My Take on Life and Death [Discussion 1]

[Tenshin]

Hello, and welcome to the first of my many intelligent discussion thread on the Tatsumaki forum boards. I've decided to start it off with the first topic to ever dig anchors in my brain, since a very young age: Religion! (in a sense)

What is religion? Every culture in the world has a different way of explaining the same thing. Life and death; that which we know and understand to a certain extent, and that which we don't and can never know, as living beings. That's what we fear. But is religion all that we think it is?

GOD
What is God. Every explaination of God's characteristics can relate to one thing; the Earth. From it, we live, without we, we cannot exist. We are born and built from it's elements, chemicals, and compounds, and when we die, our bodies break down and become a part of it once again. It sustains our life. It's vegetation and livestock is loving and forgiving, but it's natural disasters are relentless and vengeful. Just like a biblical God.

We have are an egotistical overthinking breed. We look for the answers outside the obvious, and try to understand esoteric ideals that can only be presented without tangable proof. But really, the true religion is right in front of us. It proves other religions right, and atheism right. When you remove all of the skins and faceplates, religion is birth from your creator, life, death, and a return to your creator. Earth is your creator, earth is what sustains you. Regardless of your religion, if you disagree with this, you're only fooling yourself.

So what's death?
Whether it's bioelectrical energy, or Ki, or Prana, or Chi, there is an energy that we cannot see that gives us life. Death is the absence of that energy. But what happens to the energy when you die? It disperses, breaks down, and becomes everything. It's cast out into the world as electrolytes, protons, and neutrons, or in another sense, ki. Although ki is not the same thing, it is a representation of that energy.

When you die
There could not be a "heaven" that you see, and live in. Death is the absense of the mind and body. The senses, are physical things, and could never be carried into the "afterlife" as they are dependant upon the body to function. Some people are aware of their energy, and some interperet it as another sense, so when it leaves the body, that's the life that is left of you. It is not conscious, it can't think or see or hear, etc... It's just there, it eventually forms with other "atoms" to create something new, which is in a sense rebirth, with no possible recollection of a past life, because the experiences and mind are long gone. When you die, you die. It may be scary to think about ceasing to exist. But to exist is to suffer. Once you die, existence means nothing, there is no thought, because thought is a product of the body.

So religion. Is it that different from common sense? Is it that unbelievable that we don't go to a magical place and meet "God" without our physical bodies. I'd like to hear some opinions on this, and takes on these statements from Christians, and other religious followers, as well as atheists.

-----

For the record, I used to be a deeply religious christian, until I was drawn away by their boundaries and borders, I became a Zen Buddhist, and through observations I've come to see "religion" as this. Stragely, I consider myself a very spiritual person, despite these seemingly atheistic beliefs.

[Tenshin]

Let's show some brains, come on people, this is a topic worthy of discussion, what are your thoughts of my statements?

[ComicP]

ok, as far as religion goes, i like to think it's people way of simplifying things they don't understand.

Re: God

God is essantially, a scapegoat. if there's a natural disaster, it was gods doing. if somthing good happens, you thank who? god. gods are born out of people lack of responsiblity.

Re: So what's death?

i agree. just a representation of energy. jusifacation: people who do nothing but watch tv have no life.
no life=doing nothing=no energy

Re: When you die

hmmm. i see your point. and i agree. nothing to say. good work

[ShininShado]

Earth is your creator, earth is what sustains you.

Sustained life on space stations is becoming more of a reality now and less a fantasy. In the not too distant future, there will be colonies in space, fully self sufficient. Knowing this, it negates the above statement. Though you could argue that everything from the station orginated on Earth, being born and living an entire life and procreating on that station would negate the statement.

Human beings are not dependent on the Earth, but dependent on the aggregate aspects of it. Give a human being food, water, oxygen, and whatever basic necessities are needed (including a livable atmosphere) and Earth is not needed.

Having said that, I am brought to the real proof that there is a God. There is no way possible that we as human beings breath in oxygen and need it to survive, and exhale carbon doixide, while trees use carbon dioxide, and expel oxygen is any type of accident or just some natural phenonmenon.

To be so foolish to think that this planet, the structure and laws on it are by mere accident or not part of God's devine plan is silly. When individuals say things like "But how can there be a God when a child dies?" or "How can there be a God when so many senseless acts of destruction take place??" Perhaps the child died because all they would have known was suffering and heartache. Whatever the case may be, it is part of God's plan (higher power, whatever you'd like to call it). As far as the death and destruction of hurricanes and other natural disasters; those are just simple reminders to human beings that God is always in control.

[Hiromi]

I'm spiritual, but not religious. Religon was created by man and the powers that be to appease the masses and give them answers that the technology of the time could not - and to use that tool to create a ruleset for societal behavior back when societies were just beginning to form.

The idea of an omnipotant God or Gods gives humanity something to look towards, teaches self-discipline and gives a sense of purpose to life. Through 'right action' and practice, the 'holy' people could carry on in another life, while those that abastained from those practices (i.e. good behavior, no crime, look at the commandments) would not. Gave the lawmakers/rulers a cop-out, IMO. In a time where the life-expectancy was in the 30's, it gave the masses a way to deal with grief, with sickness. If death befell your family, it was because God willed it so.

And the church was created. Give your money to God and your sins will be absolved. It's done in all different religions in some sort of offering or sacrifice. Seems ridiculous to me that the creater of all things would put more merit to a handful of coins rather than a lifetime of good nature. It only serves to pad the pockets of the church and then the state, all the while giving people a false sense of security.

And the trend of each religion to favor the attitude of "follow my God or perish" doesn't make much sense to me either. If this said all-powerful being created the lot of us, wouldn't we all still be under his favor, not a particular group? Seems rather strange, imo, that a select group of humans would make it to this 'afterlife' just for saying a certain prayer, and the rest of us/them be condemmed.

And most of the surviving religions today originate or take influence from their predecessors. (example, the debate over the similarities between Jesus and Krishna) Do I believe Jesus existed? Yes. But possibly not as the scriptures depict him. Back when Christianity began, in order to survive, the gospels had to compete with all the other religions of the time. They had to offer something newer, better, than what was before - a more profound chance at spiritual bliss. There were various male heroes within Egyptian, Greek, Indian, Roman and other Pagan pantheons of Gods, whose role was to be saviors to humanity, much like Jesus. Christianity very well may have picked up influences from these religions in order to make Christianity more acceptable in an otherwise pagan world.

For example, picture an image of God in your mind. The world's accepted view of God is an old man with a long, white beard. The all-powerfull Daddy of religion that sits on his throne in the sky, and causing miraculous things to happen (i.e. 'acts of God') down on humanity. Plagues, Locusts, Floods, you name it, he's got it. Now look at this:

http://snow-lotus.net/godzeus.jpg

God (left) and Zeus (right.) Zeus is also the grandfather of all religion according to ancient Mythology. He sits on his throne on Mt. Olympus (heaven) and sends lightening bolts (aforementioned natural disasters) down upon his errant followers below. He has many Gods and Goddesses that serve below him and do his bidding (angels) and he is at once powerful and terrifying.

Now, I support the idea that there's something greater than we are. I'm not so egotistical to believe that humanity has been a wonderful accident of genetics. We vary too much from one soul to the next to really have that ring true in my mind. There are too many things unexplained on this world and others, and that the energy coursing through all of us does not have a divine origin. I believe in reincarnation. Those are just my ramblings ^_^;;

[Tenshin]

Shinin: Fire is hot, but we do not need fire to create heat. The earth sustains life, but we do not need the earth to sustain life. But Fire is a naturally occuring heat, most other forms of heat are created by man. When I say the earth sustains us, it is our life, we are born from it, I mean to say, we may be able to live on a dead planet with our technology, but all our food, water, and general life comes from the earth. If we live on the moon, every bit of food, every animal, every person, is a product of earth. Even if it's born or grown artificially, it's atomic blueprint has it's origin from earth.

