.....No, Jesus is not different from all the others. You haven't seen his tomb, you have no idea if he rose from the dead or not.......
One difference is that Jesus claimed to be God come to Earth and rise from death. He claimed to be THE truth and the only way to come to God. Buddha made no such claims. If those claims of Jesus are false, He was the biggest deceiver or self deceived, most arrogant person that ever trod this planet. Yet this Jesus affected human history, art, architecture, music, governments and numerous other aspects of human life, more than all the other founders of religions put together. Every calendar testifies of the centrality of His appearing.
You have staked your life and destiny on Buddha, I have done the same upon Jesus. After we both die, each of us will find out who made the better choice. We will then know whether Buddha's or Jesus' teachings were according to reality. We may both go out of existence, according to Buddha or I will be in heaven with Jesus and you will be with Buddha, wherever he is, somewhere in the outer darkness. As I see it, you are taking the far greater gamble with your eternal destiny. Assuming (believing) that Jesus is right, rather than anyone else is a far safer approach.
Better take another careful look at the person of Jesus and His claims and teachings before you die. You have no guarantee of even waking up tomorrow, so you might do this today.
.....I don't know of any "swathes" of science which are based on assumptions; in fact, I can't think even of a small area. If you can elaborate, I would be intruiged.........
Take a look at the relatively recent history of the "science" of climate change. In the Feb. 24, 1895 issue of the NY times the headline was: "GEOLOGISTS THINK THAT THE WORLD MAY BE FROZEN UP AGAIN". The same paper on May 15, 1932 headlined: "EARTH IS STEADILY GROWING WARMER". Again on May 21, 1975, in the Times, "MAJOR COOLING IS WIDELY CONSIDERED INEVITABLE" and also on the cover of TIME magazine of Dec 3, 1973, "THE BIG FREEZE". Finally recently, again on the front of TIME, April 3, 2006, "SPECIAL REPORT ON GLOBAL WARMING". Is climate change based on science, that is KNOWLEDGE or is it based of assumptions (beliefs) and guesswork?
Another of the assumptions (beliefs) that science holds today is that information, knowledge, can arise alone, unaided from the interaction of matter and energy. This has never been demonstrated, but is a widely held assumption. All human knowledge and creativity arises in a MIND. The arrangements of bits in a computer or symbols on a piece of paper always come by thought. So then why does science assume (believe) that this is not also true in the things that exist apart from the activity of man? We KNOW that no man made object or art arises outside of a mind. DNA carries the CODE to make proteins, yet DNA itself is a protein. So where did the first DNA come from that carries the code to make itself? It's the ultimate chicken and egg problem.
Cosmology assumes (believes) that gravity is the only controlling force governing the large scale observed features of the universe and also assumes (believes) that the measured, observed red shift is caused by motion and by extension, distance. Recent data coming from highly advanced telescopes and space probes doesn't fit these assumptions very well without resorting to all manner of hypothetical constructs that have never been DIRECTLY observed. Just like adherents of any religion, these "scientists" are very much unwilling to throw out long held beliefs and re-examine the fundamental tenets of their religion.
...."How do we know these answers are correct"......
A Christian doesn't KNOW, only believes that these answers are correct. Any answers anyone else can give to these doesn't mean they know either. I never mentioned anything about the correctness of any given set of answers in terms of knowledge. Religion isn't about knowledge in the sense of 2+2=4, but about faith.
I believe that Jesus is God come to earth, as He claimed. He conquered death, by rising from the grave. He made certain promises I believe, such that I will live on with Him after my physical body ceases operation.
You don't have to believe Him or the answers found in the Bible, but I challenge you to come up with, not the CORRECT answers, but more satisfying ones giving hope, purpose, and the ultimate human dignity. The answers are that you are person made in God's image for more than just this short, often painful existence here. You were made to learn to love, just as God loves.
You MAY believe that, but you don't have to. God dignifies your person by allowing you to reject Him. He did NOT make you like a computer, pre-programmed to want Him. Millions of others have chosen to entrust their present lives in time and space to Him, as well as their eternal future when time as we know it is no more. He invites you as well.
....unless it agrees with your experience and common sense......
You know that you cannot live that way. You have to accept, to believe the experience and knowledge of others in almost every area of life. You get in that car or airplane the first time, because of the experience and common sense of others, not your own. You've had teachers, including Buddha and Lao Tzu whose experiences and precepts you accept because you simply BELIEVE them, not because you KNOW whether they are truthful or not.
(....Disagreements can only strengthen both of us.....)
This is true if it is done in love and respect, but not if done from selfish ambition. Does your belief give you a truly satisfying answer to the four questions, especially the last one?
Jesus promised: "Because I live, you shall also" and proved it by rising from the dead. Buddhism and Taoism don't even make the claim of the founders of those religion's being alive and promising this life to their followers also. All other religions have a founder still in the grave. Only the tomb of Jesus Christ is empty, because He alone is alive, today. That is why I believe in Jesus. He is different than all the others.
....Do we know for sure that no other creature has "religious" beliefs as part of their behaviour? How can we be so certain? And if it's true, what is the significance of this?.....
I suppose one first has to define religion. My dictionary defines it as "a belief in and worship of a supernatural controlling power, especially a personal God or gods, a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance"
People may claim not to be religious, but will nevertheless often still ascribe supreme importance to things like material possessions, knowledge, and power over others, fame, to name a few "gods".
Nobody has ever observed any animal engage what we humans call prayer, for example. Maybe you know of examples of animals, mammals specifically, engaging in any activity which would be recognized as "religious". I do not.
