do you believe in heaven?

Rainmaker said:
Interesting isn't it? Current quantum physics now agrees with what Buddhists and Spiritualists (and more?) have said all along; that the universe only exists because you're here to view it. With no viewer it ceases, and experiments have shown this over and again.

This teaching was the origin of the old (now rather famous) Zen koan [riddle]: "If a tree should fall in the woods, and no-one is around to see it - does it make a sound?".

In fact this only broaches upon a rather massive subject, that of 'emptiness' (Sanskrit; Shunyata), or the idea that nothing exists independently of anything else, and that everything is merely an illusion consisting of its component parts and dependent upon the viewer.

Spiritualism says the same thing, in that everything is the creation of your own mind (consciousness, not physical brain). Things only exist where you're there to view them, and ultimately you are actually the creator of all you see. Physics now agrees.

Mind = blown. :D
Click to expand...

woah
 
Rainmaker said:
Interesting isn't it? Current quantum physics now agrees with what Buddhists and Spiritualists (and more?) have said all along; that the universe only exists because you're here to view it. With no viewer it ceases, and experiments have shown this over and again.
Click to expand...
No - one of several popular theories of quantum physics suggests this.

This is intolerable. No experiment has shown that when you stop observing the Universe it ceases to exist. We know this because.... we still exist. Goodness me, read what you said back to yourself.

What you have done is taken the outputs of theoretical models backed by loose tangible findings that researchers can currently barely understand or explain (performed on a scale so different to the norm that things are governed by new laws of physics and defy our existing ones) and applied to the entire Universe.
 
Last edited:
Andrew_McP said:
Science is about constantly chipping error away from a kernal of truth.
Click to expand...

No it isn't really. Science is said to be correct if the results can be accurately by the theory (using the scientific term for theory). It doesn't actually matter to science if the theory is actually wrong but just happens to give the right results. As long as the results are right, science is happy. This is why science can and does change, if something comes along that makes results better, it gets to be the new "truth" while the old "truth" gets discarded. To say "Science is showing me the truth" is to take it on faith that the sceintific method gives you truths rather than accurately predicts results.

Andrew_McP said:
That's the great thing about superstitious beliefs... everyone can have their own opinion and nobody can prove it one way or the other.

When it comes to science, ibuprofen either works, or it doesn't. Newton's laws either work, or they don't. If something doesn't work properly then it just means you haven't chipped off enough error yet. So it's a lot harder to have opinions about science.
Click to expand...

Talk about using bad examples! You are aware that ibuprofen doesn't actually work for some people and works for different people to differing degrees? I would also assume that you are unware of this bloke called Einstien that pointed out some flaws in Newtonian mavity. It is mostly good enough, however it tends to break down at the extremes.

As I said, it really does seem that you have at best a laymans grasp of science and have a certain level of faith in it...
 
Andrew_McP said:
Let's conduct an experiment. We'll come round and beat your brain to a bloody pulp with a clawhammer, but leave the rest of you untouched. If you're conscious again any time in the next five trillion years, we'll accept the brain isn't the place where the life in our bodies is marshalled, organised, and focused into what we call consciousness.

Fair deal? ;-)
Click to expand...

Your experiment is flawed. If the brain is how the "unattached conciousness" operates the body then by destroying the brain it has no way of making itself known. At most your experiment would prove that the brain is necessary to express conciousness in a way we can understand, it would not however prove that said conciousness resides in the brain. Occams razor would suggest that it does, but that doesn't mean it is true.

(Please note, I don't really believe in the unattached conciousness hypothesis but can quite easily see the flaws in your "experiment".)
 
It has been suggested that Theistic religion requires blind faith. I would suggest not entirely. Christianity relies on falsifiable historical claims. As St Paul stated, if Jesus was not executed and resurrected "your faith is useless". At the time he appealed to living witnesses. Now we rely on documentary and other historic evidence (some of which made it into the New Testament) to back it up.

That's why stuff like 'the God who wasn't there' is quite popular. It strikes at where Christianity stands or falls. It is some Christians' belief in the historical veracity of these claims that leads them to accept belief in eternal life on faith.
 
No. I also don't believe that you can be adherent to a relgion such as Christianity and consider yourself totally devout to scientific endeavour and scientific methodology. Direct contradiction results. You may be a Christian scientist (by this I don't mean someone who follows the Church of Christ the Scientist!), but I don't think you can reconcile those two beliefs properly.
 
Uriel said:
It has been suggested that Theistic religion requires blind faith. I would suggest not entirely. Christianity relies on falsifiable historical claims. As St Paul stated, if Jesus was not executed and resurrected "your faith is useless". At the time he appealed to living witnesses. Now we rely on documentary and other historic evidence (some of which made it into the New Testament) to back it up.

That's why stuff like 'the God who wasn't there' is quite popular. It strikes at where Christianity stands or falls. It is some Christians' belief in the historical veracity of these claims that leads them to accept belief in eternal life on faith.
Click to expand...

What tangible evidence is there that god exists? or that Jesus was resurrected?
 
Originally Posted by AcidHell2 View Post
How would you have free will if a god interfered with everything.

Why does a god have to interfere


Why does a god have to be super loving and want everything to be perfect.
Click to expand...

Why does a god have to exist? :p
 
Yeah if something is no longer observed it HAS to remain in existence otherwise the billions of years before life as we know it existed would be...well not here today.

That theory would indicate that an observer existed throughout the entire life of our known universe which logically is not possible.
 
Fusion said:
No. I also don't believe that you can be adherent to a relgion such as Christianity and consider yourself totally devout to scientific endeavour and scientific methodology. Direct contradiction results. You may be a Christian scientist (by this I don't mean someone who follows the Church of Christ the Scientist!), but I don't think you can reconcile those two beliefs properly.
Click to expand...

There is some branch of science dedicated to this, had an interview with one of them in New Scientist.

Creationist Bioligists or something like. Will try and dig out the article to get the right term for them if you really want (but please don't ask, can't be bothered to dig through all my back issues :p) Essentially they use science and scientific experiments to back up the bible, thats a very simplified view but you get my point :)
 
Khaaan! said:
Yeah if something is no longer observed it HAS to remain in existence otherwise the billions of years before life as we know it existed would be...well not here today.

That theory would indicate that an observer existed throughout the entire life of our known universe which logically is not possible.
Click to expand...

God?


stir stir stir stir stir :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom