patrick.net

leoj707 says

Dan8267 says

The universal constants might be different, but the other universes would still have natural, not supernatural laws. If there is any connection between our universe and the others, which is to say those other universes bear any meaning to us, then they would form a multiverse system...

My understanding is that the universe includes everything that we can experience (touch, see, measure, etc.). If there was another "universe" out there --and we could prove that it existed-- would it not then become a "part" of our universe?

That is what I would say. And in terms of the commonality of religious thought there are small points at which the transcendent becomes immanent. Like an Avatar in Hinduism--the supernatural pushes through the membrane that separates this world and that.

Verifiable? No. But I'd say without the tools to understand the other side of the membrane how would we know? Couldn't it be akin to Climate change deniers looking out their windows and "disproving" the science? We lack the tools.

But from an analytical and psychological/sociological perspective, the mystics seem to have the same experiences throughout recorded history. They have similar themes and mythologies.

We can disregard them as collective nonsense or primitive thought. We can surmise that they must've learned this from some migrating group (or space aliens!). Or we can believe that they've experienced something extra-ordinary. I don't think we can dismiss it out of hand though.

CL says

Verifiable? No. But I'd say without the tools to understand the other side of the membrane how would we know? Couldn't it be akin to Climate change deniers looking out their windows and "disproving" the science? We lack the tools.

No, it is not like climate change. We have tools to measure and "prove" climate change, and the issue is simple enough that even a layman (who does not have an opposing agenda) can understand the science.

You are however correct that we do not have the tools to detect this "membrane".

CL says

But from an analytical and psychological/sociological perspective, the mystics seem to have the same experiences throughout recorded history. They have similar themes and mythologies.

We can disregard them as collective nonsense or primitive thought. We can surmise that they must've learned this from some migrating group (or space aliens!). Or we can believe that they've experienced something extra-ordinary. I don't think we can dismiss it out of hand though.

Yes, the mystical experience is a very real thing that people experience as part of the human condition, and not limited to "the mystics". It can be very similar for most people, but there are some who the experience is different or perhaps they don't have them at all. If you are capable of having this mystical experience you probably know by the time you are an adult.

Many religions will claim that they hold the true keys to having this mystical experience, but they do not. Yes, some may even claim that a space alien called Xenu is part of the mystical experience. I don't think that there is anything extra-ordinary going on, no super powers involved. In fact so many people seem to have these mystical experiences --even without drugs-- that it is very... well... ordinary...

It is just often difficult for people to explain some things that happen to them. Imagine if you were walking down the street and your leg suddenly gave out; you don't know the cause, and the doctor you consult can't tell why. A mystery yes, but extra-ordinary no.

leoj707 says

It is just often difficult for people to explain some things that happen to them. Imagine if you were walking down the street and your leg suddenly gave out; you don't know the cause, and the doctor you consult can't tell why. A mystery yes, but extra-ordinary no.

Right. In the case of the Climate Change non-believer, they believe they have the tools to determine, without science, whether or not such a phenomenon is occurring. It's really politically motivated hubris.

But for most of the world who picks sides, they don't have the scientific background, education or understanding even to determine which scientist is correct. That's why we on the left find solace in the fact that 10s of thousands of research scientists, the overwhelming majority- have come to that conclusion. We don't actually participate in the studies, we believe in those who have, honor the results, and incorporate their findings into our worldviews.

Now, regarding the mystics. If they claim to have the true keys, I'd say that's when they've broken down into tribalism, and tithe-seeking. :)

CL says

Now, regarding the mystics. If they claim to have the true keys, I'd say that's when they've broken down into tribalism, and tithe-seeking. :)

Haha, yes, I say that falls into this category:
CL says

That's why the Tao says, "Those who know don't say, those who say don't know".