I believe that the earth is our "god". But when people hear "god" they think of a divine being. A personified, conscious god is a rediculous conception. But every characteristic of God, is presented in the planet earth. The basic needs for a human, are a product of earth. To say that earth isn't needed to create it, is like saying Alexander Graham Bell isn't needed to create a telephone. (Not the best example but you get it.)

Having said that, I am brought to the real proof that there is a God. There is no way possible that we as human beings breath in oxygen and need it to survive, and exhale carbon doixide, while trees use carbon dioxide, and expel oxygen is any type of accident or just some natural phenonmenon.

it's not an accident. All these things are the balance of the earth, Yin and Yang in a sense. Yin and yang are everything in the universe, together they form the Tao, which is God, which is everything and nothing. Not a person, but a force. It's hard to understand because as humans we have such delicate egos, and have to associate something to ourselves in order to understand it, that's what most religion is; a "translation" of the universal truth (the tao) so that we as people can understand and relate to it in a simpler manner.

In order to learn things, we always give examples, all religion is just an example of the Tao.

[ShininShado]

If we live on the moon, every bit of food, every animal, every person, is a product of earth. Even if it's born or grown artificially, it's atomic blueprint has it's origin from earth.


Ok in a scenario where humans live on a space station apart from the actual Earth, there is concievably the chance that there would be a totally new form of food which is synthetically made. Knowing this and knowing that it might not have any relation to any food or other substance created or discovered before, on Earth, negates the above statement. Water exists on other planets, and the more I think about it, the more I think instead of saying the Earth is our God perhaps I could believe the Universe or Cosmos is. Saying that the planet Earth is "God" just backs up the ending statement you made in the last post that our fragile egos... it is egotistical to think that Earth is special or that there aren't other planets with simliliar atmospheres that support life forms, all of which would negate the above statement.

Though I am familiar with different philosphies and relegions that believe that Earth is "God" or great provider, etc, they refer less to the actual Earth and more to the ecosystem of Earth. Native American Indians is one culture that believed this, several ancient European cultures, Rastafarian relegious believes, and several others. I guess you could say these relegious believes are "down to Earth". :eek:

[Tenshin]

lmao, down to earth. Well I guess I was thinking rather narrowmindedly, I just came back from class and today we were discussing the origins of the Tao, and Taoist Cosmology. All of which backed up your previous statements. The Taoists spent thousands of years studying these theories, before coming up with the earliest records of Taoist theology. You're right, and what you present has changed my ideals, and influenced my beliefs. To set your beliefs in stone is always foolish to do, it's healthy to be open to change. You make sense Shinin, and I like the way you think. Thanks for broadening my mind. But yeah, replace earth with universe in everything I said and it's all better. >_>

Anyone have any input?

[ShininShado]

Thanks Tenchi. I really like Taoism too. Tao Te Ching is such a well written piece of literature. I think what I like most about the Tao Te Ching and Taoism is the fact that both sides are represented, thereby represening the whole picture. It also helps to understand the truth in many things in life. For example: Life/death, creation/destruction, dark/light, etc.

While most relegions or religio-philosphical movements focus on just the light or just the good, Taoism takes both the light and dark into consideration. Along these same lines, you have Lao Tzu whom in my opinion is the quintessentiall philospher. Hmmm, how he writes about following the natural patterns of life, and non-striving; I can really identify with. Early Taoist believed there were was emmense power within the Tao, and that by not acting, but observing the natural currents in our lives and the culture around us, it would be able to become very powerful. If you have ever heard of the mythical "power of the good" (which I've seen mention/alluded to in at least three different philosphical contexts) it is reflected in principals explained in Lao Tzu's texts. (Also, the character model for Shinin Shado is based on Lord Shun of Confucious' texts, a knight of virtue, he upheld the Laws of the Tao, which were basically laws of heaven.)

On an early MMO I played, I was a "Diviner" subpath, and had to learn the whole Tao Te Ching, then became like a teacher for the path, it was a lot of fun. It is supposed to be possible to be able to tell the future reading the symbols from the Tao Te Ching, it's very interesting.

Though Chinese in origin, Taoism certainly affected Feudal Japan. Another similiar relegious belief that affected Feudal Japan was Confucianism. Though Confucianism is born primarily from Taoism, there are subtle differences. Confucianism relates more to the structure of society, fial piety, upholding the laws of society, and how the individual relates to society or the culture they live. It is steeped in tradition. In contrast, you have Taoism/Daoism that is more about the individual and less about society or culture. Toaism is more mystical, more concerned with natural events, less logical, and more intuitivite based.

Note: In "The Analects" Confucious speaks of Knights (Shi), but I cannot recall where I read about Lord Shun.

[moses]

If the cosmos were the providers, then how did life come about on earth?

EDIT: this is directed to 3 posts up. I dont really know much about tao.

[Tenshin]

It's common knowledge... Earth is the ideal distance from our sun to support life, all other planets are either too close or two far, again, the balance of yin and yang. And our planet is alive, it has a center where fire burns and fuels it's existence, and gravity that keeps everything in place. Because of it's position in our galaxy, it was able to grow vegetation, and organisms, and beings. Just like our own birth, it came from nothing, and developed into what we are now.

[Grun]

Ideal and ideal... I mean, some thousand kilometres further away or nearer would probably also provide for life.

One way to see it is that seemingly only earth could provide life, and so it is special. Another way is that with all the solar systems, chances were life would happen someplace. And that became here.

Also, every planet has gravity. Even every mass has grvity. You have gravity, so have I.

And, I feel you can't judge a thread to be intelligent until after it's finished.

[moses]

Just like our own birth, it came from nothing, and developed into what we are now.

This is one of the proofs that there is a God.

1. There is an uncaused cause.
This means that something happened that caused all other things to happen. Everything just cant be there, solar systems and planets are all formed. Life just doesnt appear, something or someone created that life. If one goes back it leads back until it hits the one thing that started it all, God.

2. Intelligent designer
This is the fact that everything in the world, is so ingenius and put together in a fashion that there was no way that someone wasnt designing it. It would be like a person walking in the desert and finding a watch perfectly made just because the sand blew around. This means that there is a inteligent being by whom all natural things are directed by.

3. Motion and Enertia
Motion and enertia are forces that state that one an object is in motion doesnt stop or start until another force acts upon it. This proves that something/someone existed to start the forces that act on each other. Nothing can just start moving without something to cause it to happen. This proves that there is a god figure who had to put it all in motion. This is very similar to #1.

4. Possibility and Necessity
We find it possible that all things that are possible are to be and not to be since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these to have always existed, for that which is possible not to be and at some time is not.

5. Graduation found in things.
Among all things there are the truest, noblest, greatest and the like. But these are all measured in more or less to a maximum/minimum. Such as the maximum of heat is fire as it heats all things. Therefore there must be something of maximum goodness and perfection, which we call God.

Along with #5 if there is no God, there is no good or evil, as it cant be measured and there is nothing to enforce it. And when people realize there is no good or evil, it is survival of the fittest. People such as Hitler and Stalin emerge from among this group.

Well theres my 2 cents :P

[ShininShado]

Along with #5 if there is no God, there is no good or evil, as it cant be measured and there is nothing to enforce it. And when people realize there is no good or evil, it is survival of the fittest. People such as Hitler and Stalin emerge from among this group.

Even though I do personally believe in God, the above statement from a philosphical standpoint is faulted. Thinking that good and bad cannot be measured without God is niave at best, and thinking that there is no way to enforce these measurements without God is also primarily wrong.

