[Closed] God and the Afterlife......?

If this is how they behave when they think that someone will judge them for their actions; can you imagine how they would behave if they thought that they wouldn't be held to account by a higher power.

Well if they didn't think there was a higher power then they wouldn't have received any guidance in the first place so perhaps they might have thought a bit more as others would have held them personnally responsible with no "god told me it was okay" type excuse to hide behind. Chances are that they would still have acted in the same way no matter what as they would still be the same people.

Well if they didn't think there was a higher power then they wouldn't have received any guidance in the first place so perhaps they might have thought a bit more as others would have held them personnally responsible with no "god told me it was okay" type excuse to hide behind. Chances are that they would still have acted in the same way no matter what as they would still be the same people.

Considering they do truly *believe*, I don't think your right.

You are seem to think that someone who is a one-in-a-billion, who has achieved pretty much as much power and influence as is possible on this planet; thinks that the opinion of anyone other than their direct peers matters. Not forgetting that 50% of the population has below average intelligence and the other 50% would never be able to agree on anything.

Whereas a *god* if definitely above them on the pecking order, so his opinion and favour is something that's worth having. If a *god* wasn't there holding them to account then the only thing holding them back would be their own morals, which without the guidance of religion could be pretty skewed (more-so than they are now!)

One common thing I've noted with very vocal Atheists, seems to be a huge disconnection between how much their opinion matters, and how much they think it matters; as they seem to really struggle with how insignificant most of us are, and how if we went away tomorrow not that many people would really care or even notice...... which history tells us isn't true for former presidents or prime ministers.......

One common thing I've noted with very vocal [s]Atheists[/s] god botherers, seems to be a huge disconnection between how much their opinion matters, and how much they think it matters

Just saying, lyk... 🙄

Hasn't every war in history been faught under the pretence of the will of god. Why change now?

Was thinking about putting "very vocal in their opinion" rather than Atheists, but I don't think its true, as if someone has a strong faith (aka god botherer) then they get the whole, we don't count for much in the big picture.

You really need to quote until the full stop otherwise you can completely change the context of a statement.

Anyway, I am still interested in seeing how people think around the: no god = infinite universe = something before big bang = something existed outside of time, space, matter and energy which defies all Law's of Physics. Argument.

Also what's your thinking on how did multiple cultures with zero contact with each other, without any shared culture or experiences come to the same conclusion about a *god* and leave evidence from ~40,000 years ago illustrating their faith?

I am personally really happy to change my mind, and have done in the past; however I need a bit more than "your stupid if you don't believe what I believe, argument"

Hasn't every war in history been faught under the pretence of the will of god. Why change now?

Ummm, I suspect that isn't true.

Or else the Chinese and Russian communist parties would never have gone to war; and I am assuming you are familiar with minor event called the second world war.

One common thing I've noted with very vocal Atheists, seems to be a huge disconnection between how much their opinion matters, and how much they think it matters; as they seem to really struggle with how insignificant most of us are, and how if we went away tomorrow not that many people would really care or even notice

Sorry buy that is garbage. Most atheists know full well just how insignificant we as humans are, it's those of a more theistic mindset that consider humans to be in any way special.

and I am assuming you are familiar with minor event called the second world war.

Umm you are aware of hitler's belief in his "devine right"?

if someone has a strong faith (aka god botherer) then they get the whole, we don't count for much in the big picture.

Surely the religious think the creator of the whole universe cares enough about them as individuals to have a personal relationship with them? Whereas most atheists would agree that we're a brief assemblage of carbon atoms on an insignificant lump of rock orbiting a pretty mediocre star?

Also what's your thinking on how did multiple cultures with zero contact with each other, without any shared culture or experiences come to the same conclusion about a *god* and leave evidence from ~40,000 years ago illustrating their faith?

I think it goes something like:

We evolved to survive on the plains of Africa and something which was previously a useful survival trait has warped over time to become the religions we know today.

Religions evolve over time ([url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme#Religion ]hence Dawkins coming up with the idea of memes[/url]) and so the early 'beliefs' of our common ancestors (Sun worship and fertility gods?) have become modern religions.

You can either view the similarities between religions as 'proof' they're all describing the same thing, or as proof that they're all founded on, and evolved from, the same mistaken belief.

The key thing is, these cultures did have a shared background: it's not that long ago, in evolutionary terms, that humanity was on the brink of extinction and were only a very small number of individuals in Africa.

Richc - have you not met the atheist Stasi before? 😉

(you missed the bit about having the last word BTW).

Umm you are aware of hitler's belief in his "devine right"?

“It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us" Churchill.

