God and the Afterlife……?

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

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 has 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.

It’s unknown not outside the laws of physics ,which, incorrectly, implies something supernatural, and they are not the same

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.

so religion is either allegorical, literal or rhetorical? Phew. And once a religious person (or a defender of the religious 😉 ) tries to defend that particular bit from criticism, that act collapses the waveform and we find out which. Interesting.

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.thought we’d done this, science doesn’t need to prove god exits, proving negatives etc. Scientists hypothesize about the universe being infinite and seek evidence one way or the other, they don’t pick the theory they like the sound of best and ignore contrary evidence (or atleast they are not supposed to)

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.

ONLY IF YOU HAVE NO GRAVITY.

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.

what like say monkeys at keyboard writing shakespeare?
Given the size of the universe every planet is a monkey and we are the shakespeare

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 !!!

So now you think that random is actually ordered, which even I know is wrong.

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.
For this reason, gravitational systems tend towards non-even distribution of mass and energy.

MY BOLD

Other more scholarly sources are available
Again what do you think it proves?

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

if I bash the keys on this keyboard randomly for long enough a real word will appear amongst the gibberish, keep going for long enough and a sentence will appear, longer still and a whole book will appear. It’s still random letters but with enough letters over a long enough time something sensible appears in there.

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.

It means they dont understand the second law.
I dont know who “they” are now but I would not be asking “them” for an explanation.

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

of course not but thatis not what i said – i said if you do something enough times by random chance you will get order!! donk typing or monkeys [ probably the same thing that though they are probably better at map reading 😉 ]
I did not i asked you to decide and I think its both random and order given enough randomness! thats why we are here there are so many planets it had to happen. it is the drake equation for other life FWIW
You cannot deny that random – on a large enough scale, creates order – though its still random.
DONK and I have both given you examples of this.
it is rather contradictory and confusing though

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?

richc – I think you need to do some more reading on entropy. Its absolutely fascinating. You can get order from chaos but only for a limited time and in limited areas. It is a law of physics but statistical physics which makes it a bit different to deterministic laws.

I think you need to do some more reading on entropy.

^this^