The concepts of right and wrong come from whatever society the actions take place in and are gauged in, these are called mores of society. Knowing that the mores of society are based upon traditions, and perpetuated by the leaders of a given culture or society, and knowing that God might or might not be a part in either of those factors makes the above statement untrue. I can see what you are saying, and primarily agree with the statement.

And when people realize there is no good or evil, it is survival of the fittest.

Good and evil are determined by actions. These actions on an individual level are governed by conscious. On a larger scale they are based upon the laws, traditions, and mores of a given society. For example; there are things in our culture that are deplorable to others, and things of others that are deplorable to our culture. Your overall statement is one of the main reasons I see as proof there is a God. If there wasn't, every land would be lawless and uncivilized. Some might argue that the government structure in place is a reflection of the people whom formed the government, but without some form of higher power's help the percieved hierarchy could easily be challenged or decimated. I guess this is a philosphy I've gone around and around with; the percieved and actual power debate.

On one side you have government officials, politicians (whom are different than leaders in a now-a-days life), and beaurocrats; all with percieved power. Society and the necessary government structure has given them this "power". This power includes the ability to apprehend criminals, conduct hearings to determine the merit or detriment of any given actions, or might even include military power and the decisions held therein. HOWEVER all of that could obliterated in the blink of an eye if God deemed it so. The situation in New Orleans is a perfect example. The government structure from the very most basic elements was decimated. God's might and power are beyond my comprehension, but I do comprehend He is control and He has real power, not percieved power.

Governments, like laws, are for the most part a good thing, which is how I percieve God.

[kensai_zen]

there is a god? rofl

in my honest oppinion which may seem abit lame is that GOD is just something to place belief in to explain things that cant be explained

ie "how did this become to be????" yadda yadda yadda "oh it musta been god"

most of the stuff in the bible and other holy books have already been explained by science and some of the stories "noahs arc and the great flood" is actualy from an older civilisation. just a passed down story taken and changed to be creditable to "gods power" since it was a major catastrophic event


a weird new twist in the life after death thing ive been messing about with in my head is that since we are basicly made up of protiens and minerals (or to tkae it even smaller, atoms) life after death is just us being recycled when we die and being used again in new life... to make a baby you need food protiens blah blah blah. when we die our bodies degrade into the earth which then gets changed into nutrients for plants which then go into the circle of life, food chain or what not

my philosophical thought isnt a factual statement nor does it try to be. it was just a thought that i was messing with to pass the time

[moses]

[QUOTE=moses]
Along with #5 if there is no God, there is no good or evil, as it cant be measured and there is nothing to enforce it. And when people realize there is no good or evil, it is survival of the fittest. People such as Hitler and Stalin emerge from among this group.


With this statement i meant, how is there a good? What is the maximum good with out a God? Same with evil. The maximum of evil is the total absence of good. So with out some maximums to measure them they cant be measured or therefore exist. In our society we do base good and evil off of laws, statues, morals etc but what are all those based off of that make them good? Most come from the ten commandments or are off of things that happen after biblical laws were written down (things with driving, computers etc).

I have more but i gotta go. Ill post later

[ShininShado]

Since we determine what is "good" or "bad" as human beings I'm not sure about that. Society deems what is acceptable or not and what one person sees as the ultimate evil the next might deem the perfect good. It is not until we begin to place judgements on actions (good/bad) that this even comes into play. Intentions come into play here as well as justifications for actions. Free will also has a part to play in this, but only God truly knows what someone has gone through or what they have done, thereby making what I think their actions are (good/bad) null and void and totally dependent on the societal laws and codes in which they live.

[Tomoshibi]

Ok, looks like its time to use that brain of mine.

God

Does he/she/it really exist in a spiritual or even physical sense? This creator, is it really needed to exist in order for the world as we no it? I hope someone will respond to my thoughts, because they really need some pondering over.

Let’s begin with the birth of the universe. People say that God was needed to set things in motion, either by creating the universe itself or setting it in motion through The Big Bang theory. They say this because they don't have a better explanation for what has occurred - like all theories. Humans are unable to comprehend something starting out of nothing, so we theorize a higher force is behind all of it. This brings to question though; if, as people think, you can't start something out of nothing, then how did God come into existence? Why is it so easy for people to believe that a being can actually will itself into creation, yet difficult to think that simple matter cannot do so? Let’s say, for a moment, that matter cannot be created or destroyed. The Big Bang Theory suggests that high gravity compacted all the matter of the universe together, or that it started all compacted. When it could compress no more, the pressure caused it to explode, scattering matter in every direction. Some matter clumped back together through gravity, creating planets. Planets with higher mass could attract other planets, if they weren't strong enough, they created solar systems, revolving around the more massive object. Scientists have already found proof that the universe is expanding, which in part is what gives the Big Bang Theory so much credibility. Scientists theorize that when the force of the initial bang will slow in time due to gravity. Eventually, everything will merge with each other, just like the beginning. So, why a beginning at all? Perhaps the universe works in a continuous time loop, expanding and contracting. Like God, a continuous time loop is hard for us humans to fathom. Though I can't contradict either God or this theory, both are equally respectable. In fact, my theory might even be more respectable, since, unlike God, its progress can actually be witnessed.

On to the next part: the creation of life on earth. Theories have come and gone throughout all of history. However, only one has stood the test of time: Evolution. Anyone who tries to deny evolution itself is an idiot. It is a well-proven theory that consists of evidence from both the past (fossils and such) as well as the present flora and fauna. The trends between the two are undeniable. Due to this, people have been forced to come up with new theories that both appease evolution and the idea of a god, in order to maintain "proof" of God's existence. The most recent example of this merger is the Intelligent Design theory. Moses placed an example above, with a man discovering a perfectly made watch in the desert, just because the sand blew it around. While this may sound ridiculous to him (after all, what are the odds of something like that happening?) it is possible that such a thing could occur. The catch though, is that the odds are very, very slim. Although, mathematically it is correct. Especially, say, if you compare those odds to that of another planet besides earth hosting intelligent life. However, even with this I feel that the watch was a bad example of intelligent design anyway - the prominent scientists who speak for intelligent design avoid examples like that. Intelligent Design is like evolution, things happen eventually, not suddenly: the difference is that it is guided by intelligence. The example that prominent "experts" of Intelligent Design give is the eye. How can something so complex, able to sense light/darkness, color, depth and so on be short of an evolutionary miracle (designed intelligently)? Simple. Life has had billions of years to evolve. The eye is a result of those billions of years of evolution: the merging of several senses into one. Given its survival properties, and the amount of time to evolve, such a sensory organ is almost impossible not to exist. If evolution is guided by intelligent design, why do men have nipples, or why do we have that useless organ (can't remember its name, but you know what I'm talking about) hanging in our bodies? Evolution can have flaws like this, but how can something "intelligent" design such useless things?

I feel that I don't even need to explain good and evil, or "Graduation found in all things". However, I shall do just so to bolster my atheist theories, despite neither proves the existance of God one way or another. First off, good and evil are simply human values, concepts. There is no true measure of good and evil. Depending on your culture, different things are considered to be good or evil. We as humans categorize things as good or evil as a way to better understand what we perceive. On to "Graduation found in all things", as written by Moses in the thread above. Measurements, once again, are simply ways for humans to understand what they perceive. There is no maximum or minimum. Like numbers, it stretches on to infinity (or negative infinity). Like the universe, never ending. Moses claims that the maximum of heat is fire, and therefore there must be a maximum of "good" (God). For one, heat is temperature, and like all measurements, has no maximums. This doesn't seem well thought out, since there are things hotter than fire. The sun isn't a big fireball: it has mass. The hottest thing known to man so far, by the way, is certain plasma, that little known forth state of matter. As for maximum of good = God, this too has been disproven earlier. If one considered genital mutilation to be good, would ideals like that, "maximized", be a god? In some places of Africa, it is a practice to remove the outer lips of a girl's genitals. This practice is good, they say. It increases the attractiveness, much like other societies and their tummy tucks, their face-lifts and their breast implants. So, that is my return argument those subjects.

In conclusion, everything as we know it has plausible explanations that don't include mystical higher forces. I haven't disproven that all of these explanations were run by a higher force, though. Like the people before me though, I haven't really proven or disproven God, despite what others may claim. I shall end this little essay with one question for everyone to stew over though:

If everything could exist as it is with or without a God, then why add something extra?

[ShininShado]

Theorizing about the origins of the Universe (which is only a small microcosm of the Cosmos) is like trying to catch clouds in a butterfly net. In college I learned about the cosmos, which is basically what the universe is to the galaxy. Several different universes comprise the cosmos. Knowing this, it is easier to fathom or at least grasp the basic elements of how the universe was formed. For all we know the universe we live in was created by a God whom created the original, and we are just living a replicated version in this universe. Perhaps every Solar System has their own God, perhaps every Galaxy does, who knows. The Big Bang theory, though widely accepted has not been proven. Life here on Earth was not by mere accident or an evolutional byproduct, but part of a greater plan or process.

Also, of course there is no proof there is God, that is where faith comes in. Everyone's life experiences are different, as are their believes and thoughts. The best I can explain this is; if I do not believe in gravity does it still exist?



Further explanation of the cosmos:

"The Multi-Universe Cosmos" is intended for those 'with a basic scientific education and those interested in astronomy and physics'. So he starts the book off with particle physics (reminds me of a quote from the movie "Time Bandits" where the non-religion-specific bad guy complains about how the Supreme Being's priorities were screwed up when he created the universe: "I would had started with laser beams - day one!"). All the formulae make for a pretty wooden story line. Things only get interesting half-way in when the multi-universe pops it's head in.

Velan's idea is that the universe was born in a vast dark cosmos populated with other universes at various stages of development and with different properties but all described by the same physics. Somehow, these different universes don't influence each other in any way (dispite the fact that Velan claims you'd be able to see all these universes if you were floating outside our universe). The dark cosmos is flooded with 'virtual' particles and lotsa gamma rays travelling faster than the speed of light. In order to creat a universe, the virtual particles interact with the gamma rays to create matter and light. The new universe then collapses due to gravity before bouncing back (like a supernova) and exploding like the big bang. The core becomes a black hole and the universe expands near the speed of light. Et voila, a universe.

Not only that, there is observational proof! The isotropic gamma ray bursts seen by satellites are due to primordial gamma rays trapped in our universe in the creation event. Somehow, for the first 100 000 years, when matter and light are constantly interacting, these gamma rays managed to escape any interactions. There is also the Microwave Background Radiation which, Velan claims is poor support for the normal Big Bang theory because the fluctuations are too small to eventually grow into galaxies. The decoupling of the radiation field in the Velan universe created a huge pressure drop in the fireball and the implosion of large areas led to shocks which created the seeds of galaxies. What cause the implosions isn't covered; maybe it's the gamma rays outside the universe or maybe Velan gravity works instantaneously (as opposed to at the speed of light like real gravity).

Bouyed by the success of his theory, Velan skims over galaxy and star formation to get to his next new theory - a black hole without a singularity (apparently based on energy conservation). He then goes on to discuss the fate of the universe. He finds an omega of 2.39 indicating a closed universe which is a relief because if it were open, it would eventually fill up the cosmos and push the other universe out of the way. Velan's cosmos can only have closed universes. The universe was created 18 billion years ago and will be 71 billion years old when it reaches the big crunch (out of which a new universe will be created). And for those of you who are curious, H0 = 548 km s-1 Mpc-1. http://www.dithered.com/attic/crackpot/velan.html

[Tomoshibi]

First off, you are right about the universe being a small part of the cosmos. Though I didn't post until about 9am (over here in eastern US), I actually wrote this at 3 in the morning. When I said universe, I actually meant cosmos - due to my sleepiness I got the two terms mixed up.

I didn't really like your question, "If I do not believe in gravity does it still exist?". This is a bad analogy - in it you show that you believe that like gravity, God is a constant, a undeniable truth. Unlike gravity, God isn't undeniable. A more accurate analogy would be "If I don't believe in Mr. Fuzzy Pants, a malicious creature that lurks beneath my bed, does he still exist?"

You are right about the Big Bang theory, it is widely accepted but not proven. Even so, it is backed up tons of evidence and our best scientists. When deciding between believing in origins like that, and a god, I think I prefer the expert's answers to the cosmos (as opposed to the hundreds year old texts, written by folk who still believed lightning was something God threw down to earth from atop his place in heaven).

I found it interesting that you used "catching clouds in a butterfly net" to describe the theorizing of cosmic origins. You see, I feel the same way about the existance of a God.

[moses]

OK a couple things.

1. Evolution

Yes I beleive to evolution to an extent, mainly to adapt. But if evolution is how everything came about, then what evolved into life? Also if we evolved from fish or if rats evolved into bats, it takes millions of years as you stated. But what about the time that the fish have lungs but are stuck in the water? they couldnt breathe and therefore couldnt survive. Same with rats turning into bats, they have wings growing, but they wouldnt be able to move to get food and would die out before the wings fully evolved.

2. Big Bang Theory

Even if the Big Bang did happen, what caused it to happen? You always come back to a God that causes all this to happen.

3. God being uncreated

This is where faith comes into play, I may have soemthing more to elaborate on this when I get home. But to say that all this stuff just happens doesnt make sense. Something had to act upon something to cause stuff to happen.

P.S. The fire being the maximum heat was an example from a book. This guy was around a while ago so we didnt know about the hotter stuff. But at the time fire was the hottest and all things had to use fire to heat up.

[Tenshin]

There is one thing you must consider when discussing "God"; no matter how much your points make sense, it is impossible to prove the existence of God, and if there was a God, it would be impossible to even understand how he exists. Our minds are powerful, but we do have limitations. Our understanding of the universe is primal, we simply know it's there. We don't know how, where, why, or when, we barely even grasp the "what" of the universe. You say a God created the universe. That's the only thing that's "for sure" about God. God is whatever created the universe, whether it's some esoteric manifestation of "everything" in the universe (aka the Tao, Yin and Yang is everything) or whether it's the big bang. As humans we can't understand "nothingness" therefore, we could never understand the creation of the universe, because at one point there had to be nothing.

Motion and enertia are forces that state that one an object is in motion doesnt stop or start until another force acts upon it. This proves that something/someone existed to start the forces that act on each other. Nothing can just start moving without something to cause it to happen.

Contrary to your conclusion on that statement, it only proves that something had to create God, making God... not really God. We can't understand the true meaning of "beginning" no matter how hard we try. There is no such thing as "linear" in time and creation, according to human intellect that's impossible. This proves that time is a cycle, and so does obervations of everything in the world.

You don't have to go back in time to see how everything started, just look at the start of anything in the universe. For example, a seed grows and falls from a tree and burrows itself into the ground, it sprouts roots and grows into a massive tree itself, dropping other seeds. A man and a woman have sex, conception is initiated, and a human is born, it grows and reproduces to do it all over again. It's a cycle, if there is a God, he was once born, and the one who created him was once born. It's "impossible" to have a start, or a finish, everything in the universe is cyclical; even life and death (the circle of life).

But still, everything came from something, there had to be something to initiate it all, and at the beginning there was nothing. Not even energy, not even a single soul or rock. It's pointless to theorize or try to understand that because it's beyond our intellectual boundaries. Those who become "enlightened" learn that their body and mind are boundaries and let it go to learn something else, with our bodies and mind, there are things that are simply beyond understanding. And so no conception of a God can be correct, and we are not capable of conceiving such things. Agree?