I did not say that religion is good, because "lots of people do it", but because religion gives more satisfactory answers to the four questions. To me, Jesus Christ, and the Bible in general, gives the most satisfactory answers to the four questions.
1) Where did I come from? Answers from Bible: You are a special creation by the almighty God, made in His image. 2) Who am I really: A: You are a living, eternal spirit being, temporally inhabiting a mortal body. 3) What, if any is the purpose of my existence? A: You are made for an eternal purpose. You are here on Earth to learn how to believe, love and trust, especially in the face of trials and adversity. 4) What will happen to me after I die? A: It depends on choices you make every day. Nothing goes out of existence, only changes form. So will you. Your mortal body will return to the elements of which it is made. Your eternal self will be with God, if you are living in His presence now. Otherwise you will be in "outer darkness", whatever Jesus meant by that.
....I'm spouting a mixture of Buddhism and Taoism......
In my original post, I was NOT referring to any particular religion or set of answers to the four questions. I was merely pointing out that scientific secularism doesn't have satisfactory answers for most people. Religions, as a whole do a much better job than secular, scientific humanism. Maybe a syncretic combination of Taoism and Buddhism supplies better answers for you.
I had no intention of getting into the specifics of any particular religion. I believe that Jesus Christ is who He said He is, God come to earth. We just finished the celebration of this event. He is the only one who turns religion on its head. Instead of man trying to approach God through various religious practices, it is God approaching man. By becoming one of us, He made it possible, that for those willing to accept Jesus, to be indwellt, by the very Spirit of God, both now and forever. It is an offer that I could not refuse.
.....Lastly, if you accept that one religion is correct in its answers to those questions........
I was only pointing out that mankind has been seeking answers to these questions since the beginning of recorded history. Science certainly has answers, but that fact that in this "enlightened" technological world, where people jet around and carry cell phones, most of them still seek answers to those questions, not in science, but religion.
There are exceptions of course, maybe you are one of them, feeling superior to those benighted masses still having faith in God and expressing that faith through their religion. I was not commenting on any particular religion, because all religions are based on belief and not knowledge. Of course large swaths of science are also only based on certain assumptions, the scientific way of saying faith or belief, rather than certain knowledge. So, in a sense your faith in science or the scientific method is also a belief, a world view, that could rightly be called religion.
Apparently the answer to these questions does matter to millions of homosapiens, exclusively to any other species, on this planet. This is still true today and has always been true. Some of them are willing to strap explosives to their bodies and fly airplanes into tall buildings and die for what they believe.
So even if it doesn't matter to you, it does matter to those who have been given certain promises abut what happens after death.
There are also millions who worship their ancestors. The nihilism you spout is held by only a small minority of people. It is obvious, that to most people on the planet, your answers are not satisfying. To them it DOES matter.
....Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism are philosophies, not religions, as they do not really speak of Gods.......
Religion is not confined to afterlife or gods, but is a world view that includes philosophies that include parts of existence not possible to limit to our normal senses.
Many, especially thinking people, seek satisfying answers to questions like this:
1, Where did I come from? 2, Who am I, really? 3, What, if any, is the purpose of my existence? 4, What will happen to me after I die
Religion is better at answering the above four in a way that appeals to people much more, than the answers that science attempts to give.
......Faith is subjective, mystical, and can have the appearance of utter hogwash to someone not participating therein........
This idea was expressed centuries ago by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:14
"But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them , because they are spiritually discerned."
For context read that whole chapter.
Some human experiences, especially those of a spiritual nature are hard to communicate to others and may seem non-sensical. Even in the physical world this is sometimes hard. How do you describe the taste of a banana to someone who has never eaten or even seen one? It's not easy.
The best way to find out what a banana tastes like is to BELIEVE, that is trust someone who has eaten one, enough to want to try one yourself.
David, the writer of Psalms give that invitation in reference to God in Psalm 34:8:
"Taste and see that the LORD is good; blessed is the man who trusts in Him."
Faith is the ability to trust, even if our limited human logic fails. A little child doesn't apply logic to see whether his/her Dad is able catch him/her if he/she jumps out of a tree into his open arms.
....For thousands of years, faith has not been very effective in keeping the peace.......
Neither has science. If anything, all science has done in that department is given one single human the ability to kill more fellow humans than was ever possible in the "dark ages" before the "enlightenment" of science came along. One person now has the ability to push a button and wipe out millions. Some call that progress. I suppose it is, but not toward peace.
....Religion contains nothing worth of respect whatsoever.....
Since the vast majority of humans on earth today and in the past have evidence some form of worship, you throw them all in the trash? Name ONE, that's right just one culture or society now on earth or in all of history that did NOT have religion and worship central to their existence. Humans are, uniquely among all creatures, always have been and always will be religious creatures. Explain why that is scientifically, if you will.
...A setup wizard at the minimum should require users to select a new password and allow them to walk through an informative configuration sequence.....
A little switch labelled program/run would work to prevent modifications of any settings when in the "run" position. Anyone who wanted/needed to change any settings would need physical access to the router. When switch is in "program", the router doesn't connect to the Internet. Companies could fix this for little extra cost.
....while I can type ftp:// [ftp] or smb:// in any Linux desktop.....
You can also do this with OSX. There is a program that is there just for the small minority who loves to type arcane keystroke sequences. It's called terminal. The rest of the world likes to use a mouse.
....Apple might be good for a grandma or for a graphic designer......
Well there are a more graphic designers than programmers and certainly even many more grandmas. That's just it, Linux is for/. readers and programmers, and Macs are got graphic designers and grandmas. What's wrong with that?
......While the orther forces ARE many orders of magnitude greater, it is important to realize that they do not have the range........