Was thinking about putting "very vocal in their opinion" rather than Atheists, but I don't think its true, as if someone has a strong faith (aka god botherer) then they get the whole, we don't count for much in the big picture.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

You really need to quote until the full stop otherwise you can completely change the context of a statement.

One common thing I've noted with very vocal Atheists, seems to be a huge disconnection between how much their opinion matters, and how much they think it matters; as they seem to really struggle with how insignificant most of us are, and how if we went away tomorrow not that many people would really care or even notice......

I don't have that "struggle" myself - I'm no more or less insignificant than anything else in the universe, including the universe itself of which I am a part, and haven't noticed it in other Atheists. Can you provide an example?

“It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us" Churchill.

One common thing I've noted with very vocal Atheists, seems to be a huge disconnection between how much their opinion matters, and how much they think it matters; as they seem to really struggle with how insignificant most of us are

We evolved to survive on the plains of Africa and something which was previously a useful survival trait has warped over time to become the religions we know today.

Religions evolve over time (hence Dawkins coming up with the idea of memes) and so the early 'beliefs' of our common ancestors (Sun worship and fertility gods?) have become modern religions.

Their is absolutely no evidence of people coming out of Africa with Shaman beliefs, and I've never read anything implying this; is this just your opinion or have you read other sources? As I would be interested to read into it.

I seem to remember first documented evidence of humans worshipping a god/gods/spirits is around 40,000 years ago, which is a long time after leaving Africa (circa 200,000 years ago) and I believe there was earlier evidence of humans but none of it appears to contain references to worshipping a *god*. Hence the oddity of multiple cultures all moving towards the same beliefs without influencing each other or evening knowing about other groups ideas. Unless you believe that its a shared belief from a group which was suppressed for 160,000 years before everyone thought that their might be something in that.

Umm you are aware of hitler's belief in his "devine right"?

So seeing as people are back on the thread, can people comment on this:

Anyway, I am still interested in seeing how people think around the: no god = infinite universe = something before big bang = something existed outside of time, space, matter and energy which defies all Law's of Physics. Argument.

As I've heard a few people argue for and against it, but have never heard anything convincing.

Their is absolutely no evidence of people coming out of Africa with Shaman beliefs

They (presumably) had [i]some[/i] beliefs. These have 'mutated' over time to lead to reincarnation, transubstantiation, Devagana living in the anus, etc.

It's slightly harder to pin down than genetic evolution, because there's cross fertilization between religions and so on, but you could picture them like the tree of life, but with religion. Some religions have more obvious common ancestors than others (like the monotheistic Abrahamic religions) and some memes might die out completely or be deliberately subverted/adapted by [s]fraudsters *cough*Mormonism*cough*[/s] revelations from God so there will be dead ends and cross links and so on which don't happen in genetic evolution.

Thing is we don't know that, and even if they did all leave Africa with a common belief/idea (which is a massive leap of faith, and is based on zero scientific evidence) don't you think that after 160,000 years of separate evolution of belief that is highly unlikely their beliefs would be so similar if its all based around handed down verbal history?

If you think about it logically. If this wasn't about god, and was instead about passing down verbal history would you expect the stories to be remotely similar after 160,000 years, and being told by ~5500 generation? To me, that seems as likely as a bloke sitting on a cloud watching our every move.

NB: The 200,000 years part is taken from a book I read recently about evolution, but no one really knows when it happened, it could have been as recent as 50,000 years and as long ago at 300,000 years. It bandied around 200,000 years, as it seems that as technology moves on we get better at dating "stuff" everything is older than we thought.

So 160,000 years of separation could actually be between 10,000 years and 260,000 years. 100,000 might be a more reasonable number for me to use; so apologies for that........

“It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us" Churchill.

People spoke about God differently in different times. Back then it was part of general society, so people used God as a rhetorical device as much as anything else.

don't you think that after 160,000 years of separate evolution of belief that is highly unlikely their beliefs would be so similar if its all based around handed down verbal history?

Are many religions particularly similar? The Abrahamic religions are, but they all originated in the same place 4000 years ago so that's to be expected.

Perhaps it's convergent evolution?

The octopus eye and the mammalian eye are very similar, even though their common ancestor didn't have an eye. Koalas and humans both have fingerprints, but their common ancestors do not. In places without a large mammalian predator, other animals fill that niche.

Perhaps there are certain cultural/belief niches that are filled in a memetically convergent way?

From my very limited understanding, the early cave painting from all around the world make references to shaman worship, and are all very similar, to the point where it make coincidence extremely unlikely; but nothing is impossible. Recent changes, could be to do with our population being so huge and the amount of cross pollination of ideas or it could be something else.

I've always though of genetic evolution and social evolution to be very different things, as we are bound by genes which can't be fundamentally changed, as easily opinions or beliefs.

Unless you feel that *belief* is a genetic trait, which leads into the genetic memory theories....... which is a massive can of worms

Ah, so all the current religions are wrong, but those guys got it right?

Well if you all read the book I keep mentioning it goes into a lot of detail about how belief is formed and why belief in higher powers could be considered a consequence of the way our brains work.

How many pages back molgrips? Or could you mention it again? As I will get it on my kindle unless its a froth at the mouth ranting one, as I am happy to read other ideas, as long as the author has some credibility.

Ah, so all the current religions are wrong, but those guys got it right?

I've no idea, the point is that groups of intelligent mammal with zero contact (contamination) with each other came to a similar conclusion completely independently, far to many times to be a coincidence. Which is odd don't you think? It doesn't necessarily mean there is a 'god', but it appears to mean 'something' and its the something part I personally find interesting. Same reason I find the second Law of thermodynamics and the finite universe discussion interesting, as an infinite universe just doesn't make any sense (to me).

Any results with beliefs now are now all much harder to understand as of the amount of cross contamination and outside influence muddy the water too much.

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/god-and-the-afterlife/page/12#post-5496154

[url= http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51A7smWpQaL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA278_PIkin4,BottomRight,-65,22_AA300_SH20_OU02_.jp g" target="_blank">http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51A7smWpQaL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA278_PIkin4,BottomRight,-65,22_AA300_SH20_OU02_.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

Clicky

Downloading that now, and will read it after I finish my current book.

Looks interesting

I've no idea, the point is that groups of intelligent mammal with zero contact (contamination) with each other came to a similar conclusion completely independently, far to many times to be a coincidence. Which is odd don't you think? It doesn't necessarily mean there is a 'god', but it appears to mean 'something' and its the something part I personally find interesting.

Yup it's definitely fascinating. Likewise the cargo cults of Vanuatu.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Frum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Philip_Movement

richc, the first bit is quite waffly, a sort of prologue, but it gets sciency and interesting. I'm only about half way through and my mind is already blown. I think, anyway 🙂

As you say, it's interesting but I suspect it has more to do with the way our brain works than with anything supernatural.

Same reason I find the second Law of thermodynamics and the finite universe discussion interesting, as an infinite universe just doesn't make any sense (to me).

An infinite universe doesn't make sense to me either, but I don't think it means that there has to be anything 'outside' of it, or before it, or that it necessarily requires a cause.

I am still interested in seeing how people think around the: no god = infinite universe = something before big bang = something existed outside of time, space, matter and energy which defies all Law's of Physics. Argument.

You do realise that "I don't know" or even "we don't know" are perfectly valid answers to that question, don't you?

I mean, sure, it's an interesting question and one worthy of discussion, but the idea that the answer [i]has [/i]to be something we understand and can conveniently define is bogus. The universe will get on with the business of 'being' irrespective of whether we understand it or not.

don't you think that after 160,000 years of separate evolution of belief that is highly unlikely their beliefs would be so similar if its all based around handed down verbal history?

You know, I'm really not sure how similar these beliefs are. In a previous post you were positing that shamanic belief systems didn't come out of Africa; you can't have it both ways, either the belief systems are the same or they aren't.

It's not really a huge shock that disparate cultures have some crossover in their efforts to provide explanations for big questions like "where did we come from?" but really, are their conclusions all that similar? We're basically talking about someone amongst the masses coming up with the concept of some form of creator(s) or higher being, then telling his mates; from a starting point of ignorance isn't that great a leap. And it's a compelling idea in the absence of any better explanations.

But once we move beyond vague concepts, every society has had its own ideas. Many ancient cultures had many gods, not just one. Ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt all worshipped multiple deities. Prehistoric peoples worshipped animals and heavenly bodies and all sorts of random stuff, widespread monotheism is a relatively modern thing. If we'd all independently come up with the same thing then it'd hold a lot more credence, but ostensibly what you're arguing for here is that in the absence of actual knowledge we were really good at making shit up and then being convincing about it.

no god = infinite universe = something before big bang = something existed outside of time, space, matter and energy which defies all Law's of Physics. Argument.

Lets assume god is the answer to what came before the big bang and we now ask what came before god - at some point we have to have something from nothing and we know we exist.

Basically we dont know but that is not proof of god nor is is it proof of the universe pooping unicorn.