[Tomoshibi]

Ah, how interesting this debate is becoming! I agree with Tenchijin. If God is allowed to be a concept as broad as the one Tenchijin defined, then it is almost impossible to disagree.

The only part I disagree on is the "in beginning there was nothing". Tenchi stated earlier, "It's impossible to have a start, or a finish, everything in the universe is cyclical; even life and death". I fully agree with this, even more so than Tenchijin it seems. Like most of the other stuff here, my ideas can't be proven or disproven. He contradicts his cyclitic theory when he states that in the beginning there was nothing. You see, like he said earlier, I feel that there is no beginning, even to the cosmos. Instead, I feel that the cosmos is one giant cycle in itself, always contracting or expanding. Tenchijin says that it is pointless to understand that "in the beginning there was nothing", that it is beyond are intellectual boundaries. So it is. So is my theory that even the cosmos itself has no beginning, but instead is a continuous loop. The difference in these two theories is that mine follows Tenchijin's cyclitic laws completely, even the cosmos itself isn't exempt from the rules that bind all of us in our existance. Whearas he follows his cyclitic rules up to a point, that everything except the cosmos follows the natural cycles. Though conceptualizing nothing in the beginning is hard enough, it is even harder to fathom a cosmos that has no beginning or end, that goes on in a continuous cycle. Or is it really so hard to understand? After all, it does follow the idea of cycles completely. Write what you think: a continual cosmos vs a beginning of nothingness.

[ShininShado]

I didn't really like your question, "If I do not believe in gravity does it still exist?". This is a bad analogy - in it you show that you believe that like gravity, God is a constant, a undeniable truth. Unlike gravity, God isn't undeniable. A more accurate analogy would be "If I don't believe in Mr. Fuzzy Pants, a malicious creature that lurks beneath my bed, does he still exist?"

I found it interesting that you used "catching clouds in a butterfly net" to describe the theorizing of cosmic origins. You see, I feel the same way about the existance of a God.

Long version:

The theory of gravity is just the mind of humans trying to rationlize yet another of nature's laws. There are countless numbers of these laws, from intertia, gravity, physics in general, to as simple as the concept of time. What creates these laws, or why do these laws exist? Without having knowledge of the concept of gravity it would be easy to surmise it does not exist, much like the concept of God. You cannot see gravity, if ignorant of its existance, you'd swear it didn't exist. I choose not to believe in gravity, but it is still there and the laws that govern it are there despite my believes. I see example after example every day of God (or a higher power). If I saw God as a malicious monster hiding under the bed, I might not believe in Him too. Though there is little or no evidence to suggest God does not exist. There are several examples/reflections/instances where God's (or a higher power's) plan is evident. The first example; the life we have in the US. Though not perfect to most, this country was founded on a monothesistic higher power. On our currency are the words "In God We Trust". Evidently that was the right move, considering we have without a doubt the best standard of living in the world. In contrast, look at Haiti, they turned their government over to voodoo rule in order to escape the rule of the French, and they've been in turmoil since.

This also goes along with Tenchi's first post about egotistism, it is egotistical to think that your existance on this planet is by accident, that your thoughts and higher reasoning skills happen by accident. God is so much in control that even without believing in Him your thoughts or statements are dictated by His power.

This brings me to yet another debatable question: If over 1 billion people believe in something, could it become real by virtue of that? Though not directly seen, God's (or a higher power's) influence is quite visible. Believes and faith take place on another plane than that of the 3 demensional world we live in. God resides in Heaven... no duuh! That's just another way of saying it's not of this world we live in. God has made Himself evident to me, and though He might make Himself evident to you or the next person, it is your free will and choice to deny or accept their existance.

Condensed version:

Although I do not believe in atheism, it is an accepted philosphy. I have one question: If there is no God, why did the Axis powers (whom had more technology, money, troops, war experience, and resources) loose WW 2? Perhaps the best evidence that there is a God is that people whom believe in God or a higher power live longer, are happier, and lead more stable lives. I cannot prove that God exists, God is the only that can do that. Or another way to put it is: God exists to me, I believe in Him, and have faith in Him.

[Tomoshibi]

Ah, looks like I need to write a seperate response for what Moses has argued. First off, Big Bang theory. No, you don't always come back to God as the cause for all of this to occur - that is what I was stressing in my first post, if you read it carefully. I don't feel like repeating or quoting myself, so please read it.

As for evolution, you seem to be misinformed. First off, the part about fish having lungs in water. You're right - such a creature would never survive. In fact, no such creature did. Does this disprove even part of evolution though? No, it doesn't. You forgot about that wonderful class of fauna that comes between land creatures and sea creatures - amphibians. They can survive both on land and underwater. This is the link between sea creatures and land creatures. First, you have creatures that breathe in the water. Eventually, some evolve the capability to breathe both in the water and on land. After this, some creatures no longer need the sea to survive, so they evolve to the point where gills are completely gone, and they can only survive on land. This fits evolution perfectly.

Your theory on rats and bats also fits perfectly. Two problems though: while they may have had common ancestors at one point, they didn't evolve directly from one another. Both adapted to their environments as well as possbile. As for flighless wings being a survival hazard, there is living proof on earth right now that proves you wrong. The ostritch, the emu, and the dodo. All three were more than capable of survival with flighless wings. The only reasons dodos no longer exist is because man in his infinite wisdom wiped them out. Flightless wings doesn't hold much ground for intelligent design (just had to reinforce that - thanks for the example). You can argue that this is the whole question of flightless wings in reverse though. You were talking about from going wingless to wings, while I talked about going from wings to wingless. If I haven't convinced you yet, let me give you another example, the so called "flying" squirrel. This creature is capable of keeping itself aloft over small distances: it uses this ability to go from tree to tree. Chances are, bats evolved in much the same mannor.

So, disagree with me as you will, but don't disagree with evolution. You did bring up one interesting question though: what evolved into life? I believe that life as we know it happened through physical and chemical reactions, just like everything else in the universe. Is it hard to believe that the first life was created in this fashion? After all, even life is made up of the building blocks we all hold dear: atoms. Our main atom that has life-giving properties is carbon (haven't you ever heard scientists referring to life on our planet as carbon-based life forms?). So, thats what I have to say in response to you. Please emphasize and defend your points when you get home (if you really can). I won't argue with your "God being uncreated" stance just yet, since you haven't really explained it. In fact, if you can prove that point utterly and completely, I won't argue it all. (The point of debate is to try to get people to believe in what you are saying, argument is a tool for reaching this, but it isn't debate itself).

Let us end with this: though we may not agree on the other points of this discussion, can we please stop arguing evolution? Unlike other theories we have been discussing, evolution is as close as we can get to an undeniable truth. Agree?

[ShininShado]

Even though I cannot identify with an agnostic viewpoint, I do agree that evolution is a continual part of life. Just like we grow old, the species and genus of each species progresses over time, adapting to climate changes or conditions. I think that God fuels this progression and is part of His divine plan, thanks for backing up that point - I couldn't agree with you more!!

[Tomoshibi]

Ooh my, looks like I have to respond to ShininShado now (not that I mind, he seems to be an excellent debator). Before I start, I must say though, please make all of your statements easily visible. There is no need to hide your thoughts, they're not really spoilers, just more information. Also, I just want to say that I respect the responses of both Tenchijin and yourself, ShininShado. Though I may disagree with some of the stuff you say, your writings are well thought out and deserve thought, and they make this debate all the more interesting.

*edit note - I wrote this post in response to Shinin's first post on this page.