The force that electrical charges exert can and does operate over cosmic distances, as well as governing atoms and chemistry. The sun produces large electric currents which give rise to powerful magnetic fields. Some of this current manifests itself visibly in the northern lights. Whenever there is a particularly large outburst of this electrical power from the sun, our power grids get overloaded thereby and some of our other electrically operated devices malfunction.
The voyager and pioneer crafts are all slowing down a small, but measurable amount. Nobody has come up with a gravity or technology based reason for this. However, if these craft have acquired even a moderate electrical charge, they would be affected by the electrical currents from the sun.
Most observed matter in the universe does NOT exist in the form of neutral atoms, such as here on earth, but of loose charged and neutral particles zipping through the vast reaches of space and in stars. We know from lab experiments, that anytime charges move, there is an attendant magnetic field. These fields in turn tend to herd like polarity charged particles into narrower paths and keep them from their opposites. These rivers of charges can and do travel through the vastness of space.
Also, gravity diminishes by the square, whereas the electric force is inversely proportional, ie. drops off more slowly. Therefore it is not at all a given that electrical forces can be ignored at any distance. Both gravity and electrical forces must be considered at ALL distances. Since there is a least a 10^36 difference between gravity and electrical interactions, even the slightest possibility that an object carries a net charge, can have an effect on such an object that must be considered.
(....QM predicts that the baseline energy of empty space will spontaneously generate particle pairs......)
It's nice to have mathematical predictions, but has this process actually been observed somewhere? Math is NOT science, but is useful in describing and quantifying observations and measurements. Just because SOME of QM has been verified by experiment, doesn't mean ALL of QM mathematics has a real, physical manifestation. Until someone travels to a black hole or makes/simulates a small one with an accelerator and actually test this QM prediction, it remains only a beautiful mathematical construction.
...Einstein was wrong and nobody (in mainstream science) knows anything about plasmas....
Einstein was right only insofar SOME of his theories have been verified experimentally. Einstein wasn't God and therefore isn't right about EVERYTHING he came up with. I think that the data points to the idea that gravity and the electric force combine in ways we have not quite figured out. These two are the only interactions we know of that are able to operate on the cosmic scale, as well as on the quantum level. It is not one to the exclusion of the other, such as the electric universe proponents try to teach, but neither is gravity sufficient by itself to explain some of the seemingly weird data coming through our instruments.
Electric charge effects and large, diffuse currents in space are indeed plausible alternate ways of interpreting much of the data we see. Electric effects can explain more directly, why the solar wind charged particles are moving ever faster, as they go farther away from the sun. This has been observed by probes that have ventured to near the edge of the solar system.
Much of present day cosmological theory simply ignores the fact that the electric force is many orders of magnitude greater (about 10^36) than gravity and therefore has a commensurate effect of influencing any object that is not totally electrically neutral, ie. carries a charge, even if only a slight charge.
It is a good thing that most of the matter here on earth, including you and I are essentially electrically neutral. Matter on the sun and in space on the other hand appears to be highly charged, as evidenced by powerful magnetic fields generated by huge electrical currents. The measured fact that the solar corona is thousands of times hotter than the surface is evidence of electrical currents producing heat, much as in a light bulb on earth.
The fact that our earth also has a magnetic field is evidence that there are aligned, unbalanced, moving electrical charges actively producing this field. This field guides the charged currents from the sun around our planet and often makes these solar currents visible as the aurora borealis and aurora australis. Sometimes, these currents are strong enough to cause our own electrical grids to fail from overloads.
(......about how cosmologists are out to lunch.......)
Not necessarily, but most of them are very much in love with their elaborate, and even elegant mathematical constructions. Unfortunately for them, the actual data increasingly tells a different, sometimes contradictory story than their fancy math. It is time for them to examine the data, without the slightest reference to any of that beautiful math and come up with a new math that fits with that data.
.....Oh, and many of the fundamental particles, and lots of the hadrons nobody's actually ever observed.........
In the ancient times, atoms were deemed to be fundamental. The very word atom from the Greek means indivisible.
Even still, in the latter half of the previous century, not too long ago, protons, neutrons and electrons were thought to be fundamental, ie. indivisible. I helped set up the experiments and take data at Stanford, at the newly finished two mile long electron accelerator, that showed that protons had "hard little seeds" in them that were later dubbed quarks. We never actually "saw" this directly. It could be inferred sort of the way certain things could be learned about you, by studying your shadow.
Studying these things by real experiments and observation was fun and very challenging. My part was to help build the apparatus by which our physicists there COULD measure some of the properties of the innermost spaces of our universe. We all had long discussion as to what these at first mystifying experimental results were actually telling us.
It appears that the universe is governed by certain forces, or as we called them, interactions. One of them, called the strong or nuclear force, appears to be limited to very tiny distances. The others, gravity and the electric force can operate over cosmic distances. Unfortunately, in today's cosmology, only one of these, the weakest, gravity, is commonly taken into account as the one governing the operation and motions of the large scale cosmos. Any time when matter is subject to even only moderate amounts of energy, it separates into distinct charges. Even relatively small electric charge separations have many orders of magnitude greater influence on such electrically non-neutral matter than gravity.
It is time for mainstream cosmology to examine how BOTH gravitational and the electric interactions of matter combine to keep our universe running. Maybe then, much of the data coming from space, via probes and telescopes can be integrated into a picture that doesn't require esoteric constructs, such as dark matter/energy, unfathomably energetic quasars and other exotica. Maybe our universe is much more ordinary and pedestrian, more in keeping with what we measure here at home, in terms of energies and forces.
