The books of the bible were written over thousands of years and incorporate many mythologies to sell the idea. In the Jewish tradition the concept of hell doesn't even exist there is simply the underworld or land of the dead similar to the Greek and Roman concepts of the Elysian Fields. The idea of a fire and brimestone hell comes from the middle ages during the plagues. They dug large pits were the infected bodies were thrown in and burned. At the height of the plagues these fires burned day and night. The brimestone was the odor that arose from this. The devil, as we have come to know the concept did not exist in early chritianity either. Yet another construct of the catholic church to scare people into accepting there version of the gospel. It is doubtful that god will be tossing anyone into a lake of fire. Many theologians believe hell to be seperation from god rather than a place.

Cassie

Hi Cassie
You are right and that is the position of the Catholic Church, hell is not a place but the separation from God.  Heaven is one with God, (sounds the same concept as Nirvana dosen't it) if you are not in heaven thats it, existence is finished.  Thats what I was taught.

The concept of hell as a place of eternal torment is a medeival concept and was held by Catholics & Protestants of that time - a way of thinking by people of those ages. I am not going to mock them or consider it an evil Catholic plot.  I'll concede Guy Falks action as an evil Catholic plot - savagely punished, but I think the stuff about the evil Catholic church that keeps surfacing in this thread is a bit overdone.

Hel I believe was the name of Norse afterlife, now that was a nasty sort of thing to call Pagan heaven the Christian place of torment - like building churches on pagan shrines; placing Christian feast days on the same date as pagan feast days (unless that was a cunning pagan action? )

I dunno, this thread is interesting but I keep coming across loaded phrases all through it    There is just no way that people of one viewpoint will ever convince holders of other viewpoints here so I will state things as I see them & refrain from making comments (even though I have a side to me that would just love to wade in   )

This thread IS interesting, and I don't think it was started so that believers could proselytize, really.  This is one of those topics in which there will never be a meeting of the minds, between believers and non-believers.  I find it fascinating to discover why people believe in God or don't believe in God...my own atheism started at the tender age of 11.  To me, it looks as if this thread was started as a curiosity kind of thing by Terri-Anne, and I have had the same curiosity.  So many of our detractors wield the bible like a club over us, and even though I know some trans people who say transsexuality is accepted in the bible, there are many christians out there who would disagree.  When people like my brother have tried to "convert" me they initially use a "merciful, forgiving God" tack, and when they encounter resistance, use the "mean, pitch you into an eternal lake of fire" tack.  I even find the pattern of proselytizing interesting, since many have tried to save me, and they pretty much use the same pattern.  With that said, I can certainly understand the desire for a loving, forgiving parent who is there for us no matter what...

Hi Terri-Anne,

Douglas Adams does a nice analogy of the concepts of God myths.  I am typing from memory so if this is wildly innaccurate...

"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning, a glorious sunny morning and it's first thought is
"My this hole I'm in is a nice, comfortable fit,  It's a really good fit, almost exact.  Hmmm It IS an exact perfect match...so good and so perfect it must have been made for me..."

And Lo the need for a maker is born.

He goes on...even as the Sun comes up and the puddle shrinks it's still thinking to itself "Still a perfect match...so everything will work out alright"  It gets hotter and the puddle evaporates more and more still thinking 'it was made for me so everything will be alright." Right up until the last moment.

The believer would say that you need faith to believe in god and without faith God is nothing.
Personally I prefer to stick to reasonably verifiable facts. >

              There are some of us who know there is something out there that can affect human and physical actions. We don't blindly believe, we have no blind faith but we have seen it work.  It is here with us and there are a few who have seen it work.  I can see how those who have no experiences would find this hard to comprehend but that does not make it untrue.



beth

Hi Beth, I hope I didn't offend, that was not my intention.  Just being a hairy kneed Pict with no manners.
Faith and a belief in the forces of God and good and Love and spirituality are all good things.  I just don't have enough evidence to trust something I have never seen.  In fact I have seen as much evidence of the existence of Mr Snuffleupagus as I have of any intelligent God-being.  Religion on the other hand is like an abusive parent. Magnificently altruistic acts have been carried out by people in the name of religion but, however, the opposite is also true.  Desolation has been wreaked across the world in the name of religion. That is where ideas of God in their purest sense of Love parts ways with Human Beings. 

As far as the existence of God goes, Show me the facts and I will pay attention.

Isn't it part of the puddle condition? To wonder what it's all about?

             You didn't offend me at all. If I were interested in finding evidence I wouldn't confuse the existance of a higher power and any religion. Religions are for those who need them. Most who have seen or felt the higher power have no need for religion. Without religion there is no need to tell anyone of the knowledge other than the people close to you. I wouldn't be mentioning it now but I'm a bit tired of listening to all the misinformation here.



beth

I stumbled upon the following discussion while browsing this thread earlier today.  The first response to Tinark from Duder strikes very close to home for me.  I'll bet a paycheck Duder's read Alan Watts.

-Celia

I've been read this thread for awhile and tried to just ignore it. But again and again it has been stated that there is no proof that there is a creator (God).  I beleive that the complexity of life, our world, the galaxies and the uninverse scream out to us that there is a creator.
I love reading about astrology. Here are some scientific facts that I beleive show the existence of God:

Only 5% of all galaxies are spirals.
This is an important consideration for the existence of life, since life is only possible in spiral galaxies.
Star formation ceases too early in elliptical galaxies, resulting in insufficient production of the heavy elements necessary for life, in addition to the problem of unstable stellar interactions, which would be hazardous to planetary orbits.
The laws of physics are extremely fine tuned to permit the existence of matter, much less, the existence of biological life forms. For some of these physical laws, a change of as little as 1 part in 10 to the 37 power (10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) would prevent the universe from ever containing any kind of life.
For example increasing the mass of the universe by 1 part in 1059 would cause the "Big Crunch" (the collapse and destruction of the universe) to have already happened!
Not only must the planetary system be located in a spiral galaxy, but it must be located away from the center of that galaxy. There are some powerful forces acting in the center of this galaxy that are spewing gases (the red "flames") well above the galactic disk.
A planetary system located near the center of the galaxy would receive too much radiation for life forms to exist.
In addition, stellar gravitational interactions would most likely disrupt planetary orbits in such crowded conditions.
Our Solar System is located near the edge of the galaxy in a relatively unpopulated region between spiral arms.
Our Sun is located in the region of our galaxy that is called the galactic co-rotation radius.
This is the only known location within the galaxy where stars do not drift in and out of the spiral arms as the galaxy revolves.

The distance between the planetary star and the planet containing life is crucial for life to be able to exist. This "life zone" is a very small zone, in which water can exist in all three of its forms - gas, liquid, and solid (ice). Without liquid water, any kind of life is not possible.
The size of the parent star is crucial for the ability of that star to support life.
Large stars undergo rapid and unstable burning (extreme temperature variations), which cannot support life.
Stars increase in luminosity as they age.
For stars larger than our Sun have very short life spans (as short as a few million years).
Stars smaller than our Sun are not suitable to support life on planets.
Although these stars are able to undergo quite stabile burning for billions of years, their small mass requires that life-containing planets be much closer to the star. A Planets within the life zone have to be so close to the small star that the gravitational will causes the planet's rotational period to be reduced significantly, resulting in extremes of temperatures on the surface of these planets, which prohibits the survival of life.
The Solar System is unique in that the rocky inner planets are protected from comet bombardment by two large gas giants.
Scientists estimate that the Earth would receive approximately 1,000 times its current level of comet impacts if these planets were not where they are.
Such a large number of collisions would have prevented the existence of life on the Earth.
The Earth is protected from comets by two large, gas planets: Saturn and Jupiter which provides much of the protection of the Earth from comet bombardment.
In looking for planets of this size and distance from their stars, scientists have noted that Jupiter is a very unique planet in the universe.
All other gas giants found around stars are much closer to their star than Jupiter is.
In fact, most are closer to their star than the Earth is to the Sun.
If Jupiter were this close to our Sun, the Earth would have been ejected from the Solar System, along with all the other rocky planets.
It is believed that the unique arrangement of large and small planetary bodies in the solar system are required to ensure the stability of the system.
It seems very unlikely that stable planetary systems, in which a small earth-like planet resides in the habitable zone, exist in any other galaxy in our universe. This does not even consider the other design parameters that are required for life to exist anywhere in the universe.
The earth has a huge moon orbiting around it, which scientists now know 1) did not bulge off due to the earth's high rotational speed and 2) could not have been captured by the earth's gravity, due to the moon's large mass and the Earth's proximity to the Sun.
The presence of the moon is absolutely vital to the Earth's ability to host any kind of life.
Without the moon, the Earth would be a barren, scorched planet, similar to Venus.
The presence of the moon has kept the Earth's tilt consistent. In contrast, the axial tilt of the other planets has varied widely through the history of the Solar System. Why is axial tilt important?
A planet with a large axial tilt will experience extremes of temperature as the star shines predominantly on one portion of the globe.
The axial tilt is also designed to optimize the ability of the continents to support life.
The majority of the Earth's land mass is located north of the equator.
It just so happens that during the summer in the northern continents, the Earth is at its farthest distance from the Sun, which keeps the northern hemisphere cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter.
Earth is 20% more massive than Venus and further away from the Sun, both factors of which should have lead to a terrestrial atmosphere much thicker than that of Venus. For some strange reason, we have a very thin atmosphere just the right density to maintain the presence of liquid, solid and gaseous water necessary to life.
Scientific research is helping us to understand that the earth is unique in many ways, even compared to the other rocky planets in our Solar System.
The earth has a unique continental crust, which is different from any other planet in our Solar System (even Venus, our "sister planet").
Normally, during planet formation, the crust covers the entire planet.
Under these conditions, the crust cannot move, since there is no free space for it to do so.
However, because of tectonic activity, continents can exist on a planet that would normally be a water world. Without tectonic activity, our continents would have eroded into the large ocean, never to be seen again.
In fact, other planets with large amounts of water are always water worlds because of erosion.
The Earth has a large and heavy metallic core.
In fact, the Earth has the highest density of any of the planets in our Solar System. This large nickel-iron core is responsible for our large magnetic field. The magnetic field produces the Van-Allen radiation shield, which protects the Earth from radiation bombardment. If this shield were not present, life would not be possible on the Earth. The only other rocky planet to have any substantial magnetic field is Mercury - but its field strength is 100 times less than the Earth's.
Sorry about this long posting.
Even setting my faith aside and just being completely obejective about this world we live I have to beleive in a creator. How could all of the conditions that I have stated in the above discourse
have happen by chance?
Thats my opinion.
What do you think?
I do have faith and can also tell you from my personal encounters with God that he is real and loves us all.

Jillieann

What do I think...!  you ask...

Like you Jilleann I don't usually post to the spirituality forum, however I would just like to point out that the facts contained in your post are common arguments that are listed on and direct quotes from sites such as:

http://www.godandscience.org/love/sld004.html

http://www.reasons.org/

This argument along with many others on sites such as these are self serving and have been put together and contrived to be used by Christians as a counter to none-believers by interpreting scientific fact to agree with their beliefs.

Quote from: JilleannOnly 5% of all galaxies are spirals.
This is an important consideration for the existence of life, since life is only possible in spiral galaxies.

Of course you must mean life as we know it, life that populates our planet, as we have no idea what life forms populate the universe, and there are some who would say there are none.

Just my thoughts

Steph

That's a good point Stephanie. How do you interpreted scientific facts? Who should?

Is this a unique planet in our solar system, the galaxy, or as much of the universe as we know about? I think the answer is yes. That is all I was saying. 

Is there other life forms populate the universe?  Can there real be life without water or oxygen? Can something live in extreme cold or heat? The scientific community has spent billions of dollars and haven't found any clues yet of any other types of life.

I don't have answers for these questions.

All I know is that this world is the only one, okay I given in to this possibility, one of a few that can support our type of life.
I love science fiction too. Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon Five, Battlestar Galactica,..... but it is fiction not fact.

Jillieann

Quote from: Jillieann on February 26, 2006, 10:01:31 PM
That's a good point Stephanie. How do you interpreted scientific facts? Who should?

Is this a unique planet in our solar system, the galaxy, or as much of the universe as we know about? I think the answer is yes. That is all I was saying. 

Is there other life forms populate the universe?  Can there real be life without water or oxygen? Can something live in extreme cold or heat? The scientific community has spent billions of dollars and haven't found any clues yet of any other types of life.

I don't have answers for these questions.

All I know is that this world is the only one, okay I given in to this possibility, one of a few that can support our type of life.
I love science fiction too. Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon Five, Battlestar Galactica,..... but it is fiction not fact.

Jillieann

Jillian,

Try reading Rare Earth.  Much of what you have said is listed there.  I will warn you that this is NOT light reading.  I was able to get through about 10 pages at a time before I had to set the book down and think about what was just said.

What we know is that of the 129 other solar systems we have detected within about 450 light years of Earth, only one has its gas giants in the same relative place that Jupiter is in our solar system.  We just found a terrestrial planet, about 10 Earth masses, orbiting a "normal" star.  (Not a pulsar.)  We are JUST reaching the point where we can detect terrestrial planets around stars.  When we start getting atmospheric data, then we will have a better understanding of how rare life might be in our galaxy.

At the end of Rare Earth, the authors expand upon the equation used by Carl Sagan to describe how populated the galaxy is with complex life.  (not single cell life)  If I was optimistic, I came up with about 2 million possible planets in our galaxy with multicellular life.  If I was pessimistic, the equations gave me 130 planets in a galaxy of 400 billion stars.

Yes, life can flourish in extreme environments.  THey are called extremeophles.  Multicellular life thrives deep under the ocean, too deep for sunlight to reach, where there are active steam and hot water jets coming out of the ocean floor.  It was the extremophyles that restarted life after several mass extinctions of the last 4.55 billion years.

What gives me hope that there is life elsewhere in the galaxy comes from a photo taken by the Mars Rovers.  It didn't get much air play for some reason, but it should have.  It was a close-up of a sedimentary rock.  On the rock was what appeared to be a fossil of something that resembled lichen.

Chaunte

Chaunte you said that

QuoteI came up with about 2 million possible planets in our galaxy with multicellular life.

That is out of over 200 billion star in our own Milky Way Galaxy.
So I would say that if even half of those planets have some form of life they are still very special and have very  unique solar systems.

QuoteWhat gives me hope that there is life elsewhere in the galaxy comes from a photo taken by the Mars Rovers.  It didn't get much air play for some reason, but it should have.  It was a close-up of a sedimentary rock.  On the rock was what appeared to be a fossil of something that resembled lichen.

If NASA had found some evidence of life on Mars they announced it to the world so that  they could get more funding for the project and other projects related to finding life in space.

QuoteYes, life can flourish in extreme environments. 

I should have defined what I meant by extreme but there is no place on earth as extreme as most environments on the majority of planets that we know about in our galaxy.

There are just too many variable for a planet that can substance life. I still say that it is incredibly unlikely that life, no to mention intelligent life, could exist here or anywhere else without a creator.   

Jillieann

Quote from: JillieannThere are just too many variable for a planet that can substance life. I still say that it is incredibly unlikely that life, no to mention intelligent life, could exist here or anywhere else without a creator.   

Why would you say that, and why does "life" have to conform with our perception of it.  Actually I think that the chances of there being "Intelligent Life" created without a creator would be more viable

Steph

I think we will find life plentiful - as long as it is single celled.

Multicellular life will be harder to find, but not impossible.  Text such as the Bible, Torah and Quoran only apply to humans.  I know the Catholic church's stand is to NOT try and convert any alien life to our religious views.  (Take your pick!)

The better question is - Do we really want to be found?

Chaunte

Quote from: Jillieann on February 26, 2006, 10:01:31 PM
How do you interpreted scientific facts? Who should?

There is already a system in place for this, its called the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Its utterly fool proof (yet humans manage to make fools of themselves anyways . . . most recently with the stem cell thing and not too long ago, the "cold fusion" gaffe.)

Anyway, back on point. By examining evidence (or facts), scientists can propose theories or conduct studies or experiements based upon what they know (or what they've found out). If they are correct, REPLICATION (usually the same experiement conducted by other scientists elsewhere) will confirm it. In addition, future evidence can either confirm, or as it has often done so in the past, DISPROVE existing beliefs.

Now with the God thing, there is no evidence that can be examined, looked at or create theories from. Nor is there likely to be any evidence surfacing in the future that can be scientifically examined. Any "theories" proposed by people insisting of an existence of a supreme being cannot be tested and proved.

As a result, such theories have no more validity than the one in PBS's Dragon Tales that suggest kids "fly with dragons in a land apart" when parents are not watching.




Posted at: March 01, 2006, 02:05:25 AM

---

Quote from: Chaunte on February 28, 2006, 09:13:40 PM
The better question is - Do we really want to be found?

We've no choice in this . . . we've pretty much made ourselves the nosiest place in this part of the galaxy with the massive amount of RF that we've been blasting into outer space for some 80 years. Any intelligent civilization within 80 light-years (and counting) of us will know we're here as if we hit them over the head with a bat.

We DO however, have 2 mathematical limitation "advantages" to protect us from an immediate invasion . . . 1) the time to travel even 10 light years (approx closest star) with practical speed limitations factored in is longer than the length of our lifetimes (which gives us plenty of time to develop gamma ray weapons) and 2) any increase of speed to send a sizable army here quicker will require more energy than some star systems contain.


(but of course, any intelligent society could develop their own gamma ray weapon and fire it from their own planet and hit us as rapidly as we are hitting them with our RF garbage, silencing the racket we're making . . . hmm . . . now THAT'S something to lose sleep over.)

ps: RF is radio signals, television signals especially -- many (most?) TV station broadcasts approx 400,000 watts into space each. By comparsion, the tiny 1-watt Pioneer spacecraft transmitter, far beyond the outermost planet Pluto, could still be heard!

Hi Celia,
That is an excellent link    you can't read the postings there you have to study them.  I don't know at this stage who Alan Watts is?  a philosopher maybe??

rana

Quote1) the time to travel even 10 light years (approx closest star) with practical speed limitations factored in is longer than the length of our lifetimes (which gives us plenty of time to develop gamma ray weapons) and 2) any increase of speed to send a sizable army here quicker will require more energy than some star systems contain.

Ahh, but you are forgetting the possibility of using folded space or wormholes to travel these distances. Quantum physists claim these things to be theoretically possible. What if someone out there has put theory into practice. Think you can get that death ray working a little sooner?

Cassie

Rana,

A google on Alan Watts turns up this wiki page (among other things).  The specific Alan Watts reading I was referring to is The Book - On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are.

-Celia

Quote from: Cassandra Anna Hefton on March 01, 2006, 06:34:11 PM
Ahh, but you are forgetting the possibility of using folded space or wormholes to travel these distances. Quantum physists claim these things to be theoretically possible. What if someone out there has put theory into practice. Think you can get that death ray working a little sooner?

Cassie

True, but that would be cheating on their part wouldn't it? One would think a higher civilization would fight like gentlemen and not use nuclear weapons against a tribe throwing stones.

ps: the problem with gamma rays is that they pass through everything. As a result, we cannot aim these rays to specific targets. This may explain why we're still alive today!