Now, on to my part of the argument. First off, your shortened version of the spoiler. Though your thoughts there certainly have merit, I have alternative explanations that are just as reasonable. It has been proven that believers do lead longer, happier lives. However, couldn't this simply be yet another example of the placebo affect? They feel it benefits them, therefore it does, thanks to the power of the mind. Its just like sugar pills. You also ask how the axis powers could have lost WW2, despite all of their obvious advantages. The answer to that is simple, you can find the answer to that in any history text book. My way of summing it up? Hitler is a dumbass. For the first half of the war, the axis forces were winning, and gaining territory and resources at a rapid rate. Then it all fell apart. First, the invasion of the USSR. Before this, Germany had a treaty with the USSR. This left one of their borders to be easily defended, troops could be used elseware. The worst part of the invansion though was that Hitler decided to strike right as the Russian winter was beginning, which is notorious in its own right. Men were forced to wear the Nazi uniform, and many froze to death as a part of this. It was hard to fit wool socks under the skin tight boots they wore, similar problems with the rest of the uniform. Also, while in Russia they had little shelter from the horrid winter; the villiagers would always burn down the towns as they were invaded. As they got farther into Russia, the supply lines became more and more stretched out, harder to defend and longer to get supplies to the war front. This idiot strategy was only one of the major undoings of the axis powers though. In Africa, the Germans had a genious tactician by the name of Rommel. Only problem was, most of the German supplies were being concentrated to the Russian front. This lack of resourses certainly didn't help when Britain and USA pulled off a giant pincer attack on Rommel, retaking Africa. The Allied forces used this as the staging point to invade Italy. Italy was the worst of the axis powers, in fact it had little power in itself. Germany had to constantly send supplies there in order to keep Italy from being invaded. This got even worse when it was invaded - it gave Germany yet another front to defend against. When Germany lost its valuable land gains, resourses and such, it was impossible for them not to lose. The only other part of the Axis I haven't covered was the Japanese. The war would have raged against them long after germany and italy had fallen - their isolated island holdings were almost unbreachable, the USA had to conquer each island one by one, with heavy losses for each one. The only reason it ended so quickly was the invention of nuclear technology.

Ok, now on to the big "spoiler". The difference between God and gravity is that gravity is tangible, we can see evidence of it through mathematics and the natural world. Your "evidence" that monotheistic nations do better than others is unfounded. America is an ok example, but what if you take into account the other monotheistic nations? A majority of them lie not in Europe or America, but in the Middle East and Africa. These are the worst places in the world to live right now. America and Europe aren't so peachy either. In Europe, their monotheistic beliefs led them to the crusades, imperialism and the inquisition. America was even worse. Originally, native americans inhabited the land. Their laws were those founded on religions with multiple gods, bigger and smaller ones. This land was relatively peaceful, with the occasional battle over terf between two fueding tribes. Then the monotheistic settlers came. Disgusted with the ways of the indians, we pushed them farther and farther west, until they eventually had no land except what we gave them. They enslaved entire peoples to do their work, from mining gold in south america to tending farms in northern america. These people certainly weren't happy under their new monotheistic rulers. Then you have the civil war, where the US almost tore itself in half. I ask, with all these acts of barbarianism, are we really that much better off than other regions of the world? Monotheism has had its shameful moments as well.

As for the belief that it is too egotistical to believe that we are here on earth by accident, I feel the exact opposite. We aren't humble enough to understand that we are an accident, rather than something that was meant to be. What I am saying is that we are too egotistical to believe that we are insignificant. I can't see how that is possible to say that accidental creation is from egotism. It is extremely humble, it says we realize that we aren't sent here by some divine purpose, but rather a minor accident. It IS egotistical to say that we are so important in the great scheme of things that we must be the result of divine purpose.

I look forward to your responses.

[ShininShado]

Few things to say about the last message: First off, thanks for the compliments, I like a good discussion, and is fun when carried out in a mature, rational manner.

Secondly, Erwin Rommel - "The Desert Fox" is still admired today for his military strategems and tactics, and one of my favorite generals throughout history.

Thirdly, I used the spoiler things to keep people from having to read the long version if they weren't up to it.

Lastly, as far as the egotistical statement, that was more based on the fact that it would not be possible to accomplish anything without a higher power's help. To acknowledge a higher power than one's self is in of itself humbling. I did not mention my particular part or mankind's part in the scheme of things. My statement about egotism in relation to God (or a higher power) was that our actions are guided by His will, like it or not. Saying that God is in control is not really egotistical. It would be egotistical if I thought that there was no higher power and I had absolute free will, and that my believes or thoughts determined God's (or a higher power's) existance.

There is a simple question: Does God exist? (This cannot be either proven nor disproven which was stated earlier. The answer to this questions is almost always going to be the answer to this latter question.)

Then, there is a complex question: Do you believe in the existance of God? (This is question that has to be answered on an individual level, and ultimately leads to the answer of the above question.)

Question 1 is very concrete and very definite. Question 2 concerns faith, believes, and all of the sacred elements of religion that are both mysterious and evident to the follower. These elements are what connect us with a higher power and make us better human beings (through compassion, kindness, charity, etc); also, these elements almost always contradict any reason or logic being applied to them.

The coexistance of logic/reason and faith/believes are almost always contradictory. We believe in things we don't know. I believe that tommorow will be as good if not better than today, but do I know this? Believes are a reflection of what is in our hearts, while knowledge is a reflection of what is in our minds. Beyond believes is faith. Faith is based almost entirely on believes and our belief system. Faith is based on the aggregate parts of someone's belief system, while believes fill in the holes that our knowledge cannot decipher/reason/logically deduce.

I could go on and on about how faith relates to believes, and how these are formed from what we think and how all of this is inter-related, but I'll end on this note.

[Tenshin]

I didn't read a lot of these posts yet, but i want to reply to Tomos comment on my statement "in beginning there was nothing". Nothingness is something. When you die, (supposing there's no magical heaven, and the manmade religious beliefs are wrong) you percieve nothing, you "rest" in a sense. Your mind body and spirit separate. Your body stops functioning, and breaks down, becoming a part of the earth, your "spirit" (the energy that gives your body life) is dispersed, and your mind, dependant on the function of your body and spirit goes with it. You eventually become "nothing" but then, mass can't just disappear, it's still something, but not as tangible, the atoms that made up your body become something else, the energy that fueled it combine with other energies, and in a sense you still exist. So nothingness is something, and everything in the cosmos has a beginning, but did come from something else, which originally (according to Taoism) came from the Wuji (nothingness) which still exists in all shapes and forms. There was a beginning, but the true concept of beginning isn't tangible for us to understand or even conceive. It could never be translated into words, or even thoughts, because it is endless.

It's amazing, but I'm gonna read the rest of your posts tomorrow, i really wanna hear what you have to say.

[Tomoshibi]

Yay! Another person who appreciates Rommel – all hail the Desert Fox. : ) Sorry, just had to digress, perhaps favorite generals can be brought up in a future post?

Anyway, onto the more important stuff. First off, the whole ego discussion. After reading Shin’s most recent post, I can see how believing in a higher power can be both egotistical and not egotistical. The same goes with not believing in a higher power. I don’t feel like bringing up the four reasons, you can read them in earlier posts.

Next part of the smaller stuff – does religion make you a better person? I feel that this is a double-edged sword – it can go both ways. You can look throughout the history of the world, and find that most of the infamous people were in fact religious. The only exception to this would be certain leaders of communism (Stalin, for example). I feel that religion tends to make people worse than atheists, but this is from personal experience, as well as more generalized examples. Yes, followers of a religion can be nice – and I have seen it before. I have a Mormon friend, and he is one of the easiest going, nicest people I know. Sadly, these people seem to be an exception. Most Christians that I know of personally, condemn others for their different beliefs. This happens with a lot of religions, they persecute those who don’t follow their beliefs. One of my closest friends is a devout Lutheran. He hates just about anyone who isn’t a Christian, a protestant Christian that is. Like a lot of other Protestants, he wholly condemns the Catholic Church. I know only one true atheist, and he is one of the best people I know. He accepts everyone, respects their beliefs. Just because one is atheist, doesn’t mean they lack morals. Just because one doesn’t have a divine watchdog examining their every move, doesn’t mean they’ll choose an evil path. In conclusion, religion is irrelevant to the temperament of a person – it can lead them down a bad path just as easily as a good one.

On to Shinin’s two questions.

First, does God exist? I have come to the same conclusion as Shinin has: it is impossible to prove one way or another. I would expand on this idea, but I would only be rephrasing what others (including myself) have been saying all along.

Now for the most interesting question: Do you believe that God exists?
Yes, I do believe he exists. I am agnostic. This means that I believe that God created the cosmos, set it into motion, and gave rules for it to exist by. After that, he did nothing else. In other words, I feel that God is the ultimate watchmaker.

You will read the above statement and see that it contradicts some of the things I have said in earlier posts. When I wrote those posts, I did so in order to create a fair debate. Before I joined in, no one was truly defending atheist beliefs. Sure, some people announced their personal beliefs, but they never really argued why they felt they were right. As far as I could tell, the big thinkers on this thread all agreed that God indeed existed. I felt it was a weak debate, one sided. Anyone can agree to a statement if no one argues the opposite. This doesn’t make it a correct statement, or a strong one simply because everyone agrees. True power to assess the statement comes from bringing up and defending against opposing viewpoints. In this spirit, I set out to create an opposing argument (that God didn’t exist). I used all of the strongest points that atheists use as to why God doesn’t exist. In turn, all of you offered equally strong viewpoints as to why God does exist. With this now magnificent debate, people will be able to assess for themselves, without biased, one-sided information, whether or not God truly exists. I thank everyone who participated in this debate, and may you all find what your true beliefs are.

[kensai_zen]

can i have an audio version? too much text is killing my eyes rofl

[ShininShado]

I agree, it was a good discussion! I also agree with the fact that throughout history (even Feudal Japan with Buddhist Temples) religious leaders have used thier power/influence/prestige in ways that were juxtaposed to what believes they were to support or represent. I will not single out any particular denomination, but because each one is run by humans and these humans have faults, of course each religious faction or denomination nondependent on origin will have faults.

Human being have faults + they run religions = religions have faults

I do not want this to turn into bashing one particular religious belief, but this is my take on that subject.

[Tomoshibi]

*Just wanted to make sure no one was taking my earlier post the wrong way - I wasn't trying to bash any particular religious denominations. I was simply using my Mormon, Lutherin and athiest friends as personal examples - they don't speak or represent their particular branches of religion (or lack there of) in any way.

Yes, humans are at fault for the flaws found in religion. This is part of the double-edged sword I was talking about earlier. On one side, religion can give you morals and ethics to live by. On the other side, many people abuse these religious teachings, manipulating them for their own diabolical purposes.

[moses]

I would like to also say that this debate has been one of the funnest, excited me the most and best handled debates i have been in. Even better was that it was a religious debate, which along with politics seem to be the hardest to keep clean. But I would like to thank and congratulate (probly not right word :P) those people involved. We were able to keep this a clean, intelligent and active topic. I think it has probly given us all new ways to look at things (it has me for sure) and I love to be able to discuss such matters. I personally love the way this was run. I love to talk to people about my faith and their faith because I beleive that it can strengthen your own faith. We all let each other speak, argued the points politely, and countered each with well thought out (mine were all rushed so they werent as good as your guys' :( ). We need to get anouther topic going, as this one so captivated me that it was all I thought about. Anyway, thanks for something for me to think about all day long :D

[Zangetsu]

Im Muslim ,

God have no begin and no end and its not our position to know... we were born here to obey him and pray ... so we can return to our original home ... the heaven

Adam the first Human and the father of all humans was a statue until god decided to give him soul and orderd the angles and the Devil to kneel front of him ... everyone did only the Devil ... with arrogance he said ... i made of fire and he was made of mud ... how a great creature like me kneel before this creature god decided to ban the Devil to the earth ... and he then made Hawa "Adam wife" they were living in heaven god told them to do what they bless .. but not to go near 1 tree which it was the Devil tree ...


but its just the human soul who love what its forbidden ... and the devil was telling Adam and hawa to eat from this tree "like a soulvoice" or somehing icant really explain in english ... they ate from the tree and God told adam u disobeyd me told adam now u disobeyd me and followed the devil path ... Adam asked for forgiveness .god said i will send u to earth ... as enemy of the devil .. i will give u religion ... follow it and u will enter the heaven follow the devil and u will be in hell with him ... and there .. god sent many messangers for the humans to follow the path of the god ... and if i remember exactly .. it was 4 religions every time the ppl took the holy book and changed it ... until the last messenger was out Mohamad ... correcting all the religions after they were changed by the humankind as they please ..

God Created us so we obey him and be faithful so we can return to the heaven

[Tenshin]

I believe your story. But I believe it as a metaphore to a certain extent. Most religions separate good and evil, and ask you to choose an extreme; the devil, or god. But in the world, everything is based on balance. True wisdom is seeing a balance of good and evil, people who stay away from evil, and blindly follow good, will never understand what they follow because in order to understand something, you must understand it's opposite. Without good there would be no evil, and vice versa. If there was no good, no one would have anything to compare evil to, and so evil wouldn't exist. The same goes for everything in existence. To understand one extreme, you must understand it's opposite.

To study both "God" and the "Devil" and understand them as a whole, you grow to understand them as Yin and Yang, when you understand them you then understand the Tao (but no one can really understand the Tao using a human mind.) I'm sorry that I seem to turn everything into the Tao, but I've been studying it recently and everything anyone could think of relates to the Tao. Tao is simply opposites, opposite is the essence of existence. It's hard to understand but it makes sense. When you look at God and the Devil as extremes, and follow one, the characteristics of them turn to heaven and hell. When you look at God and the Devil as non-personified opposites that antagonize one another but at the same time balance each other; you see that a balance is much more peaceful and simple than following an extreme, because our bodies and mind, and everything in the universe exist from balance and opposites, which explain that "God" and the "Devil" are essencially everything in the universe; but them as a whole, the Tao, is everything in the universe. You see that although evil and good exist, then best way is neutrality, or acceptance of the existance of both. Not following a religion, but accepting what is.

In the past, people always wrote stories to explain something. Made up characters so people could identify with it. The problem with religions, is that people take religious stories/examples as reality, and completely miss the point behind it; this is what I mean by blindly following an extreme. If you accept both sides as components that make up a whole (that whole being everything) then you see beyond the extremes and understand the meaning behind such stories and analogies.

But to understand that completely would take a lifetime... or two.


(I could make an audio version... if it's a serious request from enough people... on second thought... nahhh)

[Zangetsu]

I believe your story. But I believe it as a metaphore to a certain extent. Most religions separate good and evil, and ask you to choose an extreme; the devil, or god. But in the world, everything is based on balance. True wisdom is seeing a balance of good and evil, people who stay away from evil, and blindly follow good, will never understand what they follow because in order to understand something, you must understand it's opposite. Without good there would be no evil, and vice versa. If there was no good, no one would have anything to compare evil to, and so evil wouldn't exist. The same goes for everything in existence. To understand one extreme, you must understand it's opposite.

To study both "God" and the "Devil" and understand them as a whole, you grow to understand them as Yin and Yang, when you understand them you then understand the Tao (but no one can really understand the Tao using a human mind.) I'm sorry that I seem to turn everything into the Tao, but I've been studying it recently and everything anyone could think of relates to the Tao. Tao is simply opposites, opposite is the essence of existence. It's hard to understand but it makes sense. When you look at God and the Devil as extremes, and follow one, the characteristics of them turn to heaven and hell. When you look at God and the Devil as non-personified opposites that antagonize one another but at the same time balance each other; you see that a balance is much more peaceful and simple than following an extreme, because our bodies and mind, and everything in the universe exist from balance and opposites, which explain that "God" and the "Devil" are essencially everything in the universe; but them as a whole, the Tao, is everything in the universe. You see that although evil and good exist, then best way is neutrality, or acceptance of the existance of both. Not following a religion, but accepting what is.

In the past, people always wrote stories to explain something. Made up characters so people could identify with it. The problem with religions, is that people take religious stories/examples as reality, and completely miss the point behind it; this is what I mean by blindly following an extreme. If you accept both sides as components that make up a whole (that whole being everything) then you see beyond the extremes and understand the meaning behind such stories and analogies.

But to understand that completely would take a lifetime... or two.


(I could make an audio version... if it's a serious request from enough people... on second thought... nahhh)

and i think Religion ... set rules to ur life .. and put controls to it.. if there was no sins .. or religion .... its like theres no law and the world will go in mess i guess ..

[moses]

the thing is that God and the devil are not equal. They may both be extremes of opposite things, but God is all powerful. No matter what you compare against God, the scales are always in his favor.

[Tenshin]

But who's to say God is more powerful. Look at the world, everything in the world either has a general characteristic attributed to "God" and the "devil" look beyond your religion. The Tao (i don't mean this term religiously, I mean it as "everything in existence as one single entity") is incomprehensible through words, and so religions try to explain it through personification and stories. You could never understand the true nature of God. And you never will by following God. God is an extreme, to every extreme there must be an equal opposite, it's the way the universe exists. You must understand both Good and evil to see that neither truly exist without one another.

Ask yourself this. If everything had to come from something, and everything came from God... something had to create God, and something had to create what created God, and so on and so on.... so how could there be one great being if the universe is cyclical. The only way the universe and god cannot exist as a line: ---- because then there's a beginning, if there's a beginning there's an end, and your god "can never end". It all must exist as a circle: O (or infinite: 8) a circle never ends, it continues and continues. But the universe could never loop.

The truth is, God isn't what any religions think it is. God is simply, what is. Therefore religious intollerance and disputes are useless, because all interperetations are wrong: we can't understand the truth in this form.

Empty the full cup of tea that is your mind and preconceptions and take a look at the theory of any religion, but remove it's faceplate, it's metaphores, it's personaification, and you get the same thing. Humans can only understand things by relating it to themselves and their experiences, that's why biblical stories are so well understood.

The truth is most people don't even understand their own religion. Study Taoism, even if you are of another faith, understand it, and you'll better understand your own religion.

[moses]

You say that God had to be made, but why does he have to have been made. He is always there and always will be. He made everything else. So in a sense he made the tao (also, if everything had to be made, what made the tao? and whats the opposite of the tao?), he made the logic we are using, he made the curiousity we have. The way we know that God is more powerful the then devil is the fact that God made the devil. Orginally Lucifer was an angel. But he began to reject God's decision on something (i beleive it may have been his decision to make man and offer them eternal life but im not sure) and he fell away. God could have destroyed him right there but instead he decided he would use it as a test to man (i beleive again, its been awhile since i heard this story). But if you read the book of revalation you will see what comes to pass for those who are to be damned and to those who are going to paradise.

[kensai_zen]

if god was always there then why does everything else have to be made? why isnt it just the fact that the universe was always there?

the theory on the time stream is that there is no beginning and there is no end. its all one big loop

people just made up god to explain a beginning. coupled that with Armageddon to explain the end.

but what if there is no beginning or end? doesnt that just make your God a joke. an imaginary character to explain things that you dont understand.

damn, when things go bump in the night i'll be sure to look out for the boogeyman. im sure he is real too

[moses]

damn right the boogeyman is real! lol

when i get home from school, ill try to answer your remarks.

[Tenshin]

I'm saying God is the Tao, simple and plain.

The Tao is God without personification, in it's true form. Feel me?

[Kurosaki]

With regards to death:

I believe in reincarnation, but its all dependent on how you were in your lifetime.
For example if you were a murderer or a rapist, in your 1st life, you'l be reincarnated in the form of vermin as a form of punishment. When you die again, you'l come back as another person.

If you were a good kind hearted person in your life, you'l be reincarnated as a human.

So the cycle continues and repeats.

With regards to the energy (what ever you want to name it, im using energy as its a rather broad term, and i dont want to attempt to get precise) It flows within us constantly, It makes up every human being, when we die that energy does not dissappear it merely goes back to its original form flowing around the earth. But when reincarnation happens some(not all) of that energy is taken back to create the new you, therefor you will have some of your "old" attributes but you will not conciously remember who you were.

[moses]

One thing i ask for. Since i have been trying to prove God exists and will contine, please prove how he doesnt exist.

[Kurosaki]

My beliefs teach me not to look down upon other religions, instead they encourage me to respect them. Which to my great disappointment religions such as Christianity, Judaism etc teach that other religions are false all other gods are false and doesnt respect them.

I acknowledge the possibilities of other gods, i respect other peoples beliefs. So i will never attempt to prove the non-existence of a persons beliefs and god.

[ForlornHope]

Hmm my take on both religion and death?

Religion: I have not found a faith as of yet so that influences me to see religion as something akin to a set guidelines to keep moral behaviour in check, as well as to teach the young ones respect and good behaviour (i.e not being such an impediment to adults..) Personally, I sort of see 'God' as something of a boogeyman for little kids and adults. I mean from what I have seen so far, he is avenging when you sin and it sounds like something your parents would use to get you to be manageable with the threat of hell and brimstone hanging over your head. However I do believe in a Supreme Being. It justs makes life a little more interesting to believe that an omnipotent power exists beyound the meager power of man.
-I would also like to add that though religion seems a little useless, it is in fact necessary in life. It defines enough of what is good and what is bad fo us to separate the two to consider how it reflects on us and our deeds. Though of course liminality plays a part in this too but then I would be wandering off topic and I feel I'm being long-winded.

Death: Hmm...I've only finished reading 'Pheado', 'Timaeus', and 'Critias' so those would influence my answer as well. Like Socrates, I am tempted to believe that death is nothing to be feared of, but something to accept and even welcome peacefully. To return to death is to return back to a state of being in which all you have learned stays with you until your consciousness is pulled back into life again. Socrates had stated that there must be some sort of life after death after all, it is plausible to think so if we consider how we habe knowledge of former things that should otherwise be uncomprhensible if we just descend into nothingness after death.

((Taking into account that I'm really young and do not fully understand, I think I did pretty well into answering to the best of abilities, but I also apologize now if I don't make sense.))

[Kurosaki]

Dont know your age based on the fact that your profile has March 24th only, but that is some very heavy reading.

With regards to religion im fairly relaxed, i consider myself to be tibetan buddhist. Please lets not get started on debating whether or not buddhism is a religion or a way of life, but back to being of a tibetan buddhist belief. The take on death, (not sure with all forms of buddhism) but with tibetan buddhism its something that is fairly welcomed, it isnt seen as something to be afraid of.

I found it when i was given a book, i got the Tibetan book on living and dying. I despise reading, i just dont have the time to sit down and read for enjoyment, nor would i find it enjoyable but the things i read in the book, the beliefs that told by the author were very similar to my own. Didnt put the book down for a week, since then ive considered myself to be Tibetan Buddhist.