I don't get my science from/., but from direct experience in the LABORATORY, hands on the controls kind of stuff! I let the theorists come up with fancy math, to try to explain what the data is telling us. In science, the theory, the math, has to fit the data. It is NOT science to try to bend the data to fit a given theory, no matter how beautiful and logical the math is. Much, if not most of the data coming from highly sophisticated technology these days is contrary to the beautiful house of mathematica cards theoretical cosmologists have constructed.
.....Also, we CAN directly observe black holes through the Hawkins radition they emmit........
When so called black holes were first theorized, they were called black, because we were told that NOTHING can escape from their gravity, not even electromagnetic radiation. Now apparently these holes are no longer black, because supposedly radiation does come from them after all. Maybe they should rename them gray holes.
(......why there appears to be extra mass.......)
Never has such extra mass been MEASURED, but is theorized to exist, because of the assumption that red shift of these objects is due to the doppler effect, which implies distance and velocity. The red shift itself is truly a repeatable measurement, but we do not really know what causes it. If you throw out the doppler assumption (belief) then all the need for dark matter/energy, the so called big bang and other esoterica evaporates and is replaced, once again with a big question mark.
The data received from space probes and advanced telescopes increasingly fails to support our present theories of how the universe operates TODAY, to say nothing of its distant past. We observe closely interacting galaxies and clusters, which have greatly varying red shifts, sometimes within a single galaxy even. By the doppler theory of red shift, these would be vast distances apart and moving away at enormous velocities from each other and from us.
The bottom line: We do not really know much more about what holds galaxies and stars in place, than Newton did. Inertial and gravitational mass are a property of matter, but we have really no idea yet what components of matter give rise to this property. There are other forces operating within the universe, many orders of magnitude greater than gravity. We know a bit more about how these operate here on earth. Present day cosmology seems to ignore that these other interactions, beside gravity, may also play a role in the universe at large, especially on matter that is not electrically neutral, ie. carries charge.
Maybe, the new collider starting up in Europe will shed some light on some of these fundamental questions.
.....in the nuclear war of 2072, New York City will be incinerated........
About 2000 years ago someone named John made some predictions. According to him, NY among the other cites of the world will some day experience this:
"And there was a great earthquake, such as has not been since men were on the earth, so mighty and so great an earthquake. And the great city came to be into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell." (Revelation 18:18-19)
A 50-100 mile diameter asteroid striking the earth would make quite a mess and cannot be categorically ruled out. Hailstones of a hundred pounds each, and the other things described in this part of the Bible, maybe as a result of such an event, are not impossible either.
Mass extinctions happened before and can happen again.
Nevertheless, we detect and work with neutrons every day. Nuclear reactors are full of them and they do very much interact. Stand in a neutron beam from an accelerator sometime. However, there isn't any evidence for the existence of dark matter, other than in the math of astrophysicists. Nobody has ever observed a black hole either because by definition, they are unobservable. Do they exist? Yes, in the same way that God exists,by indirect evidence. But that isn't science-- we can believe they exist, and that is fine.
Real science is about experiments and observations. If it cannot be observed, it cannot be called science, but belief, faith, religion. These are of course valid human endeavors, just don't label them science.
Actually I like math, if it describes actual measurements and observations. However, like I wrote before, math is NOT physics. Math can be and is used to describe, and sometimes predict what ultimately must be measured. Einstein and others use math to predict great things that were soon measured and observed. When observations contradict what the math is trying to tell us, I'll go with the real world data every time. Much of the math cosmologists use is contradicted, increasingly, by measured data from space probes and modern telescopes.
This is leaving them scratching their collective heads and cause them to postulate ridiculous stuff such as much as 90+ or more of the matter and energy in the universe cannot be observed and is therefore "dark". I strongly suspect that is the ones that come up with such crap and then call it science, they they are indeed in the dark.
....shortage is made up by neutrinos of the two other types that we couldn't detect........
But we CAN detect the neutrinos that should be there, just not the ones from the sun. There are all sorts of other neutrino sources. We can even make them with accelerators. We also know by EXPERIMENT right here on earth, that magnetic fields ONLY arise from the movement of electric charge, such as in a current carrying conductor or the alignment of charge motion in magnets. Therefore, the existence of magnetic fields means the existence of moving electrical charges, ie. electrical currents. We also know that electric currents produce heat. Could it be that electric currents are heating up the corona to millions of degrees? Why does the velocity of the solar wind increase, the further we get from the sun? Current theories do not explain these puzzling observations very well.
(....explained by hypothesizing.....)
That's the whole point of my post, there is a LOT of hypothesizing going on in cosmology and astrophysics these days. Much of this guesswork involves convoluted math which is great, logical and correct in itself, but unfortunately doesn't have the slightest relationship with what we currently observe and measure. Science must be rooted in observable data first. Only after that can we attempt to quantify this real data with mathematical descriptions.
More and more of the new incoming data doesn't fit the currently popular theories very well or not at all. Phlogiston and aether theories also were popular at one time and it took quite a while until the increasing amount of data finally crushed these then popular notions.
Is the red shift REALLY due to motion of distant galaxies, or is there another cause. If it isn't motion, than maybe the Universe isn't expanding and all that crap about dark matter/energy is not even needed to try to explain what we see. Things like quasars then become quite ordinary and close to us, not some almost supernatural sources of unimaginable amounts of energy at the borders of the universe.
My hope is that the currently incoming data from modern instrumentations will finally cause a re-examination of some basic assumptions underlying presently accepted notions of how the universe works.
Slashdot Mirror
.....No, Jesus is not different from all the others. You haven't seen his tomb, you have no idea if he rose from the dead or not.......