With all the different ideas floating around it is difficult to know what in the bible is true. If only there was some sort of business --that could say charge me a subscription fee based on my salary-- that would tell me what is true.

leoj707 says

My understanding is that the universe includes everything that we can experience (touch, see, measure, etc.). If there was another "universe" out there --and we could prove that it existed-- would it not then become a "part" of our universe?

Your question is one of semantics rather than science. If you define "universe" to be everything, then yes. If you define "universe" to be everything that resulted from the big bang, then maybe no. If you prefer the later definition for universe, then you can use the multiverse or the cosmos to mean the entire system of everything.

There was a time when we thought the Milky Way galaxy was the entire universe. We then corrected our view by creating the word galaxy to mean our island of star systems and interstellar gas.

If a structure larger than that which resulted from the big bang is discovered, then perhaps we will redefine universe to include that larger structure. Or perhaps we will use a new word. Either way, it is simply a question of semantics and does not bear any deeper meaning.

Recently, the astronomical community already had a long and pointless debate about whether or not to consider Pluto a planet. Science doesn't require rigid categorization. Only human language does.

Jung

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M6ZakIPaQ4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UO5roM3wnGg&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icDc4Om71ns&feature=related

One of my sisters honestly believes that the "original" bible is being held in a safe somewhere... I tried to explain that there is no "original" bible; it's be transcribed over & over by man and changed along the way.

For all we know, it might have started out:

"I never thought this could happen to me, but there I was..."

elliemae says

One of my sisters honestly believes that the "original" bible is being held in a safe somewhere... I tried to explain that there is no "original" bible; it's be transcribed over & over by man and changed along the way.

For all we know, it might have started out:

"I never thought this could happen to me, but there I was..."

Eschew Obfuscation

Your sister's faith is no worse than the common faith that default human condition is staying healthy instead of the fact the being alive is simply decay/cancer/death waiting to happen. If the faith in salvation helps her embrace the eventual demise when the time comes, instead of demanding that other people being enslaved to keep her alive for just one more breath, so much the better for all involved. It is not mere coincidence that all Judeo/Christian/Islamic religions believe in "salvation" after life while eastern traditional religions like Bhuddism believe that life is suffering and death puts an end to that (or reincarnate or whatever). Both seem to be far more efficient and cause less suffering than our current religion of hooking people up for just one more breath no matter what the cost both to the suffering and dying person as well as everyone else (except for the high priests marketing the promise of cure for anything and everything at ludicrous prices)

elliemae says

One of my sisters honestly believes that the "original" bible is being held in a safe somewhere... I tried to explain that there is no "original" bible; it's be transcribed over & over by man and changed along the way.

Yes Ellie! There's a lot of people who think the original Bible fell out of the sky into the lap of a Saint, or that there is a Blessed Original hiding in some vault in a Monastery or in a desert cave guarded by some Ancient Order of Knights or some such..

Clearly, there can be no "original Bible" anyway, since it contains multiple books written down over thousands of years, and that doesn't even take the New Testament into consideration.

The NT was written over a long period too, had countless authors and then was edited/redacted to form the Canon. What went in? What didn't measure up?

Also, if you are familiar with the way the Hebrew scriptures weaved the different stories together it's really interesting. There are literally lines by one school, followed by lines from another. Sometimes stitched together in a single sentence!

That said, to quote National Lampoon, "I believe the Bible is literally true; I don't, however, base much importance on it".

Clearly Shrek is not dead. He lives on in the spirit of Mars Attacks.

Therefore this thread is moot and should be locked/deleted, aside from it's pointless current wandering in the desert.....

Dan8267 says

Your question is one of semantics rather than science.

Yeah, I suspected it may have just been a semantic issue, thanks.

Vicente says

Clearly Shrek is not dead. He lives on in the spirit of Mars Attacks.

Therefore this thread is moot and should be locked/deleted, aside from it's pointless current wandering in the desert.....

“Eagles are dandified vultures” - Teddy Roosevelt

You talking reincarnation here?

