (it is yours) and this is from your thread:
"god" came to our planet a couple of times maybe, first buddha, then jesus, maybe muhammed was the last reincarnation. so the islams book, the koran, would be the "latest news" (or "bodycount" as i read and found amusing and fitting) as about 600 years old.
I don't see where I'm saying anything different than everybody, including yourself, who has posted about religion. No offense but, how am I to know no not to post about religion, when you mention God, Jesus, Buddah Muhammed...in your thread.
Science and Religion go hand in hand. Both seek the truth! So of course this post is going to draw both science and religious aspects!
Also, why did you dismiss my "Force" aspect and only quoted my scientology statement? :confused: They are both the same!

[smcfalls13]

Yes Scott but you will note that the truly wise forumites avoid this thread like the plague! :p

I've noticed that and yet I keep poking my head in here :p I have too big of a mouth to stay out of threads like this :cool:

[zenheretic]

No problem but, assuming you read the entire post (it is yours) and this is from your thread:
"god" came to our planet a couple of times maybe, first buddha, then jesus, maybe muhammed was the last reincarnation. so the islams book, the koran, would be the "latest news" (or "bodycount" as i read and found amusing and fitting) as about 600 years old.
I don't see where I'm saying anything different than everybody, including yourself, who has posted about religion. No offense but, how am I to know no not to post about religion, when you mention God, Jesus, Buddah Muhammed...in your thread.
Science and Religion go hand in hand. Both seek the truth! So of course this post is going to draw both science and religious aspects!
Also, why did you dismiss my "Force" aspect and only quoted my scientology statement? :confused: They are both the same!

Hey BlackNinja...I didn't understand his comment either...just forged on ahead and chalk it up to lost in translation...

[2edgesword]

"How does ANYBODY know if intelligent life can't survive in ANYTHIN except what WE see as being habitable! How does anybody know for sure if intelligent life can't live in 1,000,000,000 degree weather?"

Life in any form we can imagine (based on the physics of the universe as we understand them today) could not live in 1 billion degree heat. If the discussion goes to what can we know for sure the answer is partially based on how sure is sure. Do you want to discussion impossible or statistically impossible?

What we understand is that even the simplist forms of life are in fact exceedingly complex. We can speculate to no end about what might be but if we're going limit ourselves to what we do know about the conditions required for life to exist the earth appears to be quite unique.

In addition we've only address the conditions for life to "exist" and not tackled the much more difficult question of the origins of life and how inorganic materials become the organic molecules that are the basic building blocks for life. Having the correct atmosphere, temperature, gravity and the other inorganic properties required to sustain life doesn't equate to life. And in many respect you need life to sustain life.

[zenheretic]

...In addition we've only address the conditions for life to "exist" and not tackled the much more difficult question of the origins of life and how inorganic materials become the organic molecules that are the basic building blocks for life. Having the correct atmosphere, temperature, gravity and the other inorganic properties required to sustain life doesn't equate to life. And in many respect you need life to sustain life.

I bolded this section as I sort of assume based on past posts that you are alluding to the origins of life created by the touch of god. To jump the fence, from my past posts, even if science is able to discern without a doubt exactly how life was first started...it is difficult to imagine science could ever prove or disprove that the chain of events wasn't indeed sparked by the hand of god (would require a god detector amongst other sci fi instruments).

I have never understood why science and religion have to be opposed...afterall I find it kinda silly that a supreme god, who is well beyond our comprehension (the lord works in mysterious ways), would ever bother to create the universe and life by just snapping his fingers once a day for six days. Why is it so hard to accept that his puzzle is very much locked into genetics and evolution...? Theories we really barely understand.

[2edgesword]

"it is difficult to imagine science could ever prove or disprove that the chain of events wasn't indeed sparked by the hand of god (would require a god detector amongst other sci fi instruments)."

It wouldn't require a "god detector" but a scientific (based on experimentation and observation) explanation for how life originated that was consistent with the fundamental laws of physics. At this point none of the explanations for life (abiogenesis - life originating from inorganic matter) and the increase from basic organic molecules to advanced life forms (macroevolution) meet the criteria for being called "scientific" explanations.

[BlackNinja]

"it is difficult to imagine science could ever prove or disprove that the chain of events wasn't indeed sparked by the hand of god (would require a god detector amongst other sci fi instruments)."

It wouldn't require a "god detector" but a scientific (based on experimentation and observation) explanation for how life originated that was consistent with the fundamental laws of physics. At this point none of the explanations for life (abiogenesis - life originating from inorganic matter) and the increase from basic organic molecules to advanced life forms (macroevolution) meet the criteria for being called "scientific" explanations.

What do you call them, miracles! If you are basing you argument on "the fundamental laws of physics" then how can you explain how "God" can do anything! If he/she can, then the laws of physics are blown out of the water! "Scientific" explanations at least have validity or proof! Believe what you want, but how can you dismiss something that is fact!

We have been on this planet for what, 25-50,000 years. The planet has been here for millions of years! To say that we are a primitive species is an understatement, IMO (10% of our brain.) So to say that we know more than 1% of the truth of whats out there or what is habitable for sustaining life is arrogant, no!

[zenheretic]

"it is difficult to imagine science could ever prove or disprove that the chain of events wasn't indeed sparked by the hand of god (would require a god detector amongst other sci fi instruments)."

It wouldn't require a "god detector" but a scientific (based on experimentation and observation) explanation for how life originated that was consistent with the fundamental laws of physics. At this point none of the explanations for life (abiogenesis - life originating from inorganic matter) and the increase from basic organic molecules to advanced life forms (macroevolution) meet the criteria for being called "scientific" explanations.

I not sure if you are arguing against my quote or for it?

My whole point was it is difficult to imagine Science having the capability now or anytime in this lifetime of having the capability to detect god and explain confidently how life was started on this planet. The current theories are simple what have to work with at this point in time based on current scientific knowledge. We can't explain how a simple cell interacts with other cells and stimuli a subcellular level either, nor can we understand the function and disfunction of the human brain as well as the other systems in the body but time will decode these mysteries. Assuming we don't suffer another human civilizational meltdown that crushed the Roman civilization (science can't explain some of the things the Romans were able to do either) I can conceive a point in our future when a "god detector" would work.

[swissknife]

What do you call them, miracles! If you are basing you argument on "the fundamental laws of physics" then how can you explain how "God" can do anything! If he/she can, then the laws of physics are blown out of the water! "Scientific" explanations at least have validity or proof! Believe what you want, but how can you dismiss something that is fact!

well, just as we are at it, if god has to go with physics, who has been creating physics?

and for some, if you do not understand my posts, ok, fair enough. english is not my mothers tongue and for never having lived in english speaking countries, i think i am not so bad. ok? so for those of you that complain, keep it to yourself.

and as for the wise man.. whatever is meant with this!

[2edgesword]

"I not sure if you are arguing against my quote or for it?"

I'm not sure either. :D

The fact that the more we learn about the process of life the more we understand that it is exceedingly complexed, the further we go down the road of dissecting the molecular biochemical/biomechanical processes of life without coming up with a naturalist explanation for how it originated, might itself serve as the closest we're going to come to a "god detector".

[Gibsoniam]

Something along the lines of Zen's thoughts:

Until someone builds a time machine, I doubt we will have a concrete wholly accepted answer to the origins of life and the mechanics of the origins of life.
Not to mention all the other mysteries we face in a much more practical sense, such as health, mental health, and all those other things Zen listed.

For science, this should be tremendously motivating: a seemingly never ending vault of mysteries to be studied and unlocked.

For the religions, this should be humbling and comforting: A god that can design a universe so intricate that its most intelligent life forms can't explain everything makes sense, it proves that the god in question is indeed smarter than the beings he created.

As for Science and Religion getting along better, I think adjustments in each camp's vocabulary (NOT opinions) would go a long way. Both sides, especially in the origins issues, argue from a lot of the same evidence with different conclusions. It'd be nice if we could change the debate from you're right, you're wrong to I don't agree with your theory, and here's why. I believe an individual can be firm in their beliefs and opinions, and still respect that we don't have all the answers, and we're all just trying to find out in different ways.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

[BlackNinja]

[quote="swissknife"]well, just as we are at it, if god has to go with physics, who has been creating physics?

QUOTE]
THAT is the question. Just for argumentative reasons, who says "God" is even a "who?"

I mean no disrespect, I respect your opinion as much as I do my own! IMO, your English is fine!

[EarthDog]

God has room for us all. That's my take on it.

There may be a special place for the "me onlyists" so the rest of us don't spoil their eternity. :D

[zenheretic]

well, just as we are at it, if god has to go with physics, who has been creating physics?

and for some, if you do not understand my posts, ok, fair enough. english is not my mothers tongue and for never having lived in english speaking countries, i think i am not so bad. ok? so for those of you that complain, keep it to yourself.

and as for the wise man.. whatever is meant with this!

Swissknife, so who is complaining? I remember two folks not understanding your post that is all. I assumed English wasn't your mother tongue, and also realize you can form complete thoughts in at least one more language than I can. Still don't understand your post though. Irrelevant now, maybe next time explain it when we don't understand instead of getting defensive. Ok? :mad:

[zenheretic]

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Some interesting thoughts as well. So far I'm enjoying the discourse as not everyone agrees but no insults have been hurled...chalk one up to this awesome forum...

[swissknife]

Swissknife, so who is complaining? I remember two folks not understanding your post that is all. I assumed English wasn't your mother tongue, and also realize you can form complete thoughts in at least one more language than I can. Still don't understand your post though. Irrelevant now, maybe next time explain it when we don't understand instead of getting defensive. Ok? :mad:

..now reading your post, i take into consideration of not having REALLY understood your posts about mine.. that chalking-up thing seemed offensive to me, there goes my reaction. i took it as bragueing about. ok? :rolleyes:

quite happy about the subject gone irrelevant as its sometimes a bit hard to put together.. :D

OT: why nuclear thread? why "meltdown"? maybe its just me, but i think its not such a delicate topic. well, gone a bit religious i understand. but the initial question, no, i dont think so..