One difference is that Jesus claimed to be God come to Earth and rise from death. He claimed to be THE truth and the only way to come to God. Buddha made no such claims. If those claims of Jesus are false, He was the biggest deceiver or self deceived, most arrogant person that ever trod this planet. Yet this Jesus affected human history, art, architecture, music, governments and numerous other aspects of human life, more than all the other founders of religions put together. Every calendar testifies of the centrality of His appearing.
You have staked your life and destiny on Buddha, I have done the same upon Jesus. After we both die, each of us will find out who made the better choice. We will then know whether Buddha's or Jesus' teachings were according to reality. We may both go out of existence, according to Buddha or I will be in heaven with Jesus and you will be with Buddha, wherever he is, somewhere in the outer darkness. As I see it, you are taking the far greater gamble with your eternal destiny. Assuming (believing) that Jesus is right, rather than anyone else is a far safer approach.
Better take another careful look at the person of Jesus and His claims and teachings before you die. You have no guarantee of even waking up tomorrow, so you might do this today.
.....I don't know of any "swathes" of science which are based on assumptions; in fact, I can't think even of a small area. If you can elaborate, I would be intruiged.........
Take a look at the relatively recent history of the "science" of climate change. In the Feb. 24, 1895 issue of the NY times the headline was: "GEOLOGISTS THINK THAT THE WORLD MAY BE FROZEN UP AGAIN". The same paper on May 15, 1932 headlined: "EARTH IS STEADILY GROWING WARMER". Again on May 21, 1975, in the Times, "MAJOR COOLING IS WIDELY CONSIDERED INEVITABLE" and also on the cover of TIME magazine of Dec 3, 1973, "THE BIG FREEZE". Finally recently, again on the front of TIME, April 3, 2006, "SPECIAL REPORT ON GLOBAL WARMING". Is climate change based on science, that is KNOWLEDGE or is it based of assumptions (beliefs) and guesswork?
Another of the assumptions (beliefs) that science holds today is that information, knowledge, can arise alone, unaided from the interaction of matter and energy. This has never been demonstrated, but is a widely held assumption. All human knowledge and creativity arises in a MIND. The arrangements of bits in a computer or symbols on a piece of paper always come by thought. So then why does science assume (believe) that this is not also true in the things that exist apart from the activity of man? We KNOW that no man made object or art arises outside of a mind. DNA carries the CODE to make proteins, yet DNA itself is a protein. So where did the first DNA come from that carries the code to make itself? It's the ultimate chicken and egg problem.
Cosmology assumes (believes) that gravity is the only controlling force governing the large scale observed features of the universe and also assumes (believes) that the measured, observed red shift is caused by motion and by extension, distance. Recent data coming from highly advanced telescopes and space probes doesn't fit these assumptions very well without resorting to all manner of hypothetical constructs that have never been DIRECTLY observed. Just like adherents of any religion, these "scientists" are very much unwilling to throw out long held beliefs and re-examine the fundamental tenets of their religion.
...."How do we know these answers are correct"......
A Christian doesn't KNOW, only believes that these answers are correct. Any answers anyone else can give to these doesn't mean they know either. I never mentioned anything about the correctness of any given set of answers in terms of knowledge. Religion isn't about knowledge in the sense of 2+2=4, but about faith.
I believe that Jesus is God come to earth, as He claimed. He conquered death, by rising from the grave. He made certain promises I believe, such that I will live on with Him after my physical body ceases operation.
You don't have to believe Him or the answers found in the Bible, but I challenge you to come up with, not the CORRECT answers, but more satisfying ones giving hope, purpose, and the ultimate human dignity. The answers are that you are person made in God's image for more than just this short, often painful existence here. You were made to learn to love, just as God loves.
You MAY believe that, but you don't have to. God dignifies your person by allowing you to reject Him. He did NOT make you like a computer, pre-programmed to want Him. Millions of others have chosen to entrust their present lives in time and space to Him, as well as their eternal future when time as we know it is no more. He invites you as well.
....unless it agrees with your experience and common sense......
You know that you cannot live that way. You have to accept, to believe the experience and knowledge of others in almost every area of life. You get in that car or airplane the first time, because of the experience and common sense of others, not your own. You've had teachers, including Buddha and Lao Tzu whose experiences and precepts you accept because you simply BELIEVE them, not because you KNOW whether they are truthful or not.
(....Disagreements can only strengthen both of us.....)
This is true if it is done in love and respect, but not if done from selfish ambition. Does your belief give you a truly satisfying answer to the four questions, especially the last one?
Jesus promised: "Because I live, you shall also" and proved it by rising from the dead. Buddhism and Taoism don't even make the claim of the founders of those religion's being alive and promising this life to their followers also. All other religions have a founder still in the grave. Only the tomb of Jesus Christ is empty, because He alone is alive, today. That is why I believe in Jesus. He is different than all the others.
....Do we know for sure that no other creature has "religious" beliefs as part of their behaviour? How can we be so certain? And if it's true, what is the significance of this?.....
I suppose one first has to define religion. My dictionary defines it as "a belief in and worship of a supernatural controlling power, especially a personal God or gods, a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance"
People may claim not to be religious, but will nevertheless often still ascribe supreme importance to things like material possessions, knowledge, and power over others, fame, to name a few "gods".
Nobody has ever observed any animal engage what we humans call prayer, for example. Maybe you know of examples of animals, mammals specifically, engaging in any activity which would be recognized as "religious". I do not.
I did not say that religion is good, because "lots of people do it", but because religion gives more satisfactory answers to the four questions. To me, Jesus Christ, and the Bible in general, gives the most satisfactory answers to the four questions.
1) Where did I come from?
Answers from Bible: You are a special creation by the almighty God, made in His image.
2) Who am I really:
A: You are a living, eternal spirit being, temporally inhabiting a mortal body.
3) What, if any is the purpose of my existence?
A: You are made for an eternal purpose. You are here on Earth to learn how to believe, love and trust, especially in the face of trials and adversity.
4) What will happen to me after I die?
A: It depends on choices you make every day. Nothing goes out of existence, only changes form. So will you. Your mortal body will return to the elements of which it is made. Your eternal self will be with God, if you are living in His presence now. Otherwise you will be in "outer darkness", whatever Jesus meant by that.
....I'm spouting a mixture of Buddhism and Taoism......
In my original post, I was NOT referring to any particular religion or set of answers to the four questions. I was merely pointing out that scientific secularism doesn't have satisfactory answers for most people. Religions, as a whole do a much better job than secular, scientific humanism. Maybe a syncretic combination of Taoism and Buddhism supplies better answers for you.
I had no intention of getting into the specifics of any particular religion. I believe that Jesus Christ is who He said He is, God come to earth. We just finished the celebration of this event. He is the only one who turns religion on its head. Instead of man trying to approach God through various religious practices, it is God approaching man. By becoming one of us, He made it possible, that for those willing to accept Jesus, to be indwellt, by the very Spirit of God, both now and forever. It is an offer that I could not refuse.
.....Lastly, if you accept that one religion is correct in its answers to those questions........
I was only pointing out that mankind has been seeking answers to these questions since the beginning of recorded history. Science certainly has answers, but that fact that in this "enlightened" technological world, where people jet around and carry cell phones, most of them still seek answers to those questions, not in science, but religion.
There are exceptions of course, maybe you are one of them, feeling superior to those benighted masses still having faith in God and expressing that faith through their religion. I was not commenting on any particular religion, because all religions are based on belief and not knowledge. Of course large swaths of science are also only based on certain assumptions, the scientific way of saying faith or belief, rather than certain knowledge. So, in a sense your faith in science or the scientific method is also a belief, a world view, that could rightly be called religion.
....It doesn't matter.....
Apparently the answer to these questions does matter to millions of homosapiens, exclusively to any other species, on this planet. This is still true today and has always been true. Some of them are willing to strap explosives to their bodies and fly airplanes into tall buildings and die for what they believe.
So even if it doesn't matter to you, it does matter to those who have been given certain promises abut what happens after death.
There are also millions who worship their ancestors. The nihilism you spout is held by only a small minority of people. It is obvious, that to most people on the planet, your answers are not satisfying. To them it DOES matter.
.....I doubt there'll be much fighting for a considerable time afterwards.......
Wrong, unless there is only one person left. If there are two or more remaining, there will be disagreements than can and often do escalate into war.
....Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism are philosophies, not religions, as they do not really speak of Gods.......
Religion is not confined to afterlife or gods, but is a world view that includes philosophies that include parts of existence not possible to limit to our normal senses.
Many, especially thinking people, seek satisfying answers to questions like this:
1, Where did I come from?
2, Who am I, really?
3, What, if any, is the purpose of my existence?
4, What will happen to me after I die
Religion is better at answering the above four in a way that appeals to people much more, than the answers that science attempts to give.
......Faith is subjective, mystical, and can have the appearance of utter hogwash to someone not participating therein........
This idea was expressed centuries ago by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:14
"But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them , because they are spiritually discerned."
For context read that whole chapter.
Some human experiences, especially those of a spiritual nature are hard to communicate to others and may seem non-sensical. Even in the physical world this is sometimes hard. How do you describe the taste of a banana to someone who has never eaten or even seen one? It's not easy.
The best way to find out what a banana tastes like is to BELIEVE, that is trust someone who has eaten one, enough to want to try one yourself.
David, the writer of Psalms give that invitation in reference to God in Psalm 34:8:
"Taste and see that the LORD is good; blessed is the man who trusts in Him."
Faith is the ability to trust, even if our limited human logic fails. A little child doesn't apply logic to see whether his/her Dad is able catch him/her if he/she jumps out of a tree into his open arms.
....For thousands of years, faith has not been very effective in keeping the peace.......
Neither has science. If anything, all science has done in that department is given one single human the ability to kill more fellow humans than was ever possible in the "dark ages" before the "enlightenment" of science came along. One person now has the ability to push a button and wipe out millions. Some call that progress. I suppose it is, but not toward peace.
....Religion contains nothing worth of respect whatsoever.....
Since the vast majority of humans on earth today and in the past have evidence some form of worship, you throw them all in the trash? Name ONE, that's right just one culture or society now on earth or in all of history that did NOT have religion and worship central to their existence. Humans are, uniquely among all creatures, always have been and always will be religious creatures. Explain why that is scientifically, if you will.
...A setup wizard at the minimum should require users to select a new password and allow them to walk through an informative configuration sequence.....
A little switch labelled program/run would work to prevent modifications of any settings when in the "run" position. Anyone who wanted/needed to change any settings would need physical access to the router. When switch is in "program", the router doesn't connect to the Internet. Companies could fix this for little extra cost.
....while I can type ftp:// [ftp] or smb:// in any Linux desktop.....
You can also do this with OSX. There is a program that is there just for the small minority who loves to type arcane keystroke sequences. It's called terminal. The rest of the world likes to use a mouse.
....Apple might be good for a grandma or for a graphic designer......
/. readers and programmers, and Macs are got graphic designers and grandmas. What's wrong with that?
Well there are a more graphic designers than programmers and certainly even many more grandmas. That's just it, Linux is for
......While the orther forces ARE many orders of magnitude greater, it is important to realize that they do not have the range ........
The force that electrical charges exert can and does operate over cosmic distances, as well as governing atoms and chemistry. The sun produces large electric currents which give rise to powerful magnetic fields. Some of this current manifests itself visibly in the northern lights. Whenever there is a particularly large outburst of this electrical power from the sun, our power grids get overloaded thereby and some of our other electrically operated devices malfunction.
The voyager and pioneer crafts are all slowing down a small, but measurable amount. Nobody has come up with a gravity or technology based reason for this. However, if these craft have acquired even a moderate electrical charge, they would be affected by the electrical currents from the sun.
Most observed matter in the universe does NOT exist in the form of neutral atoms, such as here on earth, but of loose charged and neutral particles zipping through the vast reaches of space and in stars. We know from lab experiments, that anytime charges move, there is an attendant magnetic field. These fields in turn tend to herd like polarity charged particles into narrower paths and keep them from their opposites. These rivers of charges can and do travel through the vastness of space.
Also, gravity diminishes by the square, whereas the electric force is inversely proportional, ie. drops off more slowly. Therefore it is not at all a given that electrical forces can be ignored at any distance. Both gravity and electrical forces must be considered at ALL distances. Since there is a least a 10^36 difference between gravity and electrical interactions, even the slightest possibility that an object carries a net charge, can have an effect on such an object that must be considered.
(....QM predicts that the baseline energy of empty space will spontaneously generate particle pairs......)
It's nice to have mathematical predictions, but has this process actually been observed somewhere? Math is NOT science, but is useful in describing and quantifying observations and measurements. Just because SOME of QM has been verified by experiment, doesn't mean ALL of QM mathematics has a real, physical manifestation. Until someone travels to a black hole or makes/simulates a small one with an accelerator and actually test this QM prediction, it remains only a beautiful mathematical construction.
...Einstein was wrong and nobody (in mainstream science) knows anything about plasmas....
Einstein was right only insofar SOME of his theories have been verified experimentally. Einstein wasn't God and therefore isn't right about EVERYTHING he came up with. I think that the data points to the idea that gravity and the electric force combine in ways we have not quite figured out. These two are the only interactions we know of that are able to operate on the cosmic scale, as well as on the quantum level. It is not one to the exclusion of the other, such as the electric universe proponents try to teach, but neither is gravity sufficient by itself to explain some of the seemingly weird data coming through our instruments.
Electric charge effects and large, diffuse currents in space are indeed plausible alternate ways of interpreting much of the data we see. Electric effects can explain more directly, why the solar wind charged particles are moving ever faster, as they go farther away from the sun. This has been observed by probes that have ventured to near the edge of the solar system.
Much of present day cosmological theory simply ignores the fact that the electric force is many orders of magnitude greater (about 10^36) than gravity and therefore has a commensurate effect of influencing any object that is not totally electrically neutral, ie. carries a charge, even if only a slight charge.
It is a good thing that most of the matter here on earth, including you and I are essentially electrically neutral. Matter on the sun and in space on the other hand appears to be highly charged, as evidenced by powerful magnetic fields generated by huge electrical currents. The measured fact that the solar corona is thousands of times hotter than the surface is evidence of electrical currents producing heat, much as in a light bulb on earth.
The fact that our earth also has a magnetic field is evidence that there are aligned, unbalanced, moving electrical charges actively producing this field. This field guides the charged currents from the sun around our planet and often makes these solar currents visible as the aurora borealis and aurora australis. Sometimes, these currents are strong enough to cause our own electrical grids to fail from overloads.
(......about how cosmologists are out to lunch.......)
Not necessarily, but most of them are very much in love with their elaborate, and even elegant mathematical constructions. Unfortunately for them, the actual data increasingly tells a different, sometimes contradictory story than their fancy math. It is time for them to examine the data, without the slightest reference to any of that beautiful math and come up with a new math that fits with that data.
....Oh god! We're all gonna die!.....
Indeed true, given enough time!
.....Oh, and many of the fundamental particles, and lots of the hadrons nobody's actually ever observed.........
/., but from direct experience in the LABORATORY, hands on the controls kind of stuff! I let the theorists come up with fancy math, to try to explain what the data is telling us. In science, the theory, the math, has to fit the data. It is NOT science to try to bend the data to fit a given theory, no matter how beautiful and logical the math is. Much, if not most of the data coming from highly sophisticated technology these days is contrary to the beautiful house of mathematica cards theoretical cosmologists have constructed.
In the ancient times, atoms were deemed to be fundamental. The very word atom from the Greek means indivisible.
Even still, in the latter half of the previous century, not too long ago, protons, neutrons and electrons were thought to be fundamental, ie. indivisible. I helped set up the experiments and take data at Stanford, at the newly finished two mile long electron accelerator, that showed that protons had "hard little seeds" in them that were later dubbed quarks. We never actually "saw" this directly. It could be inferred sort of the way certain things could be learned about you, by studying your shadow.
Studying these things by real experiments and observation was fun and very challenging. My part was to help build the apparatus by which our physicists there COULD measure some of the properties of the innermost spaces of our universe. We all had long discussion as to what these at first mystifying experimental results were actually telling us.
It appears that the universe is governed by certain forces, or as we called them, interactions. One of them, called the strong or nuclear force, appears to be limited to very tiny distances. The others, gravity and the electric force can operate over cosmic distances. Unfortunately, in today's cosmology, only one of these, the weakest, gravity, is commonly taken into account as the one governing the operation and motions of the large scale cosmos. Any time when matter is subject to even only moderate amounts of energy, it separates into distinct charges. Even relatively small electric charge separations have many orders of magnitude greater influence on such electrically non-neutral matter than gravity.
It is time for mainstream cosmology to examine how BOTH gravitational and the electric interactions of matter combine to keep our universe running. Maybe then, much of the data coming from space, via probes and telescopes can be integrated into a picture that doesn't require esoteric constructs, such as dark matter/energy, unfathomably energetic quasars and other exotica. Maybe our universe is much more ordinary and pedestrian, more in keeping with what we measure here at home, in terms of energies and forces.
I don't get my science from
.....Also, we CAN directly observe black holes through the Hawkins radition they emmit........
When so called black holes were first theorized, they were called black, because we were told that NOTHING can escape from their gravity, not even electromagnetic radiation. Now apparently these holes are no longer black, because supposedly radiation does come from them after all. Maybe they should rename them gray holes.
(......why there appears to be extra mass.......)
Never has such extra mass been MEASURED, but is theorized to exist, because of the assumption that red shift of these objects is due to the doppler effect, which implies distance and velocity. The red shift itself is truly a repeatable measurement, but we do not really know what causes it. If you throw out the doppler assumption (belief) then all the need for dark matter/energy, the so called big bang and other esoterica evaporates and is replaced, once again with a big question mark.
The data received from space probes and advanced telescopes increasingly fails to support our present theories of how the universe operates TODAY, to say nothing of its distant past. We observe closely interacting galaxies and clusters, which have greatly varying red shifts, sometimes within a single galaxy even. By the doppler theory of red shift, these would be vast distances apart and moving away at enormous velocities from each other and from us.
The bottom line: We do not really know much more about what holds galaxies and stars in place, than Newton did. Inertial and gravitational mass are a property of matter, but we have really no idea yet what components of matter give rise to this property. There are other forces operating within the universe, many orders of magnitude greater than gravity. We know a bit more about how these operate here on earth. Present day cosmology seems to ignore that these other interactions, beside gravity, may also play a role in the universe at large, especially on matter that is not electrically neutral, ie. carries charge.
Maybe, the new collider starting up in Europe will shed some light on some of these fundamental questions.
.....in the nuclear war of 2072, New York City will be incinerated........
About 2000 years ago someone named John made some predictions. According to him, NY among the other cites of the world will some day experience this:
"And there was a great earthquake, such as has not been since men were on the earth, so mighty and so great an earthquake. And the great city came to be into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell." (Revelation 18:18-19)
A 50-100 mile diameter asteroid striking the earth would make quite a mess and cannot be categorically ruled out. Hailstones of a hundred pounds each, and the other things described in this part of the Bible, maybe as a result of such an event, are not impossible either.
Mass extinctions happened before and can happen again.
..... but the neutrons......
Nevertheless, we detect and work with neutrons every day. Nuclear reactors are full of them and they do very much interact. Stand in a neutron beam from an accelerator sometime. However, there isn't any evidence for the existence of dark matter, other than in the math of astrophysicists. Nobody has ever observed a black hole either because by definition, they are unobservable. Do they exist? Yes, in the same way that God exists,by indirect evidence. But that isn't science-- we can believe they exist, and that is fine.
Real science is about experiments and observations. If it cannot be observed, it cannot be called science, but belief, faith, religion. These are of course valid human endeavors, just don't label them science.
....But if you don't like all that math......
Actually I like math, if it describes actual measurements and observations. However, like I wrote before, math is NOT physics. Math can be and is used to describe, and sometimes predict what ultimately must be measured. Einstein and others use math to predict great things that were soon measured and observed. When observations contradict what the math is trying to tell us, I'll go with the real world data every time. Much of the math cosmologists use is contradicted, increasingly, by measured data from space probes and modern telescopes.
This is leaving them scratching their collective heads and cause them to postulate ridiculous stuff such as much as 90+ or more of the matter and energy in the universe cannot be observed and is therefore "dark". I strongly suspect that is the ones that come up with such crap and then call it science, they they are indeed in the dark.
....shortage is made up by neutrinos of the two other types that we couldn't detect........
But we CAN detect the neutrinos that should be there, just not the ones from the sun. There are all sorts of other neutrino sources. We can even make them with accelerators. We also know by EXPERIMENT right here on earth, that magnetic fields ONLY arise from the movement of electric charge, such as in a current carrying conductor or the alignment of charge motion in magnets. Therefore, the existence of magnetic fields means the existence of moving electrical charges, ie. electrical currents. We also know that electric currents produce heat. Could it be that electric currents are heating up the corona to millions of degrees? Why does the velocity of the solar wind increase, the further we get from the sun? Current theories do not explain these puzzling observations very well.
(....explained by hypothesizing.....)
That's the whole point of my post, there is a LOT of hypothesizing going on in cosmology and astrophysics these days. Much of this guesswork involves convoluted math which is great, logical and correct in itself, but unfortunately doesn't have the slightest relationship with what we currently observe and measure. Science must be rooted in observable data first. Only after that can we attempt to quantify this real data with mathematical descriptions.
More and more of the new incoming data doesn't fit the currently popular theories very well or not at all. Phlogiston and aether theories also were popular at one time and it took quite a while until the increasing amount of data finally crushed these then popular notions.
Is the red shift REALLY due to motion of distant galaxies, or is there another cause. If it isn't motion, than maybe the Universe isn't expanding and all that crap about dark matter/energy is not even needed to try to explain what we see. Things like quasars then become quite ordinary and close to us, not some almost supernatural sources of unimaginable amounts of energy at the borders of the universe.
My hope is that the currently incoming data from modern instrumentations will finally cause a re-examination of some basic assumptions underlying presently accepted notions of how the universe works.