i detect some religious undertomes in your reply....not that i care because we all have an opinion on the origin of man. perhpas this discussion will go on until the end of man, who knows.

after all the years of research, studies, philosphies, theories, guessing, etc i haven't seen any true facts come forward. so, it comes down to what each of us is willing to believe in or accept.

obviously, i won't convince you of my beliefs, nor will you convince me of yours, but it does make for great philosophical conversation...doesn't it?

i'm an atheist, and proud of it, so i look for things that i feel are more to the point, in other words, without blind faith. admittedly, some evolutionist's are merely guessing at some claims, but i feel that as science progresses, more facts will come to light.

this puts additional pressure on christianity. already they've gone from a simple "god created it...period" to now accepting evolution but with an "intelligent design" concept....as if to say, "ok, no matter what evolution may prove, it boils down to ID that started it all"

again, "faith" doesn't play a role in my life, so ID, for me, is out of the question.

A view from those who say yes, and those who say no.

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

We know that the big bang is the theory which we are all taught. I just find that I must question what I have been taught because so much of what has been taught has proven to be untrue.

CrimsonEagle

You guys are forgetting that all great ideas started as theories. I'm sure if we could go back a minutae in universal time, to a place not so distant from here, say earth when the first man to think of a god or gods to blame the birth of man on, and the planet on, was merely theorising a birth myth. Out of that also came a structure of lies that built over and over again until they had perfected that lie, to our present god like structure.

I always say that "Sometimes you have to worship the god you have, not the one you want." Be that as it may, like mga I don't wan't to regress into a theocratic discussion on the whereabouts of this black hole called belief, which like so many black holes, has been the birthplace of the concept of universal creations and other similtudes. The latest theories on string theory and dark matter are more closely related to what is measurably happening to the universe. It has been proven by measurements and nobel prizes(it can't be wrong, can it?) that the universe is expanding at an ever faster rate, so the old theories about a collapsing universe are no longer part of the mythology of eventuality. At the rate we're expanding, it is possible we may begin to move at the speed of light and so become a light beam ourselves. This is supposedly how Einstein first theorised about relativity- he imagined what it would be like to travel on a particle of light and what that would do.(gravity causing it to bend, etc.) Imagine if we were to discover that we would continue to increase in speed and found out that we can travel faster than the speed of light and shatter that myth like we did the sound barrier.

These are just mere limits that we set up to place challenges before us that we must break down. What we don't comprehend today may not be intended or possible to find out, but that's not going to stop us from challenging what we know and stepping over that barrier of what is unknown. This has always been our challencge, so why should we stop now? When we fail at something, we don't give up, we say "No that didn't work, but lets try this idea from it and extrapolate on those ideas. "

Why admit defeat when the real challenge is in failure and the ability to learn from it and start anew with a fresh approach.

Perhaps it wasn't the "Big Bang " as we theorise it, but another universe contacting ours and discharging energy between. Perhaps if we had an overview we'd see a genetic structure of cells that make contact constantly creating more universes, and it is a common thing? Maybe we're part of something bigger than we'll ever discover and so shouldn't really worry about it, that we're merely copies of something , say a genetic perrogative, that drives our every thought. The drive to know may be the thing we need, to develop intelligence in the end, so whatever it is we're to believe, we must either find a place of peace, or continue to quest for understanding until the day we no longer can do it. This may be our purpose and eventual meaning, so keep on thinking if you will, and if you no longer will, find a constant place of happiness and give up the search for meaning beyond yourself. Be content with the gods we've manufactured and don't bother thinking anymore.

Just say-"It's just too much damn work!", sit down and take a break. Or get up and do something about it. It's not that it's untrue, not until something else has been proven, right? Baby steps.

Actually, there is a lot more proof to back up an approach of some type of moderating intellegence in the universe than there is to back up a pure athiest's arguments, but that isn't the point. There is no proof for or against, and atheism is a BELIEF. To say that a spiriutuality is a lie, or a belief in a lie is way outr of bounds, dude. Off hand, I would say that atheism hasn't taught you much about tolerence and compassion.



There is no proof the universe is expanding. There is a ton of conflicting evidence, actually. It appears to be expanding, that is a theory, not a fact. Although I don't really find much satisfaction in the static universe theory, it has a sizable amount of evidence, and many very respectable astronomers consider it *more likely* than expansion. Further, the eventuality of every atomic particle in the universe being as far apart as it can get (the cold death of the universe) is still a theory. This will lead to a collapsing universe. Faster than light travel must be possible, since there is no planet with life anywhere near our vicinity, and we have been visited at least once, and no one is likely to travel for thousands of years on the off chance of finding something interesting. Current research aims to create a way to *abolish mass*, since it is mass that creates the barrier. Some experiments have already been done that have possibly lowered mass. We are still many centuries away from the kind of power we would need to manifest this on anything larger than a sub atomic particle, but none the less, 50 years ago a computer cost several million dollars, so who knows what will happen in 100 years.



Absolutely. Truth is a relative phrase. There is no universal truth, no fact that exists in all places at all times. There are only possibility waves that collapse when a certain energy level is reached. Miracles happen every day (actually, 4 times a day) and every one of them is within the eventual reach of reasoning. Magic is only science that hasn't been explained.

Alk-

Proof? What proof? Show us your proof. What "A lot more proof"? At one point you speak of truth here, then you throw out more fluff bullshit. Atheism is a belief structure, that is correct, based in what is to be believed. Just because one doesn't believe the absurd notions put forward by the present consentual god being, doesn't mean one sees things the way it's structured for one to believe things. Don't tell me you believe the absurd little fairy tales in the bible? I don't see where a tiny mind like yours, as some kind of moral accounting judge gets off on thinking somehow you hold some kind of degree in truth judging. Thats like saying you have learned how to judge truth by believing the bullshit the bible spews, as if it has some merit in truth. Talk about no tolerance and compassion. You think Capitalism is tolerant and compassionate. Hah ha ha. Now that would be a miracle.

Alk-

Gee no proof. The only non proof is your absurd statements based on no proof. More Fluff. The only thing that can be proven to be non proof is the bible. Based on total faith and hope in the absurd.

Google in "Expanding universe dark matter". You only get "Results 1 - 10 of about 1,690,000 for Expanding universe dark matter. (0.53 seconds)." Man, What is the contents of your brains? Kidneys?

Alk-

Miracles happen at a fixed rate? Something to do with quantum mechanics and the law of averages? Where do you get your facts from? A cracker jack box? 4 times a day? More filler? What gives?

Try saying something somewhat realistic if you're going to post, not something based on faith and hope.

Alkemi: proof is what one wants to believe. a bible, for example, is not proof to me, whereas for another, it may be all they need.

i am not religious, so my "proof" comes more from the scientific comminity, rather than the religious sect. this is, perhaps, what makes us different, but, at the same time, this is what makes both sides strive for facts.

Perhaps *proof* was a bad choice, lets go with *evidence*, instead, and accept my apology for a rashly chosen phrase. From my point of view, the atheist has a hard row to hoe, actually. The more deeply we uncover reality, the more there seems to be some sense of order. In the last decades even the realm of choas has been revealed as layers of order. For the atheist, this comes down to the Turing test. How can you be sure that the order is the result of random factors and the usual and expected abberations of chaos, and not directed, even if that direction is no more than the input a simple fractal formula? Simply put, there is no test. While I tended towards atheism in my younger years, I cannot manage it anymore. I have to admit, the order present in the Universe may have a conscious source, and that is, in its most basic form, a definition of God.

While there is a great deal of research being done around such issues, as well as a great deal of philisophical and theoretical writing on it in the popular press ("The Tao of Physics", "The Dancing Wu Li Masters", Dr. Wolf's most excellent "Taking the Quantum Leap", etc), I find the most concise work is in the theories put forth in David Bohm's research on implicit and explicit orders, as well as his work on non-locality, a response to the EPR paradox. To me, some of it has so much in common with Taoist thought that I can agree with Josephson, who said of it (if it proves accurate, much of it has yet to be tested) , at the very least, it seemed to be on the verge of putting the concept of consciousness into a scientific framework. His work, though largely theoretical in nature, has been variously vilified and praised by his peers. He has attracted such names as Einstein (who praised his "Quantum Mechanics" as the best description of the subject), Paul Davis, and Nobel winner Brian Josephson. His work is not to be taken lightly, and the implications of his work, particularly his theory of implicit order, are astounding, especially in light of recent developments in Superstring and Chaos Theory. While not an easy book his *Wholeness and the Implicit Order* is simply inspiring to anyone who is interested in the concepts it presents.

If there is some interest I would be glad to summerize his work, I am actually quite familiar with it.

The problem, for me, comes down to what IS God? My definition is *the consciousness that directs the order of the Universe* and so, if Science were to discover,for instance, that all the order of the Universe was based on a fractal formula, or based on the same type of ordering as DNA is in life (my favored theory), this would fill my definition of God ( I believe it would do likewise for the Taoist). I don't imagine God is or even COULD be an entity that can be addressed, I agree with Jim on that one ("You can not petition the Lord with Prayer"). God is, to me, a concept that expresses the order implied by the Universe, the singular *universal truth* if you will allow it.

The theory of an expanding universe is just that, a theory. It stands beside the theory of a static universe, and both are, as I said, theories. I don't care if you get every web page on the internet saying otherwise. In fact, I just posted a link on a thread of comments in favor of a static universe, which pointed out the top 10 problems with an expanding universe. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that the expanding Universe theory is more satisfying, but it is still just a theory. Sorry.

The rate at which miracles occur is an average of reported events. It has been variously reported (even in the MSM) but I think Talbot's work on Holographic theory has a fair bit of evidence in it. Dossey covers it in his books ad nauseaum, as well as that moron Weil. They count as *miracles* spontanious remission and or healing (like the guy who went from full blown dying of pneumonia AIDS to HIV negative in something like a week, I have met and talked to this person PERSONALLY as well as reviewed his history, and its true, he did heal a most serious condition). A miracle is anything that is *unnatural* or *supernautral* according to our current view of the physical world. I am not implying it will always be so. Some day these *miracles* may be daily events, as common place as "take two Motrin and call me in the morning", but as of today science has NO IDEA what happened. And I am unwilling to discount anything, the fact is we don't KNOW what happened.

By the way, feel free to leave out the insults. They add nothing to your arguments, and mostly make you look immature. I invite you to question, to be skeptical, be angry, whatever spins your wheels, but some of your comments go over the line, and I really find them uncalled for.

First let me apologize. I did not expect this thread to revert from the theory of the universe to theology. In hindsight, I can see why this may happen though. This thread has seemed to move from the stance of theoretical thinking and alternate possibilities to a stance of rigidity on one point of view or another. It kind of reminds me of the days in history past when if you stated something that was contrary to the accepted beliefs in the church, you would be labeled as a heretic and imprisoned or murdered if you refused to relent and accept what they believed.

I posted the possibility that the big bang theory was wrong because there ARE so many holes in that theory, and I think that we have to look at all things from as many points of view as possible. I feel that if we do not attempt to do this, if we become rigid in one belief instead of fluid with possibilities, we in the long run lose out on the ultimate truth. How long in history did people believe that the earth was flat because of this rigidity? How long were people certain that the earth was the center of the solar system and everything rotated around it? Yes, we have come a long way, but it seems that we have such a long way to go.

Alkemi wrote

I realize that some on this board are atheists. I do respect that even if I do believe that this belief system has the same rigidity as the church. This rigidity I do understand though. You would like proof, one way or the other. This is something I do and can respect.
Myself, I think that the *universal truth* is probably the closest concept of my belief in *God* that I have ever heard anyone state. On the surface this statement may seem small, but the undertones are so vast that the mind has a hard time comprehending. I am not one to believe that *God* is some mythical separate being who sits on a throne in some mythical heaven. I believe that *God* is here, and has been here all along, but somewhere along the way, we chose to separate ourselves from *God* and this has lead to the fractured dogmatic beliefs of the various religions around the world.

As I stated, this is MY belief. I am not trying to *convert* someone who is an atheist. If anything, I think that you are closer to the truth than what the churches teach. I also believe that this belief IS based on reality, not on faith. This is also a profound statement, if you care to take the time to really think on it.

Well, that is about all I have to say. Have at me ladies and gentlemen.
I think I should change my name to,

The Fool

not a big deal, crimson....most philosophical discussions always turn to religion, and i don't begrudge anyone for using their interpretation of "god" during such conversations, as long as they don't start preaching.

alkemi was really good about not doing that and merely stated what his belief of "god" was and how it applied to his viewpoint. again, not a problem.

not to repeat myself, but for me, no god or spiritual being exists, and likewise, no devil, angels, ghosts, etc etc exist either. so, when i look for man's origin or the beginning of time itself, i tend to follow those that are more scientific.

i am well aware that both religion and science can be flawed, but i tend to believe what i can touch, feel and see rather than what i may "think" might be "up there". so far in my life i have not seen god, angels or the devil for that matter. but that's just me......

Hey Crimson Eagle, no worries. The turth only reveals itself to those who seek it. To question and probe is the very nature of learning.

True, we rarely know where our questions will lead in an open discussion, but then again that may be half the adventure in searching. In Doug Adams' *mystery* "The Long Dark Tea Time of the Soul" the hero, Dirk Gently, tells of a strange behavior he has when he becomes lost. He simply looks for a car that looks as though it knows where it is going and follows it. When questioned about it his reply is "While I rarely get to where I was trying to get to, I usually find I get right where I need to be."

Reality is a strange beast, and every day it seems to get stranger. You have the likes of Bohr running around saying that reality is only there is you are looking at it, and the rest of the time is nothing more than a probability bubble waiting to be observed. That is is, in fact exactly the Maya (reality is an illusion) that the ancients of the east said it was.

All of us are seeking the answer to the ultimate question (Life, the Universe and Everything) and I am currently of the opinion that Adams is right, its 42, and we don't know what the question is.

I tend towards the belief that the universe is expanding, because, even though the theory is flawed, it has yet to be examined in light of such theories as are coming out in quantum mechanics and super string theory. Astronomy is itself to blame for this with their feeling that the very big doesn't obey the rules of the very small. I find this stance unsatisfactory, but there is no proof I am right, or wrong. Even science is a belief system. Kurt Gödel's theory on the incompleteness of Whitehead's Mathematics must extend to all logical systems. Buckminister Fuller pointed out that even a statment as innoculous as 1+1=2 is open to interpretation, and that it only works in arithmetic. In plane geometry one can put forward a very good argument that 1+1=4, and in solid geometry 1+1=8! In real life we all experience the notion that 1+1=3 (a man and a woman who create a baby). If you want the nitty gritty on this, check out Fuller's book "Synergetics", seeing how some people like everything but their own narrow opinion sourced.

To be sure Cosmology invites questions of causation, and brings up the problem of Intellegent Design vs Random Chaos Design (or lack thereof). I am actually on neither side of this fence, although in my later years I have to admit a tendency towards Intellegent Design. There are some good arguments for a creative factor in cosmology, and Intellegent Design is not what the Christians are painting it to be (Biblical Creationism). The reductionists are as much to blame for this as the Christians. It is up to them to counter the claims of the Christian Creationists with the more sound Intellegect Design theories that actually form the main thread in the scientific community. They might do well to stop vilifying people who are involved in this research and actually listen to them, or at the very least grant them a bit of peer review. The current pratice of simply ignoring the mass of evidence is doing them more harm than good, IMHO. Even in the face of an astounding amount of data that points to something interesting (the presence of *something interesting* is the scientific term for "we should probably take a closer look at this, it is beyond the realm of random chance"), they remained locked in their *God is an entity, agnosticism is just another religion, and we cannot bring any notion of God into science* mode of thinking, never contemplating that it is equally likely that *God* may be something we have yet to even imagine.

Keep searching, my friend, and keep asking. Never be sorry for where your questions take you, be like our hero Dirk, and simply know, in all likelihood, you will end up where you need to be.

While, on the whole, I agree with this, here is an interesting little tale that anyone has yet to explain to my satisfaction.

While I was in college a girl friend of mine was doing some research for a project and invited me to accompany her on a visit to a *haunted house*. Her reason for asking me was quite simply that I would be SO skeptical of the notion, it would be hard to get any type of ruse past me.

We went to visit an elderly woman who told us that in the time since her husband's death (several years) he remained in the house *waiting for her*. Her story was that he was a man of some habit, and it was, in fact, his habits that remained. She said he came home from work, rocked in a rocking chair until dinner, rocked some more thru the evening, and at a certain time went to bed.

This is what we observed. At more or less the time he would have gotten home, a solid and completley average in every way rocking chair began to move, and continued to slowly rock for a while, then stopped. After a time it resumed. At precisely the appointed time it stopped again, and there was an ordered creaking that sounded like someone going up the stairs (no individual, or indeed entity of any kind was observed, I looked). The sound continued to go down the hall and was followed by a creaking of the bed springs in an upstairs bedroom.

My friend, during the rocking, asked if it would be alright for her to sit in the chair, and when she did she reported that it was a very uncomfortable feeling, as though she were invading something, or somewhere she shouldn't be, She also reported that it was difficult to stop the rocking, so hard, in fact, it fatigued her muscles, and she had to stop trying to stop it, at which point it would resume.

Both of us felt that wierd feeling you get when someone is looking at you from behind the entire time.

The woman, far from being frightened, seemed comforted by it.

We interviewed many people who had seen it many times. Her daughter (who was frightened) and neighbors, visitors, and some people who had come merely to see it. We developed a decent time map that it had happened regualrly for years.

My first big objection to the experience was telekenisis, and the woman was doing it all herself, but both of us agreed it wasn't satisfactory, because we felt the presence, and one of us (me) was completely ready to doubt that as evidence. And besides, the evidence of this level of behavior is extremely rare, and not usually so abrupt in its beginnings or so regular in its manifestations.

Now, I have no idea what I witnessed, other than an old woman comforted in her life by something.

Also, check out this web site. It is also very hard to explain.

http://www.ghostpix.com/

These guys have been debunkled to the nth degree, and what they are doing is, to the limit we can test it, legit, at least in that they are honestly presenting their collected data without overtly creating it behind the scenes.

As I said earlier, there is *something interesting* going on here.

Before you go off on a rant, I have no opinion one way or the other. I simply see this as *something interesting*, and maybe you will, too.

so, how does a ghost, who has no physical mass, therefore no weight, move a solid object such as the rocking chair? also, how does this same "ghost", without weight or mass, have the ability to creak steps?

i'm not doubting your claim to this story, as, you claim you were there and you are an eyewitness. i wasn't there, but i have to doubt ghost stories because i can't see how an alleged form without any mass can move objects.

if "ghosts" can somehow move objects, then i would have to imagine there would be many more phenomena related to ghosts going on.

Wow, I outright love this statement.

I have no idea. I reported my experience as accurately as I could remember it. I have to admit, ghosts are pretty far down on my reading list (because like you I consider there to be more *interesting topics*).

I merely pointed it out because it is in my experience.

I guess, on first thought, I would say that it is possible that motion, as we consider it, is not as mass based as we might think given the evidence of our senses. Perhaps, in some way, the motion was part not of an *action* as much as a *state*. For example, suppose this entity (if there is one to consider at all) was part of each event, inside the structure, dispersed throughout the fabric of space/time, at least in that localized sense. Then its not so much movenemt we are seeing, in the sense of being moved, as it is a state of being in motion (like water flowing downhill, which is a bad example since it uses gravity, but maybe you see the point). I think a better analogy would be an echo or shadow embedded in the space time of that house.

But as I said, I have no fricking idea.

Reality is so much trippier than the best drugs.