Good point though, last time shrek was discussed at all is pretty far up this thread.

leoj707 says

Dan8267 says

Your question is one of semantics rather than science.

Yeah, I suspected it may have just been a semantic issue, thanks.

Oh, so now you guys are anti-semantic? :)

CL says

Oh, so now you guys are anti-semantic? :)

No, some of my best friends are gerunds.

CL says

Clearly, there can be no "original Bible"

Actually, I have a copy of the original bible. It's just like the modern bible, but it has one additional page at the beginning. That page reads,

The events, characters, and gods depicted in this work are fictitious. Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, or to actual events or gods is purely coincidental.

While we are on the subject of Bible, I find it a rather interesting reading as retelling of history . . . much as the Homerian poetic chronicles. Much of the issues addressed in the Bible actually have parallels to modern life. e.g.:

Jesus was obviously involved in a period of tax revolt ("give Caesar his own coin") and revolt against religio-fiat money monopoly ("the money changers" charging much higher price than metal content for special coins without icons vs. the Roman coins with icons).

The Old Testament was even more fascinating. Joseph could have been one of earliest Keynesian counter-cyclical interventionists. In order for the Pharoh government to store up 7years of grain surplus, obviously the government had to offer above-market price to buy grain . . . which would have caused over-planting and over-production. i.e. an agro bubble! We can surmise what happened to the farm land price under such circumstances. Eventually the agro bubble bursted after 7years. Joseph's agents were buying up assets on the cheap during the subsequent bust (as explained in the Old Testament). The average Egyptians probably were not too happy about this. Joseph's merry band of central planners were chased out Egypt within 2-3 generations. In the Egyptian records, there was the Pharoh Akhenaten/Moses starting a new religion in a new capital, probably because the Egyptian polytheistic religious establishment providing the leadership to the general popular discontent to the Pharoh/state economic machinations.

Takes a brave Christian to believe their bible is a fallible, human-created and -edited document with no actual divine guarantee of correctness.

Got into an interesting discussion with a fundamentalist friend some years ago, one of my points was why does Paul get the last word on what Christianity is today.

I know for a fact that given the choice, a lion will prefer to eat a Moslim over a Christian. That's all I really know on the subject of religion. I prefer opium to be the opiate of the underclass.

Bellingham Bob says

Takes a brave Christian to believe their bible is a fallible, human-created and -edited document with no actual divine guarantee of correctness.

Got into an interesting discussion with a fundamentalist friend some years ago, one of my points was why does Paul get the last word on what Christianity is today.

“Nessuna soluzione . . . nessun problema!„

The New Testament is filled with flat-out contradictions, like the origins of the "field of blood".

But I find the most humor in the idea that Moses wrote the Torah, on accounta he died in it, and was alone when he died!

Although, Noah getting drunk and dropping trou in front of his daughters is pretty darn funny too!

CL says

But I find the most humor in the idea that Moses wrote the Torah, on accounta he died in it, and was alone when he died!

Torah and much of Old Testament were an oral tradition before Ezra put it down in writing after the return from Babylonian exile. One can read the anti-Egyptian / pro-Persian bias in the writing. Ezra was an agent of the Persian King/Emperor to set up an anti-Egyptian outpost at the land bridge between Africa and Asia.

Reality says

CL says

But I find the most humor in the idea that Moses wrote the Torah, on accounta he died in it, and was alone when he died!

Torah and much of Old Testament were an oral tradition before Ezra put it down in writing after the return from Babylonian exile. One can read the anti-Egyptian / pro-Persian bias in the writing. Ezra was an agent of the Persian King/Emperor to set up an anti-Egyptian outpost at the land bridge between Africa and Asia.

I've suspected, but not researched, that Judaism took on the dualism of Zorastrianism while in captivity.

Do you think that's plausible, or do you think that Ezra made Satan into Angra Mainyu? Either way, Shrek is dead. ;)