Lets assume god is the answer to what came before the big bang and we now ask what came before god - at some point we have to have something from nothing and we know we exist.

Yeah, I always loved that logic. "God" is an easy answer, but it's not a very good one.

A. Where did the universe come from?

B. It's always been there.

A. I can't believe it's always been there, that makes no sense, something we've not seen yet must have created it. In the absence of any better explanations I'm going to call this creator "god".

B. Fair enough. Where did this 'god' come from?

A. Oh, he's always been there.

"God did it" doesn't actually answer any questions, it just shifts the focus of the question onto something we can make up the rules for and can't readily disprove.

no god = infinite universe = something before big bang = something existed outside of time, space, matter and energy

And actually, there's a whole lot of assumptions there.

"No god = infinite universe." Does it? Why? The universe could be finite or infinite irrespective of any gods. Are we talking about time or space here, or something else?

" = something before the big bang," well yes, there was. The Big Bang Theory doesn't mean that there was nothing then all of a sudden there was spontaneously something, that's a common misunderstanding. Before TBB, all the matter in the universe still existed, it was just taking up considerably less space.

at some point we have to have something from nothing

Do we? Why? Because we struggle to comprehend sticky concepts like infinity, or because you've fundamentally misunderstood what The Big Bang Theory states? A lot about the universe is difficult to understand, but fortunately for us it'll get on with things regardless of whether we can explain it or not.

People spoke about God differently in different times. Back then it was part of general society, so people used God as a rhetorical device as much as anything else.

One thing that all religions have in common is the idea that there is something for us after we die.

It's simply a combination of survival instinct and imagination. As soon as we started thinking of abstract concepts and were able to grasp the idea that we were going to die we had to come up with something that would let us continue indefinitely. Mix that in with some 'be good or the bogey man will get you' and you have religion. It's more or less left up to the moral attitudes of the ruling class to decide what good actually means.

Thankfully in the west we are reaching the critical mass of people who are able to throw away this psychological crutch and put all our energy into finding answers to the big questions and exploring morality from a clean slate rather than a using a guide book that was written hundreds (or thousands) of years ago.

In an attempt to comment on some or the replies

An infinite universe doesn't make sense to me either, but I don't think it means that there has to be anything 'outside' of it, or before it, or that it necessarily requires a cause.

That's the point, according the the Law's of Physics in a closed system (ie: a finite universe), entropy of a random environment (like after the big bang) will never decrease. You cannot get order from chaos, it against the Law's of Physic's which can be demonstrated in repeatable experiments.

Hence, if the universe is finite then yes according to the Law's of Physics their must be a cause, it doesn't just happen. Dawkin's book on evolution (Greatest Show on Earth) talks a lot of about this. Essentially, shit just doesn't happen. That's not the way it works.

" = something before the big bang," well yes, there was. The Big Bang Theory doesn't mean that there was nothing then all of a sudden there was spontaneously something, that's a common misunderstanding. Before TBB, all the matter in the universe still existed, it was just taking up considerably less space.

I don't think that's correct, I was listening to a discussion on radio 4 the other day, about nothing being something, and it was stated that according to current understanding that before the big bang, their wasn't matter, energy, time or space. So the universe wasn't there, really small just waiting. Because it didn't have time, space, matter or energy.

If was commented that there are astrophysics working on what did exist, but from what I understood it wasn't the universe in a small small ball waiting to explode, the thinking was it was "nothing" which they believe can influence something....

Unless you know something they don't, or equally as likely I got it wrong 🙂

You do realise that "I don't know" or even "we don't know" are perfectly valid answers to that question, don't you?

Yes I do get that, but a point is: It's all about faith and what what you believe.

Science can't prove that there is a God.

Science can't prove the universe is infinite or something existed outside of time, space, energy and matter.

However it seems to be that if you believe the first statement even though it can't be proven people deride you for being gullible, stupid and/or naive, and if you believe the second you have a logical and sensible view of the world.....

Hence, if the universe is finite then yes according to the Law's of Physics their must be a cause, it doesn't just happen. Dawkin's book on evolution (Greatest Show on Earth) talks a lot of about this. Essentially, shit just doesn't happen. That's not the way it works.

Be very very carful about applying what we understand of the law of physics to the early universe as very often they don't actualy apply.

before the big bang, their wasn't matter, energy, time or space. So the universe wasn't there, really small just waiting. Because it didn't have time, space, matter or energy.

As there was no time before the big bang then there is no before the big bang 😉

Physics at this level is understood by a very small number of people so unless you consider yourself one of them (invoking Radio 4 as a source would indicate that you're not) then discussing it really is pointless as we are all almost certainly wrong, or worse not even wrong.

Physics at this level is understood by a very small number of people so unless you consider yourself one of them (invoking Radio 4 as a source would indicate that you're not) then discussing it really is pointless as we are all almost certainly wrong, or worse not even wrong.

^this^

It seems quite 'in' at the moment to use some half understood snippet of science, then wave your arms around a bit and conclude "therefore God".

Science can't prove that there is a God.

Science can't prove the universe is infinite or something existed outside of time, space, energy and matter.

That's the point, according the the Law's of Physics in a closed system (ie: a finite universe), entropy of a random environment (like after the big bang) will never decrease.

What is the point of this comment you keep making? No offence but you are just factually incorrect in what you say but assuming you are correct what is it meant to "prove"?

You cannot get order from chaos, it against the Law's of Physic's

Can you quote this law as it is not one I am aware of.

which can be demonstrated in repeatable experiments.

Given the size and scale of the universes you will get order as it will just be one small part of the chaos. Philosophically if chaos had no order it would not be chaotic [ random] now would it !!!

So just to understand this, you believe if there is gravity, the Law's of thermodynamics don't apply?

As for the Law, its this one:

Second law of thermodynamics
The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium—the state of maximum entropy.

Which means that:

Given the size and scale of the universes you will get order as it will just be one small part of the chaos. Philosophically if chaos had no order it would not be chaotic [ random] now would it !!!

To repeat
lets say your view is true what do you think this means and why am i having to ask you this over and over again?

I dont even get what point you are trying to make

What is the law it breaks?

as for your point - can you please answer my questions or its not really a debate it is ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics#Gravitational_systems

Gravitational systems[edit]
In non-gravitational systems, objects always have positive heat capacity, meaning that the temperature rises with energy. Therefore, when energy flows from a high-temperature object to a low-temperature object, the source temperature is decreased while the sink temperature is increased; hence temperature differences tend to diminish over time.
However, this is not always the case for systems in which the gravitational force is important. The most striking examples are black holes, which - according to theory - have negative heat capacity. The larger the black hole, the more energy it contains, but the lower its temperature. Thus, the supermassive black hole in the center of the milky way is supposed to have a temperature of 10?14 K, much lower than the cosmic microwave background temperature of 2.7K, but as it absorbs photons of the cosmic microwave background its mass is increasing so that its low temperature further decreases with time.
[b]For this reason, gravitational systems tend towards non-even distribution of mass and energy.[/b]

MY BOLD

Other more scholarly sources are available
[b]Again what do you think it proves?[/b]

As for random if something is truly random - monkeys at keyboards typing, the universe , and the sample size is sufficiently large then some part of the universe of the monkeys typing will produce order simply due to the chaos /random chance - this is what random does. If i toss a coin 10 times as long as I do it often enough i will eventually get ten heads in a row - is that order or chaos?

We are that order in the universe everything else is the chaos but it is simple due to randomness and the size of the universe

lets say your view is true what do you think this means and why am i having to ask you this over and over again?

I don't know what this means, hence I am after other opinions on what they believe it means, and asking them to explain why. Its not a trick question, and as I am concerned "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer. One reason I am asking is if someone has a crumb of information which leads me to read something I find interesting then that's a win as far as I am concerned.

As for random if something is truly random - monkeys at keyboards typing, the universe , and the sample size is sufficiently large then some part of the universe of the monkeys typing will produce order simply due to the chaos /random chance - this is what random does. If i toss a coin 10 times as long as I do it often enough i will eventually get ten heads in a row - is that order or chaos?

its still random, you can't take a chunk out of a random number and declare that a non-random

its still random, you can't take a chunk out of a random number and declare that a non-random

With enough planets running My First Chaos Chemistry sets (and there do seem to be an awful lot of planets) in all that chaos there's a chance life will appear.
No God
No super being
just life.

is the point junkyard was making
i think.

don't know what this means, hence I am after other opinions on what they believe it means, and asking them to explain why.

you can't take a chunk out of a random number and declare that a non-random

You cannot deny that random - on a large enough scale, creates order - though its still random.

That directly contradicts the second Law of thermodynamics though, as truely random remains random regardless of the size or time involved; as this is a proven fact. Hence its a Law.

It does not as the heat law does not applies to monkeys at keyboards nor does it saying anything about random events in a very large universe that may lead to the creation of life- it tells us what happens with heat in a closed system without gravity.

Nothing i have said contradict this law and I have not the faintest idea why you think it has or what on earth it would mean if it did.
Could you explain both your reasons for thinking this and what it would mean if it were wrong?