Through The Wormhole: Is There A Creator?

Ratings: 8.18/10 from 170 users.

Through The Wormhole – Is There A Creator?It's perhaps the biggest, most controversial mystery in the cosmos. Did our Universe just come into being by random chance, or was it created by a God who nurtures and sustains all life?

The latest science is showing that the four forces governing our universe are phenomenally finely tuned. So finely that it had led many to the conclusion that someone, or something, must have calibrated them; a belief further backed up by evidence that everything in our universe may emanate from one extraordinarily elegant and beautiful design known as the E8 Lie Group.

While skeptics hold that these findings are neither conclusive nor evidence of a divine creator, some cutting edge physicists are already positing who this God is: an alien gamester who's created our world as the ultimate SIM game for his own amusement. It's an answer as compelling as it is disconcerting.

This is the first episode. See the list of all episodes here: Through The Wormhole. Available only in United States.

More great documentaries

1,589 Comments / User Reviews

  1. What I like about this documentary (episode 1 in particular) is it's 'creators' ability to express many different perspectives, drawing parallels of logic, thus validating different ideas,(possibilities) without condemnation or judgment for those who are capable of thinking differently, and for themselves!

  2. I recently listened to a series of lectures from The Modern Scholars Series delivered by Peter Kreeft of Boston College. The first was a history of moral thought entitled "What would Socrates Do?" which was very illuminating. Next however, I listened to his lectures on the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas which I found much more enlightening. I had read the Clift Notes version of Aquinas' five proofs for the existence of God and although I found them helpful, it was not until I listened to Professor Kreeft explain them one by one, tying them each together, that I really came to appreciate their genius. In fact, one of the objections to God's existence made by the SurferDude was easily answered by Aquinas more than 700 years ago. In fact, now that I reflect on it, Aquinas' proofs could have answered more than one of these physicists' theological challenges.

    I know its common to believe that pure logic is no longer an infallible source of proof in the face of the paradoxes, etc., revealed by quantum theory, however, when there are no definitive arguments against a logical proposition or proof, it provides a powerful support for an idea that cannot be logically denied.

    In addition, if you are interested, check out George Gilder's new book Knowledge and Power, on how information theory will change both economics and the theory of evolution (I'm not sure how re evolution. I haven't gotten that far in the book).

  3. big bang theory is garbage, if everything came from one tiny point then exploded into the entire universe then what is the universe expanding into? gods bowl of cereal?

    1. and as for GOD, most people will make fun of you if you say you saw a UFO witch could just be top secret aircraft by the way. then they go to a fancy building on sunday and pay money to pray to a man they have never seen who they think floats around in outer space wearing sandals and a man dress, wise bunch....time to start thinking out of the box i would say folks

  4. Either God wills to remove evil from the world, and cannot; or he can, and will not; or he neither wills nor can; or finally he wills and can. If he wills and cannot, he is impotent; if he can and will not, he is wicked; if he neither wills nor can, he is wicked and impotent at the same time; if he can and wills, why does evil exist?

    Either God wishes to do away with evil in this world and cannot succeed; or he can do away with it and does not wish to; or he cannot and does not wish to; or finally, he wishes to and can. If he wishes to but has not the power, he is not all-powerful. If he has the power to do away with evil and does not wish to, he is not infinitely good. If, as affirm the deists, he can and wants to, tell me, then, why does evil exist on earth, and why does not God make it impossible?

    Epicurus, 342-270 B.C.

    1. I think you can not call someone/something God at the first place if you could attach 'can not' with his/its abilities... The point is if he exists he wants things to go this way... His existence no doubt has been the most controversial question in the history of world. May be thats exactly what he wants. To be discussed, analyzed and be the center of attention. And then separate people who believe in him and who don't. As the God says as per my religion: "I was a hidden treasure and when I desired to be known I created human". Humans who have a sense of judgement and even deny the existence of God.

      And If there is evil in the world there is a concept of life after death too. Don't just assume that majority of the world are just fools. Alien gamester is a very interesting terminology that might be an answer to these questions...

    2. You said: "The point is if he exists he wants things to go this way... "
      Well that is your opinion. But there is simply no real measurable evidence of a 'god', only supposition. All 'god' stories are nothing but guesswork, what each person thinks 'god' is or means. Would a real god not simply show up and take command of its creation? How does one believe in a god that manifests as three gods, the Jewish, Muslim and Christian gods? We find three religions claiming the same 'god', a god which has written three different 'holy' books, books that tell the believers to kill one another. We know from mythology that humans have created gods from the very beginning, why should one be the true god and the others not. God really needs to show up.....

  5. The 'Fine Tuning' argument is simply nonsense. Our universe has evolved, all of the elements of the universe have evolved together, so there is only one way it could be, i.e. the way it is. There are no other possibilities.

    And to believe in the Christian god is to believe in a god that can watch his earthly servants, the priests and pastors and such, physically violate the defenseless children put in their care, and never get punished for it. The children often are maimed for life, but the priests and pastors are quietly moved to another parish where they continue their disgusting behavior. If your 'god' can't smite these characters for such a crime, then he's no god at all, but a figment of your imagination.

  6. Mhm i'd rather watch yoda in starwars than this...

    1. They can't because they aren't the ones experiencing it. Spiritual
      experiences are very personal, like our own feelings for everybody we
      connect with.

  7. creator or not i do not see how a self respecting scientist can become a priest, taking the bible at face value when there is so much wrong with it morally and logically

    1. you need to explain do you think the bible is immoral

    2. More than 90% of the world population believes in God and they represent a big variety of religions. We are discussing God here not Bible or Christianity...

    3. You're making several assumptions there. Also, just because you can't see how doesn't mean he can't. Perhaps if you could see the world as he does, which of course, you can't, you would come to the conclusion he did.

  8. It's funny how science try to minimize the powerful spiritual experiences people have as "provoked by the brain/mind". Of course the brain would react to them physically! All of our body and mind responds to everything we feel/experience on Earth. That includes mystical experiences, sensations and visions coming from other planes. No one but us know what we saw/felt. The scientists try to quantify and observe the physical manifestations of what we felt, but it cannot go deeper. They can't because they aren't the ones experiencing it. Spiritual experiences are very personal, like our own feelings for everybody we connect with.

    1. The Dalai Lama is a pretty spiritual guy, and he finds no conflict between his Buddhist philosophy and the breakthroughs science is making. In fact, he sees it as reinforcing the Buddhist view of reality.

    2. I agree and though I am a Christian it also can reinforce my belief too

    3. The human mind while mysterious is understood to some extent, i understand being defensive about spirituality as I'm guessing you yourself have had spiritual experiences and found them immensely important. But that doesn't mean they were important, or that any of it actually makes sense when explained to other people. You maintain that they are personal and other people can't understand your experiences yet say it in the third person, I'm putting it in second person because using third person means you are most likely including yourself without thinking about it. A lot of the time, when we feel powerful emotions we immediately assume that the situation is important. We then use the importance of the situation to explain the emotions. As you can see this leads to people thinking that perhaps benign things such as meaningful song lyrics while dancing, rain falling after a breakup. We have what we call a spiritual experience, suddenly we think we have become a more whole person from these experiences. LSD would be a very common example, i often see people exaggerate their experiences when they are young and naive. I even see experienced users fall into the trap of perceiving the ideas they came to on a psychedelic drug as resembling the truth. "We are all connected" However the sentence is only half finished and two people feeling connected over sentences like this are most likely thinking of two different things. They are the opposite of connected, the only similarity they share is the drug they took. They haven't found an inner truth of the world and the more they believe it the more fragmented their perception of reality becomes. Understanding the world comes from years of science study, no matter how much acid you eat your spiritual experiences will never lead you to the truth of the world, much like praying, lucid dreaming or anything that is not based on truth but emotions. Emotions lie, humans lie, humans misinterpret, so as scientists we look at things like spiritual experiences to further our understanding of the human brain. Unfortunately their are idiots in science too, this documentary series is mostly mainstream bite size bullshit for the scientifically challenged. I think its designed to give people an interest in science, more likely though they made it for TV Ratings.

  9. Religion fills in the gaps of our knowlegde and gives people a sence of comfot and belonging. To proclaim that "there is no God" will just make people feel helpless. So personally, I can tell people I believe in God because i beleive that faith is an important part of human society. To tell believers there is no God is selfish.

    1. i know very few people that claim "there is no god". but to try to show others that there is no demonstrable proof for a specific god is not "selfish" it is honest. you see no harm in claiming "I can tell people I believe in God because i beleive that faith is an important part of human society." then why cannot others claim that they do not believe because nobody has been able to back up their god claims with sufficient evidence? and i disagree that religious faith is an important part of modern human society.

    2. Show demonstrable proof "that religion fills in the gaps of our (sic)knowlegde and gives people a (sic)sence of comfort and belonging."

      Show demonstrable proof that "i believe that faith is an important part of human society"

      Show demonstrable proof that there is a god/gods.

      When you make claims the onus is on you to show your proofs. Not the other way around.

    3. Unfortunately if your want to live in a free society then you can't stop people from saying things that might hurt you or make you uncomfortable. Its called free speech and you best get use to it, your sounding like a cry baby. Oh and i think a song explains why people worship gods better than i can.

      "My own...Personal....Jesus"
      "Someone to hear my prayers, someone who cares"

      Its about feeling important, believing in god is like having an imaginary friend who listens to all your problems and makes you feel like your not alone when you are. God is a crutch, if you don't use it then you'll find your own way to get through life. If you use god then your following the easy path, its nothing to be proud of nor ashamed. some people need crutches, your excuse for faith is barely convincing and I'm not convinced. 5 bucks you'll be an atheist one day

    4. 100 bucks to tell you that I will not be an atheist in any day, I have believed in a God since I was 16 and now I am almost 50 and believe me I have seen a number of things in my life to could have easily have changed me. So that goes to show you, that really you don't know what you are talking about ether, with your God is a crutch crap!!!!! most people just love to shoot this belief in a creator down.

  10. What a complicated "scientific" bulls*it kindda speculation that means nothing really . pfff...

    Reminds me of all those childish "scientific " speculations concerning the origins of life , concerning the nature of life itself, concerning the nature or function of the human consciousness......

    What a silly show off..Ridiculous.

    They dare call that "science " : hilarious.

  11. There is no god... prove it. Maybe there was an iphone 3 billion years ago, but there was no network.

  12. man's brain is not yet developed enough---or it will never be developed enough, to understand the real source of the cosmos and our existence. all these speculations, calculations, and interpertations are made by the same underdeveloped brain. so, just follow your conscience and respect all around you but don't give up thinking about the 'source', and how all came to existence because it's fun to do so.

  13. more creationist crap for the stupid and the gullible. Avoid this film like the plague

  14. not full episode..

  15. Blocked by the creator...

  16. I was only able to view 25 minutes of this video. I guess God didn't want me to see the rest.

  17. Those who would own you and like you to think of yourself as rightless, or of human life as meaningless, disposable data certainly don't seem to mind playing 'devil' right now. Look at their game and see if you want to give up on yourself and your eternal birth right and freedom to grow, expand and spiritually mature on this our planet as a natural creature. What the cunning artificial old lure of the snake has to offer is destruction and evil, though dressed in shiny dead pixels. Who wants to end in that stupid tool box, their 'god' is not the one force that creates and maintains life.

  18. No argument there. For some of us that is the definition of "God"
    "That which is" Whether there is more to define in that statement I can't answer that because it's not possible for me to do. I don't think it is even needed I don't think we were put here to find out what "God"is. My theory with religion is that when they try to stop free thinking, it is their way of projecting their inability to get their needs met. So it's other people's fault or science's fault. In other words their expressing it on others because they can't deal with it. They should take a look at the crap they are reading and start to question it instead. That is asking too much. I put value on other belief systems that don't do this. That does not mean I believe in them but they keep to themselves and that is fine.

    1. A few things that i disagree with, for one thing, I do not think, "we were put here" that to me means a first cause, or some supernatural cause.

      Also the second disagreement "not to find out what god is" the inherent nature of man is to find out everything that there is to find out, especially a working "TOE" gods notwithstanding.

    2. I never said I was an atheist or agnostic so I hold that view of purpose but I won't go into it. In your other point you're probably right people need to know. But what is the purpose of exploring the nature of god. What will it do for us here at this time. We have a source of creation and we have alot of other discoveries to make before we get into god. The only ones spending a lot of time on it are the big 3. The rest of the world is moving ahead. Really what I mean is that anyone who talks of "who" god is and tries to explain it will fail and should leave it alone. I have a concept of god but no evidence so why would I want to define it. I am probably way off anyway. The only thing I have that I could work with the self and how to do better.
      As you can see you making this even make some sense is hard enough.

  19. I don't think that having a belief in a creator should make one question science. For many of us these two fit well together and we are very confortable with both. I am not confortable with two sides taking opposing views that one is right. I will start with the scientific view in some cases saying that the universe simply began out of nothing which defies any logic or science itself. This to me is a way for man to equate ourselves to the "creator" in the sense that if I can't understand it then I can't believe in it. The same could be said for religious people to dismiss anything that does not conform to their belief systems. So we get hatred of others based on only one point of view. To them I would say that if your God does exist in the form you believe and is everknowing perfect then "he" screwed up right from the start. Since if he knew Eve was going to screw up anyway why pretend their was a choice. So we have to assume that we don't know the creator or "that which is" and just strive to understand more and more. I would only allow theories that have room for being added to in our public places such as schools.

    1. @edc1234:

      All religee's are under the premise that there is such a thing as gods, basically in absenteeism, haven't seen any around lately, have you?

      Until the religious can show proof to their claims, i for one disregard all such nonsense.

      God stuff should never be allowed in schools.

      What the religious never seem to get is that us invisible carbon units are so small in the vastness and time scale of the universe is that we are of no significance at all, even our home the earth can shake us off like fleas.

    2. I don't disagree with keeping it out of school. My point is that we can't behave that science will answer every question either. Based on my understanding of the universe we assume that there was a start and that is where I get stuck. Religion that we are used to is so stringent on their beliefs that they don't allow questions this would never work in any public forum so keep it out. I was not or would never vote for it. What the hell would they teach in relation to science theory anyway the course would last 30 sec. "God created everything" and then what it's over for the course since science explains how things work.

    3. "there was a start"? maybe' because we live in our linear time. But in quantum mechanics there is no time, no spacetime, everything is static, everything that has, will, or even has not happened, has already done so. In the vast field of unlimited probabilities. And parallel universe, multiverse theory, everything is in a process of happening.

      I realize it is basically math, not empirically proven, but so was Einstein theory of relativity only math, until proven.

  20. Rubbish

    1. Rubbish does not a comment make, but am curious, why is it rubbish.

  21. "The latest science is showing that the four forces governing our universe are phenomenally finely tuned. So finely that it had led many to the conclusion that someone, or something, must have calibrated them". That's similar to saying that someone can't win the lottery unless magic is involved. People who bring up the tired old "there must be someone out there" always conveniently forget that if that is true, there must be someone out there that created the creator. If the creator just "exists" according to the theists, why can the universe not exist without a creator? Why is a universe with an omnipotent invisible friend so much easier to believe in than a universe that grew from literally nothing into what it is today?

    1. The idea you have is flawed. I too struggle with the concept of a "God" and how he has come to be. Yet if you take into account that before the universe or universes were created there was in a sense "nothing". God being eternal with no beginning existed with no set of "time" because as you know space and time go hand in hand. Therefor there is no "cause and effect" leaving God to merely exist.

    2. Your logic, too, is flawed. A Creator or creative mind that is eternal would by necessity exist outside of space-time (a creation). We are limited in our means of perception due to flawed, inaccurate senses. We never truly experience reality, but merely the minds interpretation of the feedback or 'information' that is relayed by the senses. True reality, and the only reality, is the Creator, the uncaused caused of all that has manifested. Nothing exists without the mind of the Creator. The Creator is, therefore, absolute nothing... NO - THING. There is nowhere the Creator is because it is the totality of what is and what is not. The Creator has NO attributes because attributes can only be manifest within finite, limited-bounded existence realms and the Creator is infinite, unbounded, limitless and transcendent. So, does nothing exist?

    3. you are completly overlooking the fact that "the bible" states clearly in the opening pages; God created man in his image... image requires material...

  22. Einstein, no need to point out his authority on "wormhole" topics said that there must be a creator of the universe. Its perfect, it is governed by laws for every law and there is always a lawgiver. Who he is for you is your personal thing. I like to think there is God, makes things a lot more interesting and He shows His greatness where ever you look, particularly in science.

    1. Einstein reiterated on many (written) occasions that he is an atheist. The rare allusions to God in his voluminous writings are used metaphorically.

    2. @JJCoolidge: Einstein believed in the 'god of Spinoza; that was not involved in the daily lives of humans, but was expressed through the underpinnings of nature. Thus Einstein believed in god, just not in religion. (Pantheist/Deist) "did god have any choice in how the universe was created", and "God does not play dice" are not metaphorical, but direct to the point. One helped him discover relativity, the other prevented him from accepting quantum mechanics due to his preconceived notion of what god was. Everything I have just stated is indisputable, and can be 'proven' without a shadow of a doubt. I hope this clears up your misconception. Thus I leave you with the following quote: (no insult intended)
      " It is better to keep one's mouth shut and appear foolish, then to speak inaccurately, and remove any doubt"

    3. Foolsih to give ANY 1 man this much credence and by assuming that there is ANYTHING SPECIFIC behind existence you are in essence attempting to "remove any doubt" so by your account Albert Einstein was a Hippocratic m*ron. now we all know that its impossible to be an atheist because no1 can really KNOW whether or not god exists we just use Atheist as a term for militant agnosticism . so if we assume einstein was agnostic then the quote you provided wouldnt make him an ignorant Hippocratic m*ron. :) ive just been schooling you kids all over these comments

    4. @Tiffany Wilson: For the record, all I did was correct someone for expressing inacurate information regarding what another individual actually believed. Since it is impossible to prove, or disprove the idea of god, the term 'militant agnosticism' is contradictory by it's nature. In general, it is accepted that:

      theist - believes in a deity(s)/god. (certaintyto the left)
      atheist - rejects the idea of a deity.(certainty/right)
      agnostic - believes "I don't know"/unknowable.(uncertain)
      pantheist - god created the universe.
      panentheist - god is the universe.
      Deist - via reason/observation, the underpinnings. expressed by nature are proof of god.
      Now, if you go back to my original blog, and read it again, you will find it very direct, with no wishy/washy interpretations like militant agnosticism. In no way, does my account make Albert Einstein look like a hippocratic mo*on; (I also believe the word you were looking for is hypocritical, not hippocratic)
      Since we are all a product of our environments, not even the great Einstein could reconcile that 'chance' was a part of the universe. Since nothing perfect exists in the universe, (PI = proof) I can learn from one of the greatest minds that preceded me, including from his mistakes. (I will make different ones)
      As far as schooling people, apparently that is in the eye of the beholder as well. I respect your position, and understand the point you were trying to make, but in my opinion, it only further created disparity, where none should exist. Best wishes, and take care!

    5. Booosh another brainwashed commoner

  23. Einstein, no need to point out his authority on "wormhole" topics said that there must be a creator of the universe. Its perfect, it is governed by laws and there is always a lawgiver ;)

  24. @Achems_Razor you spelt "you're" wrong

    1. Thanks.

  25. What kind of garbage is this?

    1. Why do you think it is garbage?

    2. Achems_Razor
      part of the issue might stem form the video starting with part 2 . that is not a complaint just an observation

    3. Your right, part one seems to be blocked by Viacom.

  26. Top Docs was a great idea, and it started off as an excellent source of useful, informative documentaries. But, unfortunately, it has now been so thoroughly and completely saturated by mindless, idiotic, meaningless, junk films, such as this one, that Top Docs is no longer worth our time -- or our respect.

    1. @John:

      Why do you consider "Through The Wormhole: Is There A Creator?" a junk film?

  27. Like a radio our brain tunes into reality, Reality is not created from the brain but through it. Brain pics up information from stimulation's. In other words are brain does not create the feeling of god but tunes into it. Brain = quantum antenna. Plane and simple

    1. Children's brains tune in to the feeling of Santa Claus, he still doesn't exist as a reality.

  28. Unit G Sr

    Induced coma does not mean all brain activity is lost... You can't recover from total lost of brain function... That's brain death, and it is a legal Indicator of death in most parts of the world. You can't jump start the brain when it is shut down... it dies. What is done is a reduction of the metabolic activity in the brain, thus reducing the demand of oxygen, and lowering the brains activity... But never to a maximum, that's called murder not induced coma.

    And another thing just because something cannot be explained doesn't mean it can't be... Or that we have to jump to conclusions just because we don't understand the intrinsic mechanisms...
    We can speculate, but then every possibility has the same validity... If not backed with proof, evidence and confirmation. But I will defend your right or mine to speculate all we want. Cuz it sure is fun


  29. Hi Unit G SR,
    I wanted to tell you that I find your post very interesting and respectful to the forum.
    I too know of the story you speak of. I too love science. Loving science does not preclude believing in a creator. It is easy for anyone to believe something isn't possible, unless or until they experience it. Personally I believe in near death experiences. I am not a 'religious' person either. Religion is mankind's attempt to justify himself (in the generic sense), womankind does it too, in the eyes of God. However, I do have a spiritual relationship with the the creator, and you know what, it isn't King Kong, (sorry, that sarcasm slipped right out) and that isn't directed towards anyone personally.

    The State of Tennessee vs John Thomas Scopes opened a can of worms, so to speak.

    He taught his science class evolution. The state of Tennessee said it was unlawful (The Butler Act) to teach evolution in a state funded school.

    What happened to the separation of Church and State? Honestly, I don't think 'religion' or 'evolution' should be taught in school, or they both should be taught in school, by qualified teachers, and certainly not in the lower grades.

    Truly, I believe it should be the parent's choice, and responsibility to teach their children about a creator, or evolution, not the school's, nor the church's place teach them.

    Man I could go on for hours about this topic. Lets see who actually takes the time to read this all the way through and I will try to keep this as concise as possible.

    Personally what most consider to be 'evolution' I consider as 'adaptation'. Over a period of time a species either adapts to their surroundings, or they die out. I refer to ancient times. Now days, we don't have to wait for adaptation to have a species die out, we, as the parasites on the earth kill them out by our 'progress'. Oops, off topic.

    Spiritually, I can't say much for the theory of evolution. I don't believe in it personally. However I respect a person who does.

    From the outside looking in, at religion, I can understand why people believe we are messed up. Look at all the different denominations in the 'Christian' belief system. Certain people of like minds tend to stick together and become members in churches that offer those beliefs.

    If you are, or have been a member of a church, what about the infighting and garbage that goes on. Mankind gives God, a bad reputation. Think about it. How many people have been murdered in the name of God, and under the flag bearing the sign of the cross.

    No one should be beating anyone over the head with a Scofield reference bible, ( its really thick, okay) used to have one.

    No one should be insulting or rude to people who believe differently than we do.
    If we believe we 'know' the truth, we don't have to cram it down someone's throat. If we believe we know the 'truth', why are we so worried that someone believe differently?

    I've read the New Testament. I look around, and I see no 'Christians. Look it up in the dictionary. Oh wait, I did it for you.

    "Following the teachings or manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus Christ."

    I don't see anyone manifesting the spirit of Christ.
    Jesus did not go around condemning people. He didn't. He didn't crucify people for believing differently, or even for sinning {missing the mark}. He did show compassion.

    The only people he got angry towards were the 'money changers' in the temple, shortchanging the people.

    If anyone is still reading ;p I am almost finished, really.

    We are not called to judge, however we can be fruit inspectors.
    We are called to live our lives in such a way that others see Jesus in us, before they see us.

    Our lives are to be a witness to others, to live our lives in such a way that people see that love, and compassion, in us and to want our power source.

    I'm done, and I see that I gradually got off topic. Oh well good reading anyway.
    I think.

    1. Lea, I did read your full post and love to see anyone as passionate as you put forth and discuss their ideas on an open forum such as this. I do however have one point I would like to make; you discuss the separation of church and state, and indicate that this would preclude evolution being taught in schools, along with other theories about the 'creation' of our species. The problem I have with this, is that you seem to place the theory of creation and the theory of evolution on the same bar in terms of scientific validity. To me, this is lunacy; considering since Darwin first theorized biological evolution to this point in time there has been innumerable discoveries validating the theory. It would not be presumptuous of me to say this the generally accepted belief across the scientific community and although you may not see it to be true, it is surely a scientific discovery with more than enough merit to be taught in our schools.

  30. First time I have ever commented on this site (hello everyone)and not sure if it has any bearing on the subject but I have always wondered what all this is really about.I am most curious about the stuff that science backs away from and will not even attempt to study or as with most things, human politics and ego more often than not are obstacles that new knowledge must overcome.
    Prime example in anthropology being the Piltdown man and Raymond Dart's discovery that did not fit the current model so was ridiculed and dismissed for decades.

    I am intrigued by NDE's and having lost a beloved daughter to childhood leukemia read of many accounts of people having returned to life with tales of going to another plane and find,I will be honest, much sloace in the stories and their overall theme of unquestioning,unconditional love and light that awaits us when we move on from this life.

    From the comments I have read I have no doubt that some here are already writing me off and so be it for there are some here who remain open to possibilities that may find no proof as in tangible physical evidence or measurable results.

    I offer a story of one such event where the patient was having surgery on her brain so was put to sleep and chilled to a low temperature, blood being pumped by a machine and brain activity (measurable electrical activity) was reduced to zero.She had been brought into the theatre with eyes taped shut and already fully anesthetized ( medically induced coma I think would better descrie it)so was not conscious however she had an NDE and could relate events as they happened in the operating room which she could have no knowledge of.What made her case even more unusual was the fact that she had zero brain activity and that she remembered the event.

    One must wonder where our mind or consciousness really resides.There are many cases recorded where these people have knowledge of what was happening either close by or many hundreds of miles away whilst they were unconscious, either in a coma,sedated or even clinically deceased for a short period.This case has always stuck with me as to the fact she remembered what she witnessed with no eyes,or no eyes that science can describe anyway.

    I will be honest I love science and I am still totally stunned and in awe of this world we live on and the universe that we have found it residing in.I find great comfort in these stories and I will admit that I believe in something spiritual that science at this stage has no interest in even attempting to understand, in the mainstream anyway.Religion as we have it today does not hold any interest for me and as to any of them knowing "the truth" we could no more understand what that is than an ant trying to comprehend a microprocessor.

    To preempt some of the skeptics who will no doubt rush to the science has proven that a release of chemicals ( like the DMT trips) can produce a dream like experience with the light at the end of the tunnel and loved ones etc.If however you dig a little deeper you will find ones that fit no such model and as with the placebo affect you wont be able to fit them into one of your neat little sample groups or discount them as anomalous results.They see without eyes, remember without brains and travel without bodies I believe faster than light or maybe as fast as light I don't really know and I doubt any ever will.

    I would also like to thank you Vlatko for the site you have created I have spent many enjoyable hours here and I for one greatly appreciate your effort.

    Sincerely yours


    1. The term 'Near Death Experience' says it all - near death, not dead.
      You already know the answers, but you refuse to believe that death is the end, because this is a very uncomforting thought for you.
      I understand you - I also lost a loved one long time ago.
      I'm sorry for your loss, Chris - my condolences.

  31. So many ideas ... so many conclusions ... so many philosophies. Fear of The Lord God Almighty, YHWEH, The Great I am, the God of Isaac, Abraham and Jacob (reverential) is the beginning of all wisdom.

    The science and reasoning you use to discredit or denounce God the Creator of all that exists, is the science and reasoning that will one day condemn you in His presence.

    1. Just regurgitated notions force fed to you.

  32. link borken, youtube says part 3 of the vid is missing. just so u know! can be downloaded from piratebay instead

  33. youtube: Through The Wormhole: Episode 1 ~ Is There a Creator?, and watch all five parts

  34. There are two schools of thought: One; that the Universe is the reason that Consciousness exists. And, Two: that Consciousness is the reason that the Universe exists. Both are extremes of thought; each demanding that the other prove their assertions... Science wants religion to prove that their God exists (whatever he, she or IT may be). While religion wants science to demonstrate that it's wanting to tear the universe apart atom-by-atom is somehow "relevant" to the human condition.

    I guess all things seek their balance.

    Most of us operate under a fantastic assumption: That the more we know the better off we will be. If this were actually true, then things like the amoeba and the protozoa would be physically impossible. They have nothing even remotely resembling a "brain"; and yet they exist -- and in greater measure than WE -- and for all we know, just as happily (or UN-happily) as any other creature in this universe.

    And so, yes we ARE at the center of this universe (even though that may not refer to our PHYSICAL location). And, as far as I can tell, the only thing that really MATTERS in this life is that we enjoy our stay here. Because I think that the universe CAN and SHOULD be defined as: "That which wants to LIVE". So I defy ANYONE to give me a better reason why matter should explode out of nothing!!

    1. Your assuming "reason" is relevant to the physical universe when nothing promotes the idea that "reason" even exsists outside of our human perception. Thus your whole first argumant holds no water. moving onto your second paragraph..... first ameba are abundant because they are small, reproduce quickly, and require little energy to maintain themselves.furthermore they are this way exactly so that they would eventually evolve (however u want to put it i like the pokemon definition best) AND HAVE A A BRAIN. also you just admitted that they dont have brains and your assuming that they may be happy/unhappy..... check yourself in to a mental hospital tell them your down-syndrome is acting up

  35. If anything comes out of the randomness and kept evolving, it has to be elegant. - not that because it's so elegant, it has to be the result of some deliberate design.

    1. did you ever take into consideration that you only perceive it to be a deliberate design? Randomness?? Even in chaos there is order..just because unknowns may follow a formula doesn't mean that it was designed.just means that it works.

  36. There is no doubt there are countless theories for the beginning of the universe, all with reasonable logic. I like especially the idea of the universe constantly expanding and shrinking between brains and so on... with the big bang. However, note... these are all theories, just like god. And science is countlessly being proved wrong and going back on itself: earth was once considered flat, a particle has been found fast than light contradicting with the genius Einstein (though this can be explained if the particle was already travelling faster than light before light created).
    Being a Christian, though fascinated by space, I accept the possibilities of god not being as we think (a gamer?) or not being true at all. However,think along my perspective, lets say an unexpected accident happens to you and in your split second thoughts before a car hit you would you rather think God has found you and is going to take you to heaven or **** this is it... This is my last ever contribution of my lifespan.
    I'm guessing obviously the latter. And since God can never be unproven, and therefore is always a possibility why would you not put your faith in a religion (something that requires a little time every Sunday) no matter how small a chance you believe it to be true given being an atheist leads to absolute nothing whilst believing in any religion and a creator leads to a possibility in infinite peace and happiness.
    Moreover, Jesus is not a theory without any evidence: the Lourdes miracles, countless personal experiences with god (of which sadly I have not felt or maybe just not realised) and the fact that everything needed a beginning which cannot be explained by science (god).
    And as for souls- that is a certainty which can be explained by ghosts and your moral compass (which isn't explained by a computer brain) but must be from an influence from a spiritual source.

    1. You’ve started just fine… and then included the words “must”, and “fact”, and “certainty”, and just ruined the post….
      Why should there be a beginning to start with? Just because it’s the human condition… believing in creation implies an infinite regression… who created the creator?… and the creator of the creator and so on… if you claim that the creator did not need to be created then your claim is that in fact something’s do not need to be created… therefore your claim is my own.
      Perhaps there is no need for a certain act of creation just action and reaction, on the other hand if creation toke place it had to be from nothingness at some point or there is no difference between the two ideas… just a lot of Crap in the middle .
      Souls are explained by ghosts…. I’m going to pretend I didn´t read that… if evidence was found that ghosts exist, please send me the report.
      Moral is fruit of conscious reasoning modulated by emotion… I can’t see why that can be of spiritual source… The statement of René Descartes... "Cogito ergo sum".... I think therefore I am ... has been misunderstood since it was made... He never said... I reflect therefore I am... he said I THINK with all my being, all the emotion and feeling and perception that makes my Taught. So to say the brain is just a computer... is prove enough that you should be investigating a little more about what the brain truly is, and how it works (we know to little but we sure as hell know enough more then that now a days). A dog does not grasp the idea… or a cat… or most human beings for that matter… Moral and Ethics has been amongst the most troublesome matters in this world since the beginning of civilization you should know that… It is easy to understand and live by a moral code by yourself… in a group…not so easy... well you have some very interesting episodes in our history to prove it…. I don´t have to mention them obviously.
      And last… why is atheism the road to absolute nothingness … That s really aggravating … why is God the only source of meaning?? (I’m not atheist by the way) … that’s pure fascism right there… and it’s a stupid and arrogant claim… sorry for the honesty… but that’s my opinion


    2. honestly as an Agnostic I would be...ok what next? Something happens..even science holds true that energy never dies. It just transfers.

  37. Viacom has blocked video.

  38. As a born Muslim, religion has always confused me. This documentary has changes my approach and views towards religion. Thanks for the upload.

  39. If God has the perfect power, he have also power to define himself for us. In real, he defined himself via too much prophets and books. But people did not want to recognize God and changed some of them. And also God has enough power to punish the people who do not care about himself. We want to identify God, but he also identifies us with our acts. Punishment will be for our wrong acts and bad deals.

  40. Till the time humans know what lies beyond the universe,we may not be able to answer the question correctly.

  41. the program of the programmer (God) is to make simulations that are "like" him and LOVE (are joined in the heart and mind and will/intention) to the programmers PROGRAM: God in other words wants us to love the creation he made as our own selves because he loves it.....its his creation: If we don't love it we become prone to isolation, antisocial acts and self absorbed stimulation of mind and body (selfish) developed during the egoistic state of the program where the programmer let us feel like we were individual entities, which is not true. If we were, we would not die but have life in ourselves as Jesus said the "Son of God" has. Developing empathy is from the programmer to us: He wants us to get along or we can't stay part of the program but must be destroyed as a bad program eventually: Hence the meek inherit the earth. This is a serious program and programmer even though he programmed so much JOY and FUN and pleasure into the program that we should try to STAY WITH HIS PROGRAM to become "REAL" and then maybe we can develop our own worlds/programs to play in ages to come: Im pretty sure the many types of programs available are as vast as those who play them. IF we create simulations that suffer without concern for their suffering, we are evil. The Programmer God become JOINED to his simulations to feel what they feel so he can be the BEST POSSIBLE programmer there is: Love is the only PROGRAM worth keeping:

  42. God then is the universal "MIND' that is forming MAN (his image and likeness); the "fall" of man was when 'mind' was separated from the heart/emotions (Adam separated from Eve) and the heart was able to be tempted by the serpent (the Computer virus/worm/snake) that is part of the PROGRAM to get the simulations involved: Once the heart (desire) hooks into the question of good and evil (life and death), the Image is on its way: Now the work of the programmer is to SEPARATE the old program (egoistic side or old I) from the NEW creation (God or programmer becomes the "I") and now the programmer becomes attached to the building up of his creation as HIMSELF...........and both sides feel the same reality: The programmer feels the creatures simulated reality and the creature begins to FEEL and IDENTIFY more and more with the programmer:

    1. @Yvonne Gordon:

      Good grief! this has to stand alone as the most convoluted posts that I have read in quite awhile, I do not know if I should even delve into this, don't even know what to say, but does present a challenge.
      Anyone?? Even religee's?

    2. Blaster worm, also known as lovesan. Repeatedly reboots your brain/computer.

    3. it's not that hard to follow... it's like the Matrix...

    4. ... man I think she got it...!!! cuz after reading it all only one thing comes to mind... Jesus Christ!!

      lady you should get off the pills... or just take the blue one and forget about it...

      mind blowing stuff... you should write a book... never mind make it a journal.


    5. When i was in my early twenties i participated in a car rallye scavenger hunt, we had to pick up clues while driving. Upon arrival we had to take all the words that were in capitals letters from the clues and compose a poem which would be read during the night party.
      Mind you the words were quite different, but I thought Yvonne's many posts would at least be good for that.

      People's way of seeing this reality has as much variety as there are cars in the world.

      Is convoluted one of your R's word?


    6. Az...Not really that much variety, people see a tree as a tree, a rock as a rock and so on. By collectively collapsing the waveform from all of the unlimited probabilities at our disposal from the quantum foam, taking into account all the different interactions.

      Except the reality may be viewed somewhat differently for autistic and other such people.

      The convoluted word and other big words are not all of "R" words but my own. lol

  43. the experience of God is found within your brain to be sure, but the brain is not God. How do I know? I returned to the origin of consciousness quite by mistake after a year fast of not eating anything but a protein drink to take off a 165 lbs to save my spine. After this weight loss that also destroyed the 'fat' in my brain which is why religious people fast (to feel anointed/OIL/FAT) disolve in their brain, I reached the BLISS of God: LIke the girl in the "god helmet" however the bliss led to the fire (like the earth has fire deep inside so does the brain have a very hot kind of fire that runs it I suppose like an engine: This is what is meant by "boiling in oil" (the holy spirit heats up the oil/Christ/anointing to literally CHANGE the brains chemicals and bring about a NEW CREATION, a totally new way of SEEING reality: This experience of both HEAVEN (bliss) and hell (the experience of the depth of the brain) that leads to a TRANSFORMATION of the brain, is definately ORCHISTRATED from outside of the brain: The brain is like a computer that is CONTROLLED by a controller (God) and we experience the WORK of this God to MAKE us, FORM US into an image and likeness of HIMSELF or rather the INFINITE ONE. Understanding HOW this BEING works in us gives us the understanding of what he is working to accomplish in our experience of both US and HIM: Once they are ONE, we are finished:

  44. all i can think about is this rumor about mr.freeman smh

  45. Scary possibilities . . . Excellent work by Rich Terrile

  46. At 10:00 of the video, Rich Terrell talks about the black box experiment (asking questions of a human brain and a super computer of the future) to determine which is the human answering and which is the computer; and if you cannot tell one from the other they must be equivalent and if the human is considered conscious and self-aware then the computer must also be considered conscious and self-aware. I find this logic flawed because it is too narrow a litmus test to ascertain conscious self-awareness.

    Here is my reasoning. Video graphic technology is being developed today that is trying to blur the line between reality and fantasy; and once that gap has been bridged, and the individual cannot tell the difference between a real life scene and a computer generated scene then they must be considered equivalent. And since they are equivalent, one can be defined as the other, therefore reality is a computer generated experience (CGE) and a CGE is reality.

    The problem lies in the fact that the human mind cannot determine the difference between fantasy and reality; it relies on sensual cues to help decipher the difference. If there are no discernable cues (to which the mind can relate) to label it fantasy, it is considered reality: Today we are seeing that it isnt necessarily so.

    However, I do find his argument for a CG Universe very compelling. It would neatly explain a Universe made of atoms without the need for the elusive Higgs Boson particle. Mass could be a pre-programmed parameter just as carbon is pre-programmed into all life on Earth.

  47. as a follow up to the part about the pixelated / virtual reality, i recommend another doc on this site - fractals: in search of the hidden dimension.

  48. @Achems_Razor

    you have a problem. the child here is certainly you. how dare you say about our prophet paedophile ? because you sure have difficulties to engage normal relationships with girls. the paedophile may be you....

    if you have a problem with someone then talk to him and don't mention our prophet. look, there are 1,5 billion of Muslims around the world and that's dangerous for you. so, be careful. it is easy to make enemies, and I don't want that for you, because I know that you don't know, and you miss a lot of knowledge.

    take care of yourself.

    1. @Med,

      1. The most disturbing fact about Islam is that its founder had a sexual relationship with a nine-year-old girl. Because of this, it has become increasingly popular in some circles to refer to the Prophet of Islam as a "pedophile."

      However, if a man has a sexual relationship with a young girl in a culture and time where such a union is permissible, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the man is a "sexual predator," as the term "pedophile" implies.

      In short, the time and the culture were permuting that, which is inconceivable for us.

      Many people (around 1.5 billion too) are jumping to conclusion that he was a pedophile, but that is not necessarily true. He was not a predator or child molester.

      2. Also please do not point threats to people here. If you want to defend your prophet do it, but without any threats please. Everyone is free to express his opinions. If you disagree please argue in intelligent and humble manner (as your religion tells you so).

    2. I didn't mean to threaten him, I just wanted him to take care of what to say when talking about holly persons. he misses more informations to judge like that. it is an advice not a threat. 1,5 billion may include some mad ones who may react differently at an insult like that.

      9 y old of that time and in the country sides of sahara had a good shape and passed the time of puberty. and till the 20th century, it was usual in some Arabian countries to marry their girls at an age between 10 and 14, and they lived a good life. my mother was married at 11y old.

      you understand that well. and thank you.

    3. @Med:

      I am not misusing info, just relaying info @Med: look up on the net about your prophet, youtube, wiki, there are numerous people and websites stating the fact that your warrior prophet was a pedo, plain and simple, since you have already threatened me are you also going to go after everybody else?

    4. the difference between me and you is that, if it is written in the net or anywhere about somebody that he is pedo, or anything else that if he is alive he would dislike, I will not talk to anyone as if what is written is true. understood ?
      I am not seeing you as an enemy at all. I see you as someone who may miss some experience when dealing about some hard subjects. you get nervous quickly. if you don't agree about an information, can't you just show that calmly ?
      you get nervous because you feel that some facts are shown and you fear to believe in them. that's why you overreact .

    5. Med: You are the one that is not calm and nervous, anyone can plainly see that, quit trying to twist things around, you and others of your irk seem to always be doing that.

      Why then would you believe the quran and your prophet if you say "I will not talk to anyone as if what is written is true."

    6. The only thing I appose to is absolute truth whiteout evidence... and this is the problem between science and Religion... Atheists and Theists... fundamentalism and Uncertainty...

      No scientist can claim that a creator does not exist... it´s ethically wrong... that is an open question so therefore every possibility is valid even the absurd ... I accept that God can exist... but you have to accept that it may not exist...

      You can´t disprove something that hasn't been proven yet... so therefore you can´t claim something to be truth without evidence for it...
      Don´t say you can´t rationalize God... Why not?... once you couldn´t say the earth wasn't the center of the universe or you would burn for it...

      The difference is... even if I could prove to you that God does not exist You would´t believe me anyway... but if you could prove that God exists in a verified theory I would believe it...

  49. The whole armor of God is supernatural. What is the armor of God? Love. What is love? Scientifically, prove to me there is such a thing as love. Where's it at? How many of us know what it is to love? raise up your hand: love your wife, love your brother, love your friends? Well, I want somebody, some science, to prove to me what part of you is love. Where do you buy it, what drugstore? I want a bunch of it. Love, joy, you got joy? Peace, long-suffering, gentleness, patience, what is it? It's all supernatural.
    God is supernatural. You don't scientifically prove God. You believe God. You believe it. If you don't believe it, then a man that says everything that's not scientifically proven, is unorthodox, it's not right, then that man can never be a Christian. He has to believe. By faith we believe God, not by education, not by theology. But by faith you are saved.

    1. Amen! Praise The Lord!!

    2. I haven't read any of your comments i would support but i must say this one is quite good. I am not a Christian because i follow no one but i do follow love...and i like to think love follows me.

    3. Yeah, well i'm quoting a great singer/songwriter Bruce Cockburn with a song with the lyrics that say "If you love love, then love loves you too!" Sounds similar to what you were writing don't you think?

    4. hello
      do not be any one;fallow the road to the truth
      just read about islam

    5. Love can be proven... just dosen´t match the feeling of it .... just like fear can be proven... scientifically... I agree that the feeling is subjective... but not supernatural... love is not supernatural... read the work of António Damasio... and you´ll get some pretty good information about feelings and emotions, and how it is processed by the brain.
      Think of it as a cake...(I know it is simplistic... but bear with me) you can know what a cake is made of, and even know how the ingredients act on the taste receptors in the toungue, and the neuropathways that conduct it to the brain, and the brain areas that process that taste ... but to describe the actual taste ... that's hard... cuz it is a personal experience

      Has for faith... everyone has it... in some form or another... and there are some fields of neuroscience that are starting to understand the process... you can find this if you want... what happens is that this kind of conceptions are very personal and people don´t identify with a scientific explanation... cuz that don´t match they're personal view of it...

      What I mean is... I can know everything about a cake, what it's made of, how it affects my senses, and my brain... and still enjoy every bite when I put it in my mouth without thinking of that... so the magic of god... faith... love... and a cake ... it's not in the understanding of they're mechanisms... is in the act of experiencing it. So there is no arm in knowing how something works... it won't steal the magic


  50. @Epicurus, believing make alot of difference, because for you to accept there is no God you first have to believe there is no God,and if there is'nt, what evidence do you have to show and to prove that there is no God, you said that when you have a headache you don't pray you take a tylenol, but before you take that tylenol do you know that you first have to believe, that what is in that tylenol will ease your headache, and also if you don't believe that paraachute will open, no way!! you'll jump out of that plane. You also said that God is a figment of your imagination. God means obbject of worship, what that simply means is that any thing that you worship become your god you worship your car, your car become your god, you worship science, science become your god, etc,etc,that is your choice, but every choice has a consequence, that why I believe that the creator of the universe is THE LORD JESUS CHRIST the bible said that all things were made by Him and for Him and I am a 100% willing to stand the consequence for believing that. An atheist once said boastfully that there is no God and if there is may serpents crawl out of his grave and at his burial they could not stop killing surpents. remember every choice has a consequence and every action has a reaction.

    1. for me to "believe" there is no god all i have to do is realize there is no evidence for it.

      i have the same evidence that there is no god as i do that there is no unicorns. the lack of evidence is a good reason to not accept something.

      so you think if you dont believe the parachute will open it wont open? well that is wrong. physics dont depend on your belief. same with the tylenol. once you understand that medication is tested in double blind experiments you will understand why you are wrong about that also.

      if you worship anything i think you are wasting your time. nothing is worth worship. when i say god i mean a being that is intelligent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and the creator of the universe. and i believe that is a figment of mans imagination. do you have any evidence otherwise?

      your story about an atheist and snakes is bullpoop. i cant believe you actually believe this stuff.

      oh well some people WANT to be ignorant. that is fine.

  51. @Achems_Razor,

    Nervousness is a weakness sign, that is why we find especially in children and old people. anyway, go to youtube and see "the arrivals" series, may be you change your mind easily.

    don't change your mind.

    1. @med, you want me to watch the arrivals? then you must be a child. Have no more to say to you, am wasting my time.

  52. I heard a story once of a man bragging about the non existence of God and there was standing next to him a young lady partaking of an apple, who turned to the man and said, kind sir could you tell me if this apple is sweet or not? The man turn to her and said how can I? I'am not partaking of it, the young lady then said the him, that is nothing but to true then how can you clam that God don't exist when you have never tasted of him, the bible said taste and see that the lord is good, for until you come into a personal experience with him you will never know him and that starts by first believing because, you receive not, because you believe not. Another thing, you hear so much about this big bang theory that a lot people brag about but tell me can a big bang produce variety, if every thing was alike then you can argue that God don't exist but it is impossible to have variety without design and how can you have a design without a designer how could you have a creation without a creator you don't need science to figure that out.

  53. @Med

    I agree with everything... but all that can be explain and practiced in a world without the need for a God... Human experience and human emotion can explain all that just fine... Human empathy, and human rationality deserve your credit... I can't see how anything you said can be attributed to God

    1. Not any God of course. there is only one if it exists. As you can see in our world, everything is tremendously well organized. do you think all that is interactions between matters, and came here by accident suddenly ?. the truth is hiding surely somewhere and we should look for it in the ancient times as in recent times. the Man always asked himself if there is a creator of all this. responses were between right and wrong. here right and wrong depends on the thinker. something that might seem right to me, it is not evident will seem right to you too. it depends on the position you are in, already. you can't be neutral in the question of God. you can't rationalize it.

      sit with yourself and ask always that question, is there really a God ? and if it exists He would infinitely be powerful to create such giant universe of ours. talk to him to help you know him. do that from time to time when you are alone, and you will see what will happen. but be serious. don't do it for fun.

      I don't say that God is talking to people, I just say that He can make the circumstances of your life change to the way you can know of his existence and be completely sure of that. if he is the creator of all this world, that would be a very easy task for him.

      according to our knowledge in Islam God exists everywhere. anyone can talk to him. even if you don't believe in him.
      do you know that religion of Christ and Jew and Islam are aiming to the same God from the first. those 3 religions are from the beginning calling to the real creator. they are not the creation of Man. begin with a study of these religions.
      Christ and Moses and Mohamed were only messengers of God. the same God.

      when you talk to God and you are a believer of him, you are charged with positive energy. when someone prays he communicates with God. the main source of everything good in life. I mean positive things.
      negative things come only from Human disobedience to God. which represents bad behaviours and bad things and bad events.
      everything around us knows how to pray to God. the sea prays with waves which represent a source of positive energy, from communication with God. and so on.

      all this might not seem logical to you. it depends on your position already.


    2. it seems insanely illogical. you are assuming something exists then attributing everything to it without making any falsifications.

      it is a joke.

      why did you ignore my post showing how emoto was wrong?

    3. I didn't ignore your writing, you may be right about emoto. but the way you discuss things is a little bit hard because you get nervous quickly and make fun of persons as if you know everything. I may disagree with you but I will never say a word meaning that you are false and I am right. we are exchanging here some thoughts and experiences. may be that would help someone to get things more clear with all respect to each other.

      about emoto I never checked if he is right or wrong but I appreciate your search. but I also have some experiments on water.
      as you know cells is constructed with more than 70% of water, I mean body cells. it is known in Islam that God created from water every thing alive. and this explains why when a praying person finishes his pray, he feels good and right . he enters through his praying in touch with the biggest source of positive energy which is God. as if he opens a small and narrow tunnel from where he can receive the positive energy that enlightens his present moment. as the body is constructed from cells of 70% and more of water, water has a secret there. also when reading some ayats of curan on water, it becomes having a healing character.

      remember I always don't say I am right and you are wrong. we are discussing things only. may be I am right, who knows ? we hope all of us be in good mood, healthful, and all right. each one has his convictions and respect the others convictions. we explain our points of view only.
      the question of God existence is a tough question that nobody can rely only on his abilities to answer. it is a feeling more than logical. when you feel and accept the God existence, then comes logic.

      have a good day

    4. the praying person could also feel right as a sort of placebo effect. it could just be psychological. that wouldnt imply that a god actually exists.

      i dont think we can just use feeling to determine if god is real or not. we need some evidence. if we just go on feelings then how do we know who has the right feeling since some feel christianity, some feel islam, some feel hinduism, and some feel we need something more evident to go on.

    5. The secret of our existence rely on that question of God. the question of God is not rational, you can't use only your mind and expect to be on the true road. 50% you can go wrong or right.
      let's take an example of the soul. can science prove the existence of the soul ? No
      there is the body and the soul. the body is from matter. the nature of the soul is not known. but can be felt. ok or not ?
      the soul is something from the nature of God. (according to Islam).
      if you stick to prove God existence by science tools, you certainly will go a looooong way without any answer.

      there is the body and the soul. ok ?
      the body feeds with food as we know. the soul feeds with prayers. when you have a good relation with God, your soul is strong and healthy. the psychic is constructed from the body and the soul, both. the psychology studies the body and its relation with the soul only. but it doesn't mention the soul because it is unknown.

      there are many beings living with us here on earth and we feel their presence and we don't see them. for ex: devils. also, look what humanity is doing with electromagnetic waves. communications now rely on that form of energy. in the air around you you can't see communications of radios but when you set a radio on a frequency you receive radio stations.

      primarily (if you don't believe in God ) suppose that his existence is true and go on what we do in mathematics....

      look for traces of God in true religions (the Jew or Christianity or Islam no more that ) you must be careful on how to extract the good information. talk to people who has experience in each of these religions. analyse analyse analyse.....but always ask God to help you find his way easy otherwise it will be tough.
      remember that question of God existence is not rational.

    6. i dont think the soul can be felt. i dont think there is any reason to believe or assume a soul exists.

      i dont believe there devils or anything supernatural living with us. just because you think you feel them doesnt make them real. it could all be in your head.

      i cant see radio waves but i can use instruments to detect them. through science we know they exist. why cant the same be done for souls or gods?

      how do you know judaism christianity or islam are true religions? how do you know the greek gods arent real? how do you know the hindu gods arent real? or maybe if there is a god it is something beyond anything we have imagined.

      if something is not rational then it doesnt exist. the state of irrationality is such that it cant be the case. something can only be true if it is rational or logical.

      If faith cannot be reconciled with rational thinking, it has to be eliminated as an anachronistic remnant of earlier stages of culture and replaced by science dealing with facts and theories which are intelligible and can be validated.

    7. do you think that science is perfect ? is knowledge from science absolute ? there are many dimensions of thinking.
      information that can be validated scientifically first dimension.
      information that can't be validated scientifically yet can be processed with philosophy and extend searches on it till we can digest it with logic then it will become scientific. 2nd dimension this.
      the 3th dimension, is when even philosophy can't find an answer. and the person who is dealing with the process feels as if he is turning around and around without any issue. that dimension is Metaphysical that you can't touch or even imagine. if you want to use science to prove God existence is as if you want to use a small hand tool to carry the entire galaxy. if a man is trying to do that he is completely unconscious of what he is dealing with.
      the question of God existence is a Metaphysical question, remember that.

      In Islam, the prophet Mohamed, PBUH, since he was young and till the age of 40 when he began to receive messages from God, he never told a lie of any kind. they were calling him the truthful. so when he began to receive messages, many didn't believe in him but the question was, how comes the truthful to say that. messages were on Arabic about many things in life, and the question of God existence is not to discuss but to believe in, only. that is the belief in religion. Islam talked about Judaism, and Christianity and recognize them coming from God also. in fact, since the coming of humanity to earth, from time to time God sends a messenger to show to humans what's their duty on earth. and Moses, Christ and Mohamed are for the same message. calling to God the only one that exists and the who created the universe and all that. never a religion in the passed before Islam recognized some of other religions as having the same purpose. when you get deep in Islam you get the idea with all logic and rest. according always to Islam, the followers of Judaism and Christianity, in the passed, changed a lot of texts and that is why Islam came. to complete what was changed and correct things. but that time is that last one. Mohamed is the last messenger of God. all this is according to Islam.

      trying to compare some religions, I have something for you as an example:
      in Hindus religion we can see the pilgrims at the moment of their pilgrimage what kind of dirt they live in and enters in their culture. but Islam when it came it transformed a totally out of date nation to a very tough and strong and very organized. the moment of pilgrimage in Islam till nowadays and all the days you can see pilgrims clean and the sacred place is always clean.
      as I told you before, clean truth tidy light good and positive energy are all from a source that builds, get things right which is God.....
      and dirt falseness messiness dark badness and negative energy are all from a source that destroys, and get things wrong. Hindus and ...... are Satanic in the view of Islam.

    8. just because science isnt perfect, doesnt give merit to the idea of a god.

      this first dimension second dimension third dimension distinction you are making is not verified. you are just making things up. im sorry i know this sounds harsh, but i have a hard time listening to people present ideas without evidence.

      if you say god is metaphysical (beyond or above physics) what makes you think that? you are just making blind assertions with no evident to support what you are saying. i could simply say that the greek gods inhabit the metaphysical realm and that your god is make believe. how can we know? once again you are just positing things that have no evidence. it is crazy. you are taking blind shots in the dark.

      you say muhammad never told a lie of any kind? well that is impossible and its also impossible to know. just sounds like more myth. you know they called Abraham Lincoln Honest Ab and said he never told a lie. do you believe that?

      muhammad might not have been lying. he might have actually believed he was getting messages. he could have been a little crazy. maybe schizophrenic or suffering from temporal lobe epilepsy or maybe Post Traumatic Stress Disorder since he was in many military battles.

      actually islam is a branch of christianity and judaism and thats why it recognizes them. it comes from the same source, Abraham. Judaism started as a cult from zoroastrianism, christianity branched off as a cult of judaism and islam branched off even more.

      how can you know muhammad is the last messenger? because he said so? lol. Joseph Smith who started the mormon religion claimed to be a prophet of god just like jesus and muhammad. how do you know he wasnt?

      if you ask someone from the west they will say there is nothing clean about the islamic pilgrimage. there are millions of people and they all smell and there are no showers and the bathrooms are dirty. there is nothing clean about it. all religions have dirty rituals. the hindus bathe in the ganges, the christians go to Lourdes to drink some nasty holy water that is filthy, and the muslims do their filthy pilgrimage. nothing clean about it. they are all dirty.

      it seems to me that you are just clinging to something you want to believe without actually looking at it rationally.

      do you think if you were raised by a canadian family in alberta that you would still be muslim? or is it that you are only muslim based on your circumstances and how you were raised?

    9. here is some mathematics :
      1+1= 2 right and 1+1= 10 also right ok ?
      1+1= 10 is in digital system right.
      so it depends on the system you are already in or you work in.
      for my system I see that God exists and I am glad of that. more over I see that Islam is the best religion on earth and I am glad of it.

      each system has its rules that you must respect to keep logic flows.

      denying God existence is darkness itself.

    10. med,

      Really? you should get a Nobel science prize for that paper, have you published it?

      Edit, godamn, you are over 18 right?

    11. but reality doesnt work like that. either there is a god or there isnt. your belief in it makes no difference.

      what evidence is there? what evidence makes your religion more supported than others?

      when you realize all you have is faith maybe then you will wake up and decide to see the world as it really is rather than how you want it to be.

      your system (your universe or reality) is the same one everyone else is in. that is why when you have a headache you dont pray you take a tylenol, if you have to jump out of an airplane you dont pray you use a parachute. only one of those will work. and in reality its not praying. because god is a figment of your imagination.

      PS the arrivals is nothing but uneducated drivel.

    12. @med:

      There is no "clean truth tidy light good and positive energy" everything and the universe itself comes from complete "chaos" even us walking humans that are infested with 90 trillion microbes, bacteria that outnumber human cells 10 to 1 so we are walking around with about 10 lbs of bacteria at any given time.

      Your "pedophile-prophet and warrior-prophet had no pipelines to any gods, was a mere mortal.

    13. @med:

      I was into the soul stuff years back, but came to the conclusion as to what we see as our reality is due to "quantum averaging" everything is subject to the jitters of quantum uncertainty, envision the pixelated image you see when your face is a few inches from a TV screen. The image is very different from a more comfortable distance, because your eyes combine them into an average that looks smooth.

      It is only because of the averaging process that a smooth and tranquil form for spacetime emerges.

      In other words "quantum averaging" provides a down to earth interpretation of the assertion that familiar spacetime may be an illusion, sans all the "souls" that are floating around, and that there is a deeper reality minus all the man-made invisible gods in recorded history, that has nothing to do with some of what the religous carbon units class as the prime movers for existence.

  54. "I look for God here and there and everywhere. Finally I see Him coming out of my own gratitude-heart-tears." - Sri Chinmoy

  55. I am not defending all religions. from my experience of atheisme for more than ten years I finally got the prooves. there is a way in mathematics to proove something true or false ? we suppose that something is true and we continue our journey and our search honestly without philosophy till we find something absurd, then we ll be sure that our supposition is false...
    I talked about clean and dirt...and we can also talk about positive and negative energy...positive energy is healthfull for everything even humans..for example when you smile to somebody you give him a positive energy and you get profit also from that situation positively so get more and more of positive other example ...when you quarrel with your wife or girlfriend you exchange bad feelings getting nervous or anything else you create negative energy you exchange that negative energy and you get bored and sick and .....
    positive energy builds trust and all good things
    negative energy demolishes and destroy good things and brings bad things to happen ..
    to get charged with positive energy there are many ways :
    have a good sleep without thinking negatively of nothing.
    or just go to the beach and focus on the sea and the horizon ( it is known that nervous people when they get to the beach they feel an improvement to the better )
    an other way is to go to the woods and take a walk there try to feel the nature,
    an other way for muslims is to read curan or just think of god
    have you heard of (message from water) that a japanese searcher experimented ?
    water molecules were put under influence of audiowaves of many kind (mozart music, rock music, curan readings ...) and were photographed.
    you can google that and read about it.
    try to focus on positive energy and you will see your life change to the better, and you will attract good things as to the real God who govern the existance all.....
    good luck

    1. those water crystal experiments have been shown to be false.

      there is no such thing as positive and negative energy. but i think i understand. but you need to understand that there is no objectively positive energy.

      you could smile at someone (sending them positive energy) and they can be in such a bad mood that your smile pisses them off more and they punch you. there is nothing positive about that.

  56. The theory of evolution is false. don't you know ?
    look, the big bang is true because everything in the univers is still spreading ... from millions of years we still witness that, because we live in that moment of the bang may be now aproaching its end. a second in the univers is thousands of years of our counting. time is relative as you know. after that evrything will be fold up.
    God is the origin of all forces that govern the univers. gravity, electromagnetism, strong interaction, weak interaction and so on...
    tell me what is the diference between right and wrong ? good and bad ? dirty and clean ? if we accept the theory of evolution then we are like monkeys then we would live with no diference. clean and dirt are then the same ? God existence doesn't have any meaning or does is also the same.....?
    it is impossible to see when we are blind.
    sciences made a lot of success for us as humans but can prove nothing when talking about God.
    either you beleive or not......will certainly not be the same. if you seek the truth really. if not just live till you dy and then ............

    1. the theory of evolution is a fact. every experiment done on it has proven this. nothing in biology makes sense without evolution.

      right and wrong are subjective. they have nothing to do with biological evolution. if we accept the theory of evolution then we know we are primates who are humans which are very different from monkeys but still related.

      god is just a word used to explain what we dont know. it is meaningless and just makes us feel like we have an answer when we should continue searching.

    2. first thing first... the expansion of the universe isn't slowing down at all... it's actually accelerating according to present observations.
      The difference between right and wrong, clean an dirty... are human concepts, and are circumstantial... what is right and wrong diverge immensely according to the observer... has do what is clean an dirty... don´t go around given credit to God about those things when it is explain just with human rationality...
      It is true that science can't prove nothing about god...
      But religion does with no evidence needed... then everything can be true... if I say I saw a Unicorn you will call me a nut case.... but if someones says there is an invisible man that created the Universe there is no problem about that... what differs are the circumstances...!!! Religion has thousands and thousand of years of influence.... but it is an outdated fascist and selfish way to approach a problem... Religion was a great way of trying to make sense of ourself and the Universe we live in it´s time... but come on!!! it´s time to move on... it just doesn't make sense anymore

      and what is that about the seeking of truth... seriously ... what is the role of science if not exactly that... if you believe in God then the seeking is over... you have it backwards dude

  57. Is there a creator? yes his name is Tyler

    1. well played

  58. God is known by faith which is a super sense is like our body have five senses see, taste, smell. hear, and touch and these senses came by a birth so the sense of faith come by the new birth, Jesus said without the new birth you cannot see the kingdom of God and that is exactly were the problem is, many of us is trying to see God without the sense of faith, is like trying to see with your ear or trying to hear with your eyes which is impossible so without faith it is impossible to please God. It is a experience,it come by hearing the word of God and once that sense of faith is awaken inside of you God will no longer be a mystery to you.

    1. it´s unlikely that a sense that is innate should have to be awakened... and we don´t have 5 senses ... we have more : sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch, proprioception and vestibular sense... and all are activated by fisical or chemical inputs even before birth and are very well understood by now ... so it seems strange that the sense of "Faith" should have to be learned... cuz if you don´t learn faith... u don´t even learn the concept of it... so your logic... doesn´t seem logic at all...

      take a severe autistic child for example... he sees he smells, he feels, he hears... but he doesn´t give a rats ass for what faith means... cuz he can´t understand the concept of it...
      if you´re saying that faith is a brain function I agree with you, I believe that deep down Humans have the skill to believe in something grater then themselves... and it serves has an adaptation tool to coupe with death... it's very useful to a conscious being to believe that his consciousness won't disappear once he is dead... but that being a direct line to God...!!? just seems to far fetch to be true... to defend my argument is the fact that almost every culture believes in something grater then themselves... but no one agrees on it´s description... so it's a fuzzy sense at best...

      Faith is a good ideal... and let that be the end of it... don´t go around saying you are more aware than non believers... thats offensive and self centered

  59. God doesn't exist. I should know, He told me. He spoke through my cat, and i don't even have a cat (yet).

  60. Why must everything have a creator? This sequence of logic makes no sense because the only reason "God" exists is to be the creator. Well then... who created God? If your answer is "God doesn't need a creator, that's why he's god", then what purpose does it serve to have one in the first place?

    1. Absolutely. One way I like to put it is, "If you're so eager to be an anti-scientist and postulate something which warrants no explanation, why not just let it be the universe and leave it there?"

      You could also say that if complexity is suggestive of a designer, how much truer mustn't that statement be in the case of god?

  61. the second argument in regards to a divine creation of the universe is so flawed its almost a joke. Andy Halbrick's argument that because of the forces that govern our existence(the four forces that govern our universe are gravity, electromagnetism, strong interaction, weak interaction) in this universe are in perfect balance for our survival. "therefor" there must be a creator who designed it that way. that statement reveals the fact that we have another person that fully does not understand evolution. life in this universe would obviously be reliant on the conditions of the environment that the particular life-form inhabits. in our lifetimes we adjust to day-to-day changes in our world. but when chaos happens people die. the same goes for life everywhere throughout history. we can see it with our museums today. 99.9999 (four decimal points!) percent of all creatures are extinct. major extinctions occur when climate rapidly changes, asteroids hit, disease spreads, invading competitors and so on. life can adjust and adapt to changes over time. but when you look at our world in a different perspective and view it as the particle it is in the known universe; we see other factors for our survival as life. we see that laws govern us and create the universe the way we know it today. we are reliant on the forces that control our existence. these forces have been consistent and continuously perpetuating throughout history(the four forces, gravity,electromagnetism, strong interaction, weak interaction) . life will rely on the environment it inhabits. it will not evolve against an environment unless adaption is fundamental for survival. meaning the creatures that survive the change are the creatures that pass on their genetics and the creatures that dont survive wont, leaving behind only the "adapted" ones. this also applies to the forces that govern all life in this universe. if gravity had somehow changed its power on our world then life would evolve around it. in our known history these forces have stayed consistent and there has been no need to evolve change. we evolved to these forces demands already if we are alive today and it just so happens that we haven't had to make any changes yet. but if changes happen, life will survive and adjust. leaving behind only the creatures that can survive. that is what natural selection is. leaving behind the creatures that can survive.

  62. @Lukk Php I take it you don't know the Evolution "theory". Such impressive functions such as the human heart has taken millions of years of dynamic genetic mutation. At this point we are at such an advanced state of physical being that we can't comprehend the power of genetic mutation, and how it came to be so naturally. We fall into the trap of the creationist illusion so easy, because it is so easy to make a statement about anything (like god) and say you just have faith and that is good enough. I'm sorry but in a world where science has provided the internet, CAT scan machines, the Hubble Telescope etc I refuse to believe in anything without good reason and logic, something that religion fails at.

  63. is there a difference between the relative mind and the absolute mind ?
    can the relative mind which is the human's prove the existance of the absolute mind which is GOD ?
    if we want to know GOD, it is through its creatures ? nothing can come from nothing. right? if we take the human body for example, we will be absolutly astonished by the way it functions. can this body just exist here by the sudden ? the interactivity of the components of our world is a proof its self of an absolute mind behind which is GOD.
    If you want to know GOD then focus on its creatures because our mind can't digest the absolute mind (simply).

    1. the real question is at the root of your original question. is there a difference between the relative mind and the absolute mind? who ever told you there was a relative and absolute mind? where did this idea come from? and why do so many believe it to be true? that is the first question.

  64. Why do so many (American) documentaries mix faith and science? It makes no sense, since they are mutually exclusive. If you abandon Biblical cosmology, in which the universe is made of water and the world lies under a vault (called "firmament"), like a submarine city, you might as well abandon the notion of a creator god. Rain does not drip from beyond the stars, through sluice gates in the firmament personally operated by God, as the Bible says. If Biblical cosmology were true, we could not fly above the rain, as we do in airplanes. Satellites could not circle the Earth, because the firmament (that separates our air from the ocean above) would be a physical barrier.

    The Bible is not the only book that is thousands of years old. Biblical cosmology stems from Babylonian sources and times, when people ascribed natural phenomena to gods. We know very well how science developed in the last millennia, so please leave history and science in their own proper context. The question if a creator god exists is as serious as the question if there is war on Mars and sex on Venus. The answer is: no, we are beyond Babylonian cosmology.

    1. pretty cool avatar, reminds me of "Les Tetes A Claques".

  65. Einstein the m*ron. The plaigiarist. Never made one discovery before or after he had his sinceure at the patent office, where famous German sciientists from FW Institute in Berlin were sending their stuff. Typical. If he was so smart why didnt he work on A Bomb?

  66. my question is: who made god?

    1. Then, if you ask me who made God, I can ask you, who made matter? If before there was nothing, how can something came from nothing? Where is Lavoisier in all this? Can you, just like that, ignore proven scientific laws like 2nd law of thermodynamics, biogenisis and Lavoisier (and many others)?
      It's very, very complicated my friend, to tell me that the human brain, or the DNA were created by random chance. Your brain can "listen" to music, "watch" a video, sum, multiply, store, learn, have feelings.... what else can I say! No such human, could do anything EVEN CLOSE to it so far, neither anyone could understand it. Please, don't tell me it was a bunch of irrational, disoriented matter the author of the brain! I know that you don't even want to change your mind, but at least, analyze the facts, and be honest with yourself.

    2. you are making an argument from incredulity. that is not very scientific of you.

  67. i say that there HAS TO be a God for anything to exist at all, whether He was there before the universe, or whether He came out because the universe did as well. im a Christian, but i believed in Science before i believed in God. my reason for believing in God is with a simple law that governs our universe: The Laws of Thermodynamics. first law states that Energy(which Molecules are)cannot be created or destroyed, only converted. it is scientifically impossible for the energy int he universe to simply just appear out of nothingness unless there is a being working outside the laws of the universe. i will not say that this means my God(Yahweh)is the definite God, event ho i believe that, because it just means that there is a God, Goddess or Gods who were here before the universe and created the universe and sustains the life of the universe

    1. actually you can also take the first law to mean that energy is eternal and has always existed just in differing forms.

      there is no need to posit a god there. before energy was formed in a way that made the universe it could have been in some other quantum fluctuation. saying that it means there must be a god to place that stuff there just leaves more questions like how did the god get there and what was it doing before it put the energy there etc.

    2. Hiii Epicurus How are you today :D I was just speaking saying hello I saw you down there and thought I would come say Howdy I'm feeling quite jovial today.. anyway moving along....Darn this episode of Through The WormHole is very informative a Must See Documentary here on TDF if I may say so Myself :)

    3. ...

    4. there will always be questions, and as long as theres questions there will be gods and theories arising from the minds of man. i have found nothing to make me not believe that there is a divine hand at work in the universe. when we die, we will know for sure what happens, and we will know where our consciousness goes

    5. What do you mean by saying differing forms? Which forms? What about the second law of thermodynamics? Many universes? That's not science, is speculation. It just happened? That's faith. Also you state "before energy was formed in a way that made the universe it could have been in some other quantum fluctuation", more speculation! You are saying that the existence of God leaves more questions, but your point of view is much more complicated and leaves even more questions. I could for example ask you to explain why did energy "decided" to change to the "quantum fluctuation" which allowed the universe to be formed. Why do laws of physics are well establish and precise? Why are atoms so perfect, with their so convenient nuclear interactions (strong and weak), were they also product of random chance??
      Also, I don't believe in God because it's less complicate, or leaves less questions. I believe in God, because it's the most logical thing to do. Just look around! Can't you see magnificent project in things?

    6. what do i mean by differing forms? you do understand that energy comes in more than one form right? matter is one of those forms?

      Kinetic Energy
      Potential Energy
      Thermal, or heat energy
      Chemical Energy
      Electrical Energy < Matter
      Electrochemical Energy:
      Electromagnetic Energy (light)
      Sound Energy
      Nuclear Energy

      and this is why im saying you are making an argument from incredulity. you dont even understand fully what you are arguing for or against.

      The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time, within a closed system (Second Law).

      Life is NOT IN A CLOSED SYSTEM. we get energy from outside sources.

      I never said many universes.

      energy being in another form is not speculation. the FIRST LAW states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. it changes forms. before it was in the present form to allow matter it was in a different unknown form. at least the speculations im making are actually working with real laws and theories. not just saying there was some magic entity.

      my view leaves questions that can actually be searched. just saying god did it leaves unfalsifiable questions.

      there are theoretical physicists who have come up with reasons that energy would have changed forms. look up string theory.

      atoms are not perfect and the laws of physics are not perfect either. they just work for what we have. if they were some other way we couldnt know. its a pointless question. like what is north of the north pole?

      and no when i look around i dont see god. i see natural cause and effect reactions. no divine intervention. no need for a god.

    7. I am studying engineering, how couldn't I know the different forms of energy? What I wanted to know, is what form of energy existed in the beginning, according to your belief. String theory is just a theory. String theory only makes sense if Big Bang really happened. String theory is just a theory trying to cover another theory's failures (Big Bang). No need for God? Life is not a closed system, indeed, but Earth is. How convenient it is that Earth has the perfect conditions for life.
      Based on your beliefs you can't even trust yourself, you are product of irrational and random chemical reactions remember?
      You say that atoms are not perfect? Well, it depends of what perfect is to you! They are certainly perfect for life because, as you may now, a slightly small change in their nuclear forces, life, no planets, no nothing. Chaos! Look at the universe! Stars, planets, galaxies! All well defined! Laws of physics are not perfect? Very demanding of you, not doubt about it. What is not perfect about the laws of physics? Also depends on your concept of perfection. If you thinks chaos is perfection, then their not perfect certainly, but if you think order is and beauty is closer to this concept, laws of physics suit perfectly.
      If you don't see super intelligent project in universe/life, it's even useless to continue having this discussion, I just hope you don't lie to yourself, and have a little common sense.
      I am not making an argument for incredulity, and It is a pity that you think you are superior and know more about this subject.... which probably you don't.

    8. we have enough evidence to show that the big bang (cosmological expansion took place) and string theory is a theory yes. a theory is a very very strongly supported position in science. so that makes it MUCH MORE LIKELY THAN A GOD.

      earth is not a closed system at all. earth gets all kind of energy from the sun and other sources outside of it. im the product of RATIONAL random chemical reactions. that doesnt mean i cant trust myself. you are once again showing how you dont understand logic. that is a complete non sequitor. dont worry i will let you look that phrase up.

      you are wrong about the slight change in the laws meaning no life and no planets. there could be changes that woudl still allow life and planets just not the way we know it.

      if you do see intelligence in the universe then you are delusional.

      you are still making arguments from incredulity. you are basically saying you dont understand how things work so there must be a god....grow up.

    9. "Magnificent project in things?" No, magnificent things from "chaos theory." Science extended the human longevity rate from 20 30 years to upwards of 80 90 years, no gods intervention.

      Why is everything thing so perfect? nothing is perfect, but livable because humans/sentient beings adapted to the universe, especially the Earth as it is because of "evolution" not the other way around! No faith involved, just life striving to know itself.

      "We must question the story logic of having an all-powerful God, who makes faulty Humans, and then blames them for his mistakes".

      "Gene Roddenberry"

    10. There is a realm of life you do not know of- the realm of the spirit. That is the realm God exists in. Everything in this physical universe is being controlled and sustained from this realm, because all proceeded from there. There are spirituals laws prevailing there, which determine how things go on in this universe. And whatever is done here gets a response from there which determines the consequences. All the forms of energy science has ever discovered, and will ever discover take their source from the realm of the spirit. The reason you cannot talk about it is because, it's beyond the natural man's perception, due to the limitation of his senses. The human senses can only perceive things in the realm he has been put to inhabit.
      You would agree with me that, it's not everything you know. And if that is the case, the existence of God is one of the things you don't know yet. But your inability to comprehend the truth does not eliminate that reality. That is how serious it it. Die today, and you would discover a whole new realm beyond the physical body.
      You can only know of the realm in which God lives when you have fellowship with Him.You will never really know him well until you have His Spirit in you.
      I know God because He lives in me by His Spirit. He always answers my prayers. When science fails to cure cancer, divine health from God always heals.
      If man were a result of some chemical reaction, how come he is intelligent and can reason but chemicals cannot. The most vital traits of man cannot be found in any non-living thing.
      I do things excellently because I have God's Spirit of excellence. I love because He is love; care because He cares.
      If only you would believe, I can pray to God my Father on your behalf even now, and you would experience His true love and Power in your life.
      I am the proof that God is real. Ask me and I'll tell you more.
      God bless you.

    11. Listen TIGGAPS, you have absolutely no authority or any right to pray to your invisible gods from your vague authority and vague realm of spirituality or whatever in my behalf, or anybody"s behalf for that matter, how do I know you are not inciting legions of demons and devils and things that go bump in the night from all your so-called Hells and from depths of depravity that know no bounds, so cease and desist or I will have to get myself an "EXORCIST"!!

    12. Relax my dear brother, I will never do anything against your will. Even God Almighty does not do that. I respect your rights just as God does.
      I know no other gods but God Almighty; the Creator of the universe and man. Father of my Lord Jesus Christ. He Himself is love. He is just, merciful and kind. He is the self-existent one; the All-in-all; the Above all. He is ' I AM THAT I AM '.
      I am surprised you believe in the existence of demons which are evil; but seem not to believe in God, the One who is against evil and uphold good; the one who teaches us to love.
      You can forget about me praying for you. But I want to hear your comments about the other things I said.
      God bless you and have a lovely day.

    13. "The reason you cannot talk about it is because, it's beyond the natural man's perception, due to the limitation of his senses."

      Then stop talking about it! How can you claim to know for sure what cannot be known absolutely? Because of a book that is compiled by several authors and over hundreds of years (bible)? There is not one line of text in the bible that couldn't have been written by a person of the first century AD.

      Please look into the ideas of Sam Harris, and study your holy book with the same criticism as you will do with the books of Harris. This man is every bit as spiritual as you, but he does without ever having to resort to phantasms of the mind or things that you simply cannot know for sure.

      Please do me this curtesy

      I wish you the best fellow spiritual seeker

    14. Dear TIGGAPS, you're riht in saying that there is the absolute truth which is God's himself. But I believe that we don't have to assume the responsibility of proving his divine existance just by science or by whatever so-called persuasive means. There's a saying in Turkish language that says if you are trying to prove the existance of God, this means you have the reservations about His existance. Believing in Him should be something self-proven for any sincere believer.

    15. "You will never really know him well until you have His Spirit in you.
      I know God because He lives in me by His Spirit."
      that sounds like you need to check out a psychologist, yo. You sound like you're possessed.

  68. Filosofem:
    "The world is in chaos. Honorable dealing is
    deteriorating, good friends are few, truth is
    held in disrepute, good service is underpaid,
    poor service is overpaid. Whole nations are
    committed to evil dealings: With one you fear
    insecurity, with another, inconsistency, with
    a third, betrayal. This being what it is, let the
    bad faith of others serve not as an example,
    but as warning. The real danger of the situation
    lies in the unhinging of your own integrity:
    accepting less than your best, being overly
    tolerant of stupidity, forgiving incompetence,
    fraternizing with the nonspiritual. The man of
    principle never forgets what he is, because
    he clearly sees what the others are."
    B Gracian, Jesuit Priest
    Filosofem: For I humbly say onto all
    Do not be fool, For this series is filled with holes and Wormholes.
    Think outside the box.

    1. what is one of the holes?

  69. The full video is no longer available. Please update the link.

  70. The first series, "Is there a creator," presents itself as scientific and later appeals to charged phrases and religious innuendoes as though on account of there being fringe hypothoses in science, such should be called the vanguard of cosmology and mathmatics or, because of such, that the whole of science should be reduced to a single hypothesis like it is a syncretism of science and religion. Uh, deeeeep breath and... .. maybe try again?

    He even said "intelligent design has as a debate raged in science for decades," like, "yeah, scientists just aren't sure if there is some creator." Err, sorry, but no such paradigm in cosmology or physics is taking place, nor are other scientists "debating" intelligent design. All you have to do is read the academic journals. Asking whether our universe was designed is not a question in science but in religion and among people who don't study the subjects. Before it was renamed, intelligent design (creationism), was disproven in court. You know, that same group of pseudo-intellects who try to tell us that evolution is "fake" and just some "theory," the definition of which they don't often even know...

    Even more frustrating was his hackneyed phrase "will we be able to see into the 'mind of god?," often tagged on to personalities like Einstein and Hawking by religious illiterates who think it some kind of argument for faith's being rational.

    If people would just read they would see that Einstein was at best a proponent of there being nothing more than nature, and that the majesty of nature was that it was so mathmatically simple. Instead, because of confirmation bias, such putative phrases are often only misconstrued bywords.

    Sorry to burst your bubble people, but the first episode seems to propagate a lot of culturally and religiously oriented insecurities and ignorances rather than describing the actual discourse of the fields.

    Science is not what the video is about. It reflects what its producers think American society wants to hear.

  71. Biggest selling point for and cause of atheism is organized religion, all of it now and all of it back through history. I believe the Creator has had nothing to do with any of it. (Except ancient Israel under the Judges, and David and Solomon, and some of the kings of Judah.) "Intelligent Design" is about as close as we have been to the truth in a long time. What is true and supremely accurate is the Bible, which has a longer history than any other book. It is the Word of God. It has no conflict with true science. It foretells in its pages that men (humans) will reject it, and will be absolutely unable to live by its laws and teachings. This is all for a supreme purpose. God is not a trinity. He is reproducing Himself. Not cloning. But as we do it, having children. We are getting quite near to the end of the beginning stages of His begetting and (the earth) bearing to Him Sons and Daughters. He deliberately made our minds hostile to Him and His laws. At first that seems counter intuitive. But it will not stay that way. Mankind, by going against Him in this phase of His Plan, will learn the hard way and indelibly which way of living works better, His or ours. We will come to the brink of planetary suicide before He steps in to resource us all. But with all that and what came before (history) we will have learned. You see this is a learning planet. We all have deep in us an acute desire to know, to learn. And eventually we all will learn. This is a learning planet. God is very loving. (We don't always see this.) But we all will learn. Near the end of His book it says "He will (in the end) wipe away all tears." One way He will do that is called a resurrection. All 2819 victims of 9-11 all back and alive and well. Yes, it's like a thumb drive out of the brain of every human at death, with the DNA and memory, back to Him and ready to reconstitute that person. No immortal concsious "soul." Everyone just sleeps in the earth (in the dirt) until that resurrection. It is like the dead are sleeping. It will all be good in the end. And Morgan Freeman will be able to have all his questions answered.

    1. everytime you perceive god as anything as an human with thinking, will and purposes you are going silly since those comes from the natural enviroment, therefore evertytime you try to define god you make it an ungodly piece of this universe and a stu*** human of yourself, not to discuss the after fairy tales you wrote.

  72. @Ansar 11

    What religious people call "God" scientists call a "first cause". This is because every state of the universe is "caused" by a previous state. They say that whatever caused the "big bang" had a nature that lead to the event. If physical existence fulfills a requirement and we can discover what that is, the nature of the "first cause" Or "God" will logically follow. If it does not then we have not yet discovered the requirement that is fulfilled.

    Steven Wineberg said he believes that it is very simple and that we are somehow blind in that we cannot see it.

  73. how does philosophy and christianity coincide? philosophy is so open minded whereas christianity is narrow minded. the more i learn about philosophy the more i disregard christianity or any religon as plausible. if philosophy teaches you truth and understanding doesn't christianity teach you to be deluded and to not question? philosophy opens a mind up to many possibilities whereas christianity teaches you to believe in one and to take a leap of faith which is very much restricting.

    1. "Christianity" is not based on the Bible in that the interpretations they teach are flawed with contradictions. There is a way to eliminate this contradiction but we must first reject the convenience of "surface" interpretations that our initial nature spawns.This can only happen when we are driven by a significant conviction of conscience to admit our previous nature. This is why the Bible itself tells us to be careful what we think we are hearing and that everything hid would be revealed and everything kept secret would come abroad and be known. This new interpretation which eliminates all contradiction and also solves the "synoptic problem" is documented in the book "The Third Measure of Meal". It reveals the Bible to be a scientific document that makes predictions that can be verified through experiment. The Bible details the evolution of the human race from a base-level convicting conscience to one of increased influence.

      Judging from your comments you will not be driven by fear to reject the new understanding.

  74. i always have a desire to know about our world more. and i am also the practicing christian, i believe in God who created the whole world, not as it is in the Bible. that is just story made for us to understand more about God. any way i like the site and always follow.

  75. Perhaps Socrates? He rose to a higher level of conscientiousness, and the independent thinker he was because he viewed spirit and form as one.

  76. where are parts 2 and 3?

  77. I think a barrier to a discussion on the existence or non existence of a God is that we are all talking about apple, oranges and orangutans, in other words, we are all talking about something different.

    Religion and spirituality are typically as different as night and day. And even God, Creator or Divine Source mean different things to different people.

    Furthermore, even if two people agree that some creative force was behind the manifestation of energy and matter, the method, its involvement and its purpose for having manifested energy and the forces in the first place may be a source of disagreement.

    For me, discussing whether (a) consciousness is the result of form becoming more and more complex - leading to consciousness; or whether (b) consciousness gives rise to form, can be independent of form and remains after the demise of form, would reduce the variables. And ultimately it is the same discussion, for if you believe the first premise - consciousness requires and exist because of form - you probable don't believe in a Source Creator. If you subscribe to the second notion - consciousness exist independent of form and gives rise to form - then most likely you believe in some sort of Divine or Supreme Conscious Awareness/Energy/Force/Love/Etc.

    Perhaps, that would help cut down on some of the emotional reactions that result when religious beliefs are involved. And there have been scientific experiments that suggest that consciousness or some type of awareness is present at even the very small, elemental scale. It is an area that scientist are reluctant to delve to deeply since it resists being described by an equation.

    1. Yes. Very interesting comment!

      It is possible to consider that form leads to consciousness because the process of evolution by which this is accomplished, and physical existence itself was a retroactive projection of the nature of a consciousness existing outside time.

      This can be considered in light of the fact that a binding and illuminating force that we call "love" could not function as such without something to bind and something to illuminate.

      In light of the fact that people under the influence of love can see a need to bind with each other that hateful (or people under a lesser influence of love) cannot see, we can understand that love is illuminating. But most scientists, with their thinking tuned toward the mechanical, may think that what is being illuminated is not particularly significant because of the mathematical order and "causation bound" nature of physical existence.

      As we are actually compelled to draw together, contrary to the knowledge we encounter through the processing of information
      through our five physical senses that we must suffer ourselves if we are to reduce suffering in others, we may be face to face with something of ultimate fundamental signifigence.

      What we may be encountering in our conviction of conscience are small portions of a binding motivation that scattered into individual points of perspective (The individual members of the human race) from a single point of perspective where it formed an intellegence whereby, being not subject to time because time did not yet exist, knew all it (or he or her) did simultainously. This is why I referred to physical existence as a "retroactive projection" of the nature of the creating consciousness. This kind of consciousness, formed when all the love that exists draws back to a single point of perspective, can be call "sensitivity without boundary". With no more points of individual perspective (intellectual reasoning) to draw upon, the universe cycles again and produces the individual perspective of mechanical reasoning in the initial stage, that, as love drifts back toward the single point of perspective once again, along the way, in an evolutionary process, produces a human race with an increased conviction of conscience that drives this discovery.

      Intellectual reasoning outside the influence of powerful convicting conscience could not make this discovery because it was designed by "sensitivity without boundary" to be, by itself, deceptive.

      The necessary nature of a necessary diametrically opposed motivation would have to involve deception because love is not only binding, but it is also illuminating. This makes the immense size, age and complexity of physical existence necessary to provide us with an alternate path of understanding, a mechanical one, until the time of change from a base-level convicting conscience to convicting conscience of much greater influence. Without the driving motivation of a powerful convicting conscience an intellectual mind will not gravitate toward the discovery of this pattern at the foundation of human existence. This is why this was not discovered before now.

      Based on the nature of a motivating force that we call love, we can understand everything else as inevitable.

  78. There is no such thing as a God of any kind.

    1. there is nothing in the universe the make god imposisble to exist, whatever thing god is. like most theories in science god may or not may be real.

  79. You guys talk too much. God delusion is in your head and it is right beside the part of you brain that impulses most people to spew never ending jibber jabber about this blog.

  80. If we (as a race) created a Universe, then we would have to come to the the harrowing (or enlightening) realization that whatever created us could have been just as imperfect as we are, perhaps more so, and that they created this Universe in an attempt at True perfection. (which is exactly what we would do if we suddenly gained the technology to create Universes). Besides, (I could be wrong here) most of what I read suggests that it is easier to (technologically speaking) create an entire Universe than it is to Synthesize artificial life. If that ends up being true will the idea of God even be important anymore?

  81. This site is great! One stop shop to many documentaries...Cheers to the owner...Thank you so very much sir :-)

    there are A few Doubts ...

    What was there before the Random Evolution took place... I rely on Evolutionist to explain?
    (creationist I already know ur answer ... Designer :-S )

    What made humans think a phenomenon called "God"?

    Naturally, why not people were simply Atheist? - As now some people claim to be?

    How did they get this God Delusion?

    Why did human want to put this God or Intelligent Designer above them, like some one controlling them(like an Authority)? please give a scientific explanation not a Zeitgeist(another group of controversial theory people) one!!!!

    Why is there not an Equivalent or subordinate or probably a better being like Humans on earth to challenge humans(our) views or atleast hold the same view? WHY ARE WE ALONE PUZZLED WITH ALL SORT OF KNOWLEDGE? (I believe this could help us solve this Evolution/Intelligent Design war once for all right?)

    Why are not Evolutionary or Intelligent Design theorist are trying to think about the above question?

    Why should not human knowledge of God be considered as an progress towards the right direction in the Evolutionary or Intelligent Design process?

    Why do we look down upon our Cannibals brethren? Why is not eating human considered as some sort of EVOLVED ALTRUISM? It really hurts...

    Based on the description given by the admin of this forum about what is Scientific:

    If Empiricism is the basis of science and science help us understand the universe around? then There should be no scope in science of what ever nature to speak about God,Angels,fairies,hobbits or whatever supernatural, because they are not Empirically observable? So If there is no such Scope in Science why are Evolutionary Atheist like Richard Dawkins being so dogmatic(just like the religious person) in propagating Atheism in the name of Science? One can not scientifically prove or disprove of what one cannot Empirically Observer
    It looks so ridiculous of him or any Atheist....It almost seem like all Atheist are bas**rds & desperately searching for their father and ATHEIST HAVE HIJACKED SCIENCE AS THEIR FATHER...

    Especially Dawkins being a scientist and having such vast experience...the behavior he exhibit was the last thing to be expected from him...very shameful indeed...If Dawkins behavior should be considered as a common benchmark of Atheistic behavior then I think we are better off with the religious folks...WE DONT WANT ANOTHER STALIN(s)!!!

    1. You asked- "What made humans think a phenomena called God"

      When a person has a great wrong done to them that is not reconciled, they are driven by their suffering and conviction of conscience to believe that the wrong will someday be righted by a God of judgement. This can be seen as a fabrication to fill a need that arises from a psychological agenda but it does not mean that such a God does not exist because if he did he may very well give us a conviction of conscience to draw our reasoning in his direction.

  82. Uhhh, 42?

  83. Hahaha Funny

    God - Religion are two separate things. Maybe the people who say that God doesnt exist is because THEY IMAGINE a true human behind everything or some kind of human shape. Remember the definition of what is GOD for real, is not define. It could be a force or something. We really dont know what shape is God but if you denied him is because YOU IMAGINE him (or it) like the religion say "he" is or you simply have a limited mind to think further.

    1. Yes. When people say their is no God i assume they mean the conventional idea of an old man with a magic wand and an over-sized ego that is often promoted by established religions in their promotion of their bottom line. When people say "their is no God" they can't mean that they know that there is no "first cause" that created (or lead to) everything else.

    2. further? i'm sure you can't define it as something out of the known universe (everything) therefore its creator, and for this reason it can't exist.

  84. Just because there's something we don't understand doesn't mean there is a god

    1. Yes. "God" is often used as the "duct tape" to hold things together that can't be held together any other way. But these belief systems may originate from deep within our nature and be very legitimate. They become incohearant when people without understanding endow them with details that are designed to facilitate a psychological agenda. If people have a belief in a God with a nature that is not supported by observation, that nature should be questioned. But the belief in the existence of a god itself should be considered.

  85. I dont know why people always say there is no god!!!
    if someone walk and see an iphone dropped on floor immediately he will wonder ohh there is must be a man behind this genius device,,, and no one will say the nature creates this iphone,,, also no one will say evolution does!!
    and when we talk about the brain of human which is more sophisticated than Iphone every one will say no one create this!!!! ironic and silly conclusion>>>>>>

    1. It's not ironic or silly at all, we know that man invented the iPhone because we were there when it happened and people have the proof that they created it. We don't believe in a god because we weren't there when the universe started and nothing has come forward with proof of creating it.

      To me it seems silly to believe that a god is real just because people have believed it for a long time or someone wrote a book saying it's true a long time ago.

      Surely you don't believe in every religion, why do you choose the one you believe in over all the others? The only difference between you and an agnostic or atheist is the belief in that single religion.

    2. One doesn't have to believe in a religion to believe in god. Societies all around the world may have different gods but their religions all share certain aspects. The most important ideas that are shared by all religions are the idea that we have some sort of soul or spirit which exists independent of our body, and that there is some sort of unseen higher power. Why have all societies that we know about shared these beliefs? Where did these ideas come from? I think that warrants further scientific and philosophical investigation. The human race still has much to learn about the universe and ourselves

    3. Yes but multiple theologies that are made by the same mind (a human one) catering to the same human desire will probably have commonalities. this in no way validates their basis.

    4. I may be wrong, but I think you may have missed the point being suggested by Ghasak Ibrahim.

      If we found a functioning system containing many efficiently interrelating components to fulfill a known requirement it makes sense that whatever had the requirement designed the system. Therefore knowing the requirement that is fulfilled by a complex system can lead to the nature of the creator of it.

      Because the universe has so many efficiently interacting components it is reasonable to consider that it has a creator. If we can discover what requirement it fulfills we may understand the nature of the creator.

      It is not unreasonable to consider that the universe has a creator. But we should recognize that little can be known about nature of this creator until we understand what requirement the universe fulfills.

    5. What known requirement are you talking about? We know we live in a universe that is very complicated and has formed from very small components over an extremely long period of time, but what leads you to think there is a requirement that is being filled by this happening?

    6. what people say is irrelevant, behind an iphone there is nature at 100%, also for your silly conclusion, if you think that the human brain is sophisticated what about God's mind? sure following your logic there must be someone who created God's mind, why? because God's mind is so complex and sophisticated that only another better god must exist, and so on and on, ahh no wait, your mind always gets stuck at the first god which explains your lack of logic.

    7. So we reach what is an infinte regression... So a more complex being than our universe created all we see... what created that creator. The exact same argument can be used for what we call God. We then must imagine that there was something that created our creators, creator. It will continue on and on and on.... its amazing that theologist will hold onto cause and effect like a baby on a nipple until they reach the idea of a creator then that "rule breaks down"... Why is is so easy to believe in a creator that does not conform to the ideas of cause and effect but its such a stretch to believe that the Universe may have always existed. You dont have to look no further than an accepted theory of this universe to see how the physical laws that guide what we see today were not always so. The concept of inflation means that at some point gravity may have been a repulsive force... this is what may have lead to the rapid expansion during the earliest moments of the universe. Gravity was not doing the same job then as it does now. If such a fundamental law was so different at the time of the big bang than why is it not plausible that the universe not only existed before the big bang (multi-brane theories acting as the bang mechanisim) but did not require an original cause. If the idea that many universes lie on membranes "floating" in a yet unknown medium, and that these branes will sometimes collide thus creating the bang we are familiar with then that answers your causality argument of our universe. That being said the laws that govern the brane scenario may not be as they are in our universe and the ideas of causality may in fact break down!

    8. there is no infinite regression: the brain or computer is created to explain the BEGINNING and end of all things: The 'program' has been passed down from the beginning in that the UNIVERSAL MIND began as something out of nothing: The reexperience of creation in the mind is exactly like this within the brain (computer) when the creator brings the 'old mind' (egoistic self) to a complete stop: I experienced this like a NUCLEAR explosion that left me with the reality of NOTHING leading to NOWHERE.......but slowly the "voice" (oracle of God, or prophecy) found its way through the "EMPTINESS" of me to rebuild my consciousnes to relfect, IMAGE the creator from scratch: he did this while I kept the same computer (rebooted my brain): Now a new set of eyes, ears, etc reflected another "kind" of reality that was "FORMED" on the qualities of the programmer and not on the egoistic ones my brain sensed the first 40 years of my life. AT 60, the new creation is as NORMAL to me as the old me was twenty years ago:

    9. simple and yet great conclusion!

    10. Amazingly put, solid logic......

    11. The iphone did evolve. It is built on many previous technologies. Not even our "genius" is enough to come up with something like this without slow, small changes that led to it. If there is a god, perhaps he is a tinkerer, making small slow changes that eventually led to the brain of human.

    12. All this statment suggests is that if a cave man (lacking advanced technology) found an iphone he would immediately posit a god to explain it. now while i doubt even that is true at all even if it were all it shows is how ignorant you must be (about as ignorant as a caveman).it also makes assumptions like "human thought is infallible (which is just hilarious)"
      OH BTW DEFINITION OF COMPLICATED/Sophisticated = HARD TO UNDERSTAND-------- So your answer to something that you have admitted is hard to understand is as simple as "something more intelligent made it" - nuf said PS - YOUR ABILITY TO COPY MODERN APOLOGETICS IS AMAZING KEEP UP THE FAIL JOB!

    13. ...found an iphone he would immediately posit a god..."

      That would be Steve Jobs, no doubt. Unless he wasn't a fanboy - then he would say it is not a creation, just a copy of existing designs.

    Very Convenient, for "Discovery" to have Freeman or should we say MR Freemason, hosting this Half truth Half lies, Dis informational series, on the intricacies of life and the Mysteries of the Universe.
    For I tell you beware of LIES and MISINFORMATION which is rapidly spreading at this very moment. For only a few handful of patriarchs since the inception of planet earth have reached true illumination. Learn, Meditate Reason, and Distinguish, and be able discern the LIE from the Truth.
    I wouldn't concern myself watching this shameful Documentary.

    1. what information in it did you not like?

      you seem to be extremely paranoid. how can you say you dont like it but say you wont watch it? you made the decision it was bad based on you thinking the narrator is a freemason because his name is Freeman (a common name for african americans "Free Man").

      that is border line crazy my man.

    2. Filosofem:
      My dear friend I assume by your picture, not only you must know the fundamental latter structure of life, but by embracing someone as Epicurus you truly must know the fundamental views of the subject at hand. For Epicurus was known most notably "De Re rum Natura and De natura Deorum" First of all forgive my paranoiac view if it seems to be your opinion, I apologize for it. As an admiration of my respect to you please tell me or better yet help me understand something??
      First I must clarify something for you, Mr Morgan Freeman is indeed a High Degree Freemason. But that's not important at this point.
      My question to you my fellow man is:
      What sort of Truth & Wisdom have you acquired by watching this whole series on the intricacies of life and the Mysteries of the Universe?
      What sort of Epicurean rationale, led you to come up with such a deduction?
      Once again my sincere apologies to you.

    3. first off, prove morgan freeman is a freemason, and i hope you dont quote david icke.

      the truth and wisdom i acquired from this series could not be put down in anything short of an entire essay, but i will tell you that it humbles as well as emboldens me. it helps you realize that the universe is much larger and more complex and beautiful than you could imagine without understanding it. helps us understand that we are not the focus and pinnacle of the universe.

      the fact that you wont watch it shows me that you are very closed minded and not comfortable with the strength of your own convictions.

    4. He may not be a freemason now but two more letters will make him SO. (Bad pun, bad bad pun).

    5. you hit a strike on the alley with this one.

    6. Nice!
      (smarty pants.)

  87. noah clearly you didn't watch the part from a neuroscientist who explains why. Has nothing to do with whether people are cowards or not.

  88. Why must we always default to belief in some "higher-power"? Why can't humanity just accept the universe for what it is: non-sentient and indifferent to human well-being?

    Because most people are cowards.

  89. I seriously believe religion is just inbuild part of human brain. I think there haven't been one society without some kind of religion and to me that proves there is no one god of specific type.

    I'm more affraid of very religious people than the fact that ther might be a god and he will not like my behavior. I've met christians who want all muslims to die and muslims who want everyone else to disappear.Scary stuff really...

    I consider myself lucky to be born in an unreligious place where I can deside myself what to believe in without majority of people judging me. I hope my country stays this way and hardcore religious people would understand to colonise some "holy" land instead of this unreligious "hell". (Pointing to muslims who are causing problems and fear in my originally peacefull country) :(

  90. Everyone needs to look up the definition of infinite. Limitless, boundless, and endless are synonyms. Does everyone not agree with me that it is a very hard thing to believe that either

    1. Everything, be it the universe or (more likely) multiverses and everything that they consist of and everything that consists of them on an even larger scale, has been here forever.


    2. Everything, be it the Universe or Multiverses and whatever makes them, came from nothing.

    This is a something that literally noone will ever know. This is the problem that cannot be solved. There is evidence of another universe pulling matter in this universe towards it via gravity (If it is true that gravity isn't bounded by the constraints that other forces have to comply with in this universe). Even if this is the proof we need to concretely decide that there are multiple and possibly endless numbers of universes, as humans and limited by the constraints of the universe we are in, we will never be able to go out there into whatever it is that contains the multiverses and even observe them, let alone draw conclusions about where EVERYTHING came from.

    For these reasons, I choose to live my life in the way I see fit. To do the human thing and be compassionate to others, abide the laws that govern me, and try to set an example for others to make this world we live in a better place.

    Just as physicists call their lack of explanation for the beginning of the big bang and the center of a black hole a SINGULARITY, I call my lack of explanation for the reason of either the beginning of everything or why Everything has been here forever GOD. Noone needs criticize my opinion because I can just as easily criticize theirs, and probably make a more valid point.

    I'm not targeting the group at whole, but many of the athiests I have met and talked to believe that the opinion that there is a God or whatever Diety(ies) is totally ridiculous, and they are completely free to express their feelings and beliefs. BUT many of these people need to realize that the Christians, Muslims, Buddists, and whatever other religions there are out there, have thoughts and feelings too, are not animals, and do not deserve to be treated as such. They are constantly belittled and made out to be complete lunatics by many athiests for expressing their beliefs. There are things such as extremists in religion, but there are also extremist athieists.

    I can sit down and talk with any athiest and explain the reasons for my belief in God just as well as they can their belief in there being no God.

    Any athiest, religious buff or otherwise that dares to challenge this argument feel free. I like an intellectual challenge every now and then.

    1. Looking up the definition will not adequitly explain what infinity is in mathematical terms.

      Yes I do agree with you that both of those things are hard to believe. Even those who created these theories find it hard to believe, which is why they spent decades getting ther numbers right, because the numbers don't lie. And just because I don't, or you don't believe it, doesn't mean it isn't so. If I don't believe 2+2=4 it doesn't change the fact that it is. With something so complex,the answer shouldn't be so easy (IMO).

      To say that "noone will ever know" is ignorant since neither of us know the future. Imagine what things people alive in the early 20th century thought we would never know, many of those things are now common knowledge.

      The way you choose to live your life sounds alright with me and I strive to do the same, although you do it while believing in a god while I don't.

      I would just like to point out that if you're focusing on extreme athiests than it should be of no suprise when athiests focus on extreme aspects of religion. You're playing the same game, but noone wins.

      I like that you're up for an intellectual challenge, it's refreshing considering most of those who follow in blind faith usually arn't. But to be truely up for it you must be willing to change your stance, even if that never happens, you must always be willing to, otherwise it's a pointless arguement rather than a debate. And if you are than you're alright in my book.

      And the way I see it, the world belongs to the religious, and I am happy that I get to live in it during a time where I won't be indocrinated to believe or punished for my lack of belief in the supernatural. If humanity is eventually destroyed by religious wars, than that's what we deserve and that's what we have evolved into. But since regardless of our differing beliefs we have to share this planet, can you really blame athiests for fighting against that happening? (Just a side note)

    2. Right, my intellectual challenge to you is prove it! The onus is on you!
      You say we, et al "are not animals" I say yes we are, we are apes of the "mammalian" species. That just came swinging down from the trees a very short while ago.

    3. Whats the challenge???? Is what it is. of course we're animals but that dont mean we have to behave like them now does it??

    4. @shane van Ireland:

      "that dont(SIC) mean we have to behave like them does it??"

      We don't behave like animals, we behave much worse, animals as a rule do not kill their own kind!!

    5. @Achems_Razor

      I can see that you are challenging me to prove to you that there is a God or some other Diety ruling the way we live. You know as well as I that this is an ignorant demand. I know that there is no way I can prove my beliefs to you just as well as I know you cannot prove your beliefs to me. Telling me that "the onus is on me" is just as ridiculous as me saying it is on you. No technology in the world can prove or disprove the existance of an intelligent being that exceeds the power of the multiverse or universe. The closest technology we have would probably be the LHC in Switzerland. But it itself only deals with things of this particular universe and would have no grounds outside of it.

      On the subject of us being animals, of course we are. What else would we be? Of course evolution is the correct theory, what else would it be? Of course Humans as a species are worse than animals. We do many horrible things like:
      1. Kill our own kind. Some animals do this, but not for the reasons or on the same scale that we do.
      2. Kill our planet. You would be sooo suprised at how many people where I live believe global warming is a myth and it sickens me at the oil guzzling, non recycling, coal burning race that is homo-sapiens.
      You misunderstood me when I said we aren't animals and shouldn't be treated as such.
      What I meant by this is that we aren't a member of another species such as a dog or deer or cat or mouse and deserve to be treated with more respect than such.

      I personally looked at your previous coments and thought you would ask a more difficult question than to simply prove there is a God to you. I thought you were smarter than that.

    6. @swordslinger04:

      I quote: "I personally looked at your previous comments and thought you would ask a more difficult question than to simply prove there is a god to you. I thought you were smarter than that."

      Why do most religious people right away resort to personal "ad hominem" attacks.

      You have already lost your credibility with me.

      You are the one that said there is a god, so I say prove it!
      I do not have to prove anything.

    7. @ Achems_Razor

      Ahh, I see how you can take that as an insult. That was no more an "ad hominem"
      than your,
      1.) "Yes, religion is a disease of the mind. An obscure internal belief system of some kind of invisible telepathic deities that only have their source in individual minds, absolutely nowhere else", where you personally insult all of the religious people in the world and make that a proof that you are right when in fact it prives nothing.
      Or your,
      2.) "Science is not interested in proving, or disproving your divine entity of your invisible telepathic deities, they have better things to do" Where you belittle religious people by saying that science has better things to do and use that as a proof that you are right, even though that proves literally nothing.

      And you lost credibility with me when you said that religion was a mental disorder.

      And you were even wrong about my comment being of an "Ad Hominem" nature.
      1.) I was not insulting you by saying I thought you were smarter than that, I know you are a smart person otherwise you couldn't articulate as well as you do. I was merely trying to get you to come up with a better argument than simply telling me If I can't prove it, it doesn't exist.

      The definition of Ad Hominem is

      "An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made. Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting)."

      You attack my intellect by saying I am not smart enough to prove there Is a God or higher power every time you tell me to prove it. And you use my lack of an explanation as proof that your argument is correct and mine is false.

      You are the one using Ad Hominem remarks not I.

      I have stated MANY times that I know there is no way to ever prove either argument is correct.

      And as a side note.

      I ask you simply, where would humanity be today if religions never existed?

      Ill give my answer to that question, don't get offended, it is only an opinion.

      Civilization could NOT have started in the absence of religion. People as a species could not have survived in large, civilized groups with property, entitlements, money and the like without a simple reason not to break down and primitively steal and kill and rape and lie and cheat and do everything else that is still looked down upon today.

    8. @swordsling04:

      Yes I reiterate, religion and the belief thereof is a disease of the mind, a mental disorder, a prevalent virus of humankind.
      You can also ask Prof. Richard Dawkins about that.

      You asked..."I ask you simply, where would humanity be today if religions never existed."...My reply, probably be far far advanced where all human ills would be no more, and even have off world colonies, and shooting for the stars as we where meant to do.

      Right now the world is divided into armed camps ready to commit genocide just because we can't agree on whose fairy tales to believe.

      In passing..."I am the creator and the destroyer, I am he that defines all worlds, I bring life to the lifeless. I rain death on all that lives. My judgment is supreme. I encompass all things, I am the progenitor of good and evil, I created sin, I cause its every pain. Hell is one of my works, I am the source of all gods, I create gods on a whim, I destroy gods with a thought. I AM MAN!"

      (Craig Smith)

    9. "There are things such as extremists in religion, but there are also extremist athieists."

      Ever heard of an atheist inquisition? Ever heard of an atheist suicide bomber? You wonder why these atheists belittle religious people?
      I as an atheist have to be confronted with religious bullshit, EVERY DAY. See what happened in Norway not so long ago. He called himself a CRUSADER for **** sake. Every time I hear the church bells ringing, I get shivers down my spine.

      I have had enough of it, thank you very much!

      If you can't prove it exists then keep it to yourself, it might as well be an illusion.

    10. All religion is false believe designed by men who sought divine yet couldn’t think small enough to teach its virtue.

      I personally believe in something similar to swordswing04 in that this universe (and ones beyond it) are governed by forces well beyond what we can fathom.

      The questions we ask ourselves relate to the infinite.. is there or isn’t there, we will never cease to stop asking this. If man can do man will do. Unfortunately we are playing with forces capable of eliminating our existence. Indeed a child must touch hot stove before it knows not to touch again, in the case of humanity we will not have that second chance.

      To me that is GOD. That is something greater than you or me or anyone of us put together.

      The question is therefore do you believe the universe has powers greater than humans???

      Don’t be so arrogant to believe otherwise.

    11. OK, I can understand your confusion of what I meant by saying there are extremist athiests.

      For one, what I mean by an extremist athiest isn't exactly an extremely violent person, although I have spoken to a few who have gotten quite violent when they think I start to make more sense than them.

      What I mean by an extremist athiest isn't the people who stay online and find sites exactly like this one and express their opinions on religion. They are the people who do that but express their opinion in a violent, belittling, rude, uneducated, and cruel way. They have no regard for other peoples freedom of opinion.
      I'm not saying that they they try to force their opinion down other peoples throats while Christians don't, I'm just saying that it is in the way they do it where I think they are wrong.
      Christians also do these things, like criticize athiests and believers of other faiths. But the majority of Christians keep to themselves and don't do this while the majority of athiests are out to every religious person in a

      And the people you bring up like the person in Norway, I can understand people automatically bringing up religion, but if you were to thouroughly examine this person along with other examples like Jim Jones in South America, you would be able to see there is something psycologically wrong with them (Look up Jim Jones for details).
      Besides, people like this are few and far between on a larger scale. There are far worse things in society than crazy people blaming their actions on a religion that they probably haven't even practiced in the first place.
      - Child rapists, can you find anything on child rapists or even rapists in general that blame their actions on religion? If so feel free to share I might be wrong.
      - Drugs, drugs in my opinion are one of the worst things affecting society as we speak. Most Christians don't do drugs, at least not the ones I have met.
      - Alcohol, alcohol in itself isn't a bad thing in my opinion, but alot of people abuse it too regularly and at the wrong times. For example, many innocent people in cars and pedestrians are killed every single year from drunk drivers in the US, add those numbers up and I will personally guarantee you that those numbers add up over the past few years than all of the suicide bombers and things you have mentioned. People of the Christian faith don't usually drink.
      - Your general, everyday psyco. Take the Columbine shooting and the Vigrinia Tech massacre. The VT massacre involved the death of 33 innocent college students. The reason? You won't find anything to do with religion about it I don't think.

      And sure, in the past there have been many, many wars fought and etc. over religious matters. BUT the thing most people don't understand is that often religious wars aren't fought over religion at all. The governments or monarchies or whatever leadership be it the papacy or whatever or whoever, have used religion as a means to hide the true intention of the war. Power, money, territory, are all more common causes of war than religion. These are the key things that drive warfare, not religion. Sure, there have been instances where religion could be the main factor, but in most cases if you do some studying about any given "religious war" you will find that there are usually other, more subtle reasons to fight. Not all the time, but 90% of the time.
      For example, people like say, Osama Bin Laden. Did you see him run out there on the field before he died with a bomb around his chest screaming into a crowd of pedestrians? No. Leaderships use religion as a cause to help lure weaker minded people into doing just about anything for a reason that normal people wouldn't do it for.

      "If you can't prove it exists then keep it to yourself, it might as well be an illusion."
      When I read this I literally lol-ed... it was actually more of a mild chuckle. I could just as easily turn this around on you. I could tell you that if you can't prove it doesn't exist then keep it to yourself. I know you can't prove something higher than us exists so don't reply back unless you have a good answer.

    12. @ swordsling04

      Thank you for your diplomacy, I have enjoyed reading your reply, I wil try to reciprocate.

      I understand what you mean when you say "the way they do it is wrong".

      "If you can't prove it exists then keep it to yourself, it might as well be an illusion. "

      When I'm saying 'keep it to yourself', I wasn't really saying you shouldn't express your opinion. I was trying to say you shouldn't act on blind beliefs. If you believe in a god, good for you, if you want to talk about it, sure why not. But going and destroying people's lives just because you think something is 'right' regardless of whether you can prove it or not, is just irresponsible.

      You say what happened in Norway or Columbine had nothing to do with religion. The way I see it, as long as we live in a world where acting on blind beliefs is not only tolerated but sometimes even praised to the highest regard, it will work for some unstable minds as a catalyst to do harm for their own blind beliefs. It is just too dangerous and irresponsible. I don't want my kids to be a victim of some guy who believes there is some 'special' reason to do harm.

      "- Drugs, drugs in my opinion are one of the worst things affecting society as we speak. Most Christians don't do drugs, at least not the ones I have met.
      - Alcohol, alcohol in itself isn't a bad thing in my opinion, but alot of people abuse it too regularly and at the wrong times. For example, many innocent people in cars and pedestrians are killed every single year from drunk drivers in the US, add those numbers up and I will personally guarantee you that those numbers add up over the past few years than all of the suicide bombers and things you have mentioned. People of the Christian faith don't usually drink."

      Drugs used by people who know why they are doing drugs are as harmless as alcohol used by people who know why they are using alcohol. (and I prefer the verb "to use" when it comes to alcohol just to stress the similarity).
      When you can use alcohol in a responsible way, then why wouldn't you be able to use drugs in the same manner?
      I know it can be done because I'm doing it.

      And you are right, a lot of wars were just about greed, but it was religion that made war acceptable for many people who didn't know the real motive, and that's what is really wrong with the way religion is used. Religion should be a spiritual haven, ironically it is often used as a justification for evil.

      If people did some personal effort to examine their own morality they wouldn't need religion. This way they would never be able to support anything that originates from greed and justify it by blind beliefs.

      I don't believe there is a God, but if there was I don't think he is on your side, their side, or any side. Yet God is used always to reinforce whatever greedy people want to see reinforced. As long as people cling to this mindset, this world will never change.

      And I don't think violence will ever be eliminated, but I think if we would live in a world where acting on blind belief was less accepted, a lot of unnecessary harm could be prevented. And when people examine their own moral instead of 'their actions and thoughts according to the word of their god', people would act more responsible. And that's all I want, for people to think for themselves rather than blindly following a 'ghost'.


    13. Just remember science knows it doesnt know everything but what it doesnt do is fill the gaps with nonsense like your God.

      You defintely cant make a valid point because you havent succeeded yet and as for intellectual challenge lets see some intellectual points.

      I dont have any beliefs, there is either evidence or there is only possibilty...I cant believe in something where there is evidence because belief is "holding something as true without evidence.

      Even if there is a God he/she is a cruel gutless winder and I for one would like to punch him or her nad that would be a first as I havent ever hit anyone.

    14. @ alunrichardson

      You are entitled to your beliefs as well as I am to mine and everyone else it the their own. I am not saying you are right or I am right or anyone else is right. What I can say is this. How we choose to live our lives will affect us forever, whether our forever ends the moment we die, OR if we continue to exist as a simple conciousness, OR if there is such a thing as a God and a Heaven and Hell, OR if my interpretation of God, the one where I believe most of the Bible is just stories made to teach children lifelong values and to scare them into being good, and that God is simply whatever started everything beyond this universe and the next step up and so-on. You can go on criticizing Christians and Muslims and basically all people that believe in SOMETHING, but when the time comes when you have to lie there and think about your past and the mistakes you have made knowing you are about to die...... like everyone must do if you die a natural death and not by a freak accident....... I have no doubt in my mind that you will have doubts about your belief system. No matter how solid your beliefs are right now that there is no reason for the things we do in this world other than that of the immediate future and present, you will worry and doubt yourself thinking "What if they were right and I was wrong?" I know because I am a former athiest and was one of the most cruel hearted people you can imagine. Until I had a near death experience, I had no idea how afraid a human being could be.

    15. thre must be an uncaused first cause`- the thing from which all thing come.... everything gas its opposite in reality- up/down/hot/cold/goodness/evil, hope / des[air, honesty/falshood thus material & finite and spiritual & eternal.'''
      CONSIDER that God is responsible for all the organization of reality as we see it and are it, u listed 1- the universe is eternal or 2- it all came from nothing.....but i say 3- God created it... all matter that exists has a cause.. the organization in dna/life/universe is beyond all our intention and ability to recreate...or fully comprehend... in medicine there needs to be specialized fields for every function of our bodies,, no doctor is a specialist in all of the body due to the enormous information and wisdom in the order of our bodies.. they are limited to one field(skin/heart/brain/neural/thorasic ect...) dna is not only a liberary of stored data beyond grasp of our mind... a files within folders/folders within super folders of heirachically stored digital code of a,c,t,g. all organised to such precision that any disorder in or arising disorder in the code, due to rapid cell division occuring in our bodies constantly as it does causes disorder-= cancer for ex...the extreme density of information in dna far surpasses any and all ideas today about information storage considering that no microchip could possible store the ammount of information in dna in such a compact INFORMATION STORAGE density,,
      AND NOT JUST ANY MIND COULD BE RESPONSIBLE, BUT A MIND CAPABLE OF CREATING AND ORGANISING OUR UNIVERSE AND LIFE ITSELF IN ALL ITS GLORY- which all stands as a tribute to the creative genious of our creator.. mind is the only cause of functionally specified heirachally organised and stored information ,

      everything that in our material universe has began to/started to exist.. at a measurable point in all had a beginning(big bang)point.. chance is not an option eighter... only a supreme intelligence could ever create this universe & us... 10/195th power odds of chance ever could produce a single protein, let allone 3-400 various organised proteins needed to create a single cell..that replicates itself.
      Imagine gmc announces a car that fixes itself and replicates itself .. only a mind can produce such a thing..but we are not even close to acheiving such a feat of engineering....considering the food chains of life and the universes organisation as well as conciousness. the brain ect,, it follows that only a mind could ever account for reality as we know and observe it..... we do not require the name and address and date of birth of the builder of my mac computer to know that it was built by a mind with a will, even so we do not need to know where God comes from to understand that God created reality as we know it.... ALSO read 1john 1: This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all[b] sin.

      1john2: We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. 4 Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, love for God[a] is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.
      7 Dear friends, I am not writing you a new command but an old one, which you have had since the beginning. This old command is the message you have heard. 8 Yet I am writing you a new command; its truth is seen in him and in you, because the darkness is passing and the true light is already shining.

      9 Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister[b] is still in the darkness. 10 Anyone who loves their brother and sister[c] lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble. 11 But anyone who hates a brother or sister is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness. They do not know where they are going, because the darkness has blinded them.

      ..anyone who wants muslims to die is not a christian according to jesus...

    16. It may be that anything that is perfect must by definition not have a cause itself because if it did then it would depend on something else and this dependency would disqualify it from the definition of "perfect" This may not be true but it seems to make some sense.

    17. The energy and matter in the "big bang" may have come from the "big crunch" of the last cycle in an endlessly cycling universe. The need to ask how something can have no beginning is born of our nature. But we should not assume that since the question has no answer that an endlessly cycling universe does not exist. The lack of an answer to this question may also be born of our nature.

      We may also consider that the universe, cycling or not, was not created from nothing. it may have been created from a bank of knowledge that, by that knowledge took on the physical form of the "big bang" and the evolving universe that followed. If this bank contained all the knowledge that exists and , being outside time, knew all of it simultaneously, the universe may be a gradual accumulation of it by a race of conscious beings in their linear passage through the intelligence-stifling medium that we call time. (we can't know everything we know simultaneously. we have to slam-bang our way through a process of linear thinking to access the smallest portion of what we have total access to. And even the total is extremely limited). I am describing two very, very, very radically different kinds of intelligence. We can not even, at the same instant, think 2+2=4 and 1+1=2.

      We have no evidence in physical existence of something being created from nothing. Only previously existing things changing form. It may be that an intelligence best described as "sensitivity without boundary" constitutes a bank of all knowledge that takes on a physical form that contains the same knowledge. The universe may be a bank of knowledge that was understood simultaneously and changed form to be accessed a little at a time. This may also be an intelligence that previously occupied a single point of perspective in non-physical existence that has scattered itself into the 7 billion separate points of perspective that we call "human beings". When we engage the influence of love we are caught up in the process whereby we will combine to form the intelligence best described as "sensitivity without boundary to once again expand and to once again contract, in endless cycles of physical existence.

      Inasmuch as love is both a binding motivation and an illuminating one, we can understand that it could not function in this nature without something to bind and something to illuminate. Mechanical intellect engaging the selfishness generated by the separate physical bodies to which it is anchored is a perfect facilitation of the requirement inherent in the nature of the creating intelligence if that creating intelligence is formed by all of the love that exists in all of the consciences of the human race when it condenses back into the single point of perspective, (from which it expanded) in non-physical existence.

  91. "phenomenally "finely" tuned", it quotes? Seems to aww even the greatest minds in science. Finely - meaning intricate and detailed? So...some kind of intelligence seems to be behind it? Not a man or tangibly obviously!An "alien gamester" you say! Or maybe just not perceivable by our limited 5 senses receptors and threatens the very stability of our logical basis! Perhaps we seek and we'll find, or be predominantly critical and skeptical and stay BLIND! Just saw the documentary this week and was intrigued by sciences findings, love it and looking out for more awesome discoveries. Thanks!

  92. Well, all I know is that the universe makes a lot more sense existing on it's own then being created by something which has no need to be there. That's my simplified take on it. Eat it or beat it.

    1. Well then according to ur "belief" there is no power governing u? no one is going to judge u for wat u have done in ur life time? good or evil?

  93. GOOGLE THIS.............unified field of consciousness

  94. If there is a creator it must've been having a laugh when it created humans. Then it probably cried. Then it probably went a created the sandwich and decided that it was best not to cry over spilt milk (which it had created earlier in the week, by mistake, but then it probably shouldn't have created clumsiness the same day as milk) and just let them get on with it.
    Aaah, the sandwich was good though!

    Good old creator...

    or not.

    Thank God for sandwiches though. Think I'll go and have one myself now.

  95. Why posit "an alien gamester who’s created our world as the ultimate SIM game for his own amusement" when their is already an explanation in existence that fits the observations nicely? A self-existent, highly intelligent, personal (as in with mind, will, and volition vs. impersonal) entity that exists outside of time and space with the capacity to bring time and space into being has sufficient explanatory power for the universe as we know it. Why not take such an explanation seriously? If "an alien gamester who's created our world as the ultimate SIM game for his own amusement" gets serious play, then the ancient God of the Hebrews should have a place at the table as a viable explanation for the origin of the universe.

    1. "A self-existent, highly intelligent, personal (as in with mind, will, and volition vs. impersonal) entity that exists outside of time and space with the capacity to bring time and space into being has sufficient explanatory power for the universe as we know it. Why not take such an explanation seriously?"

      Are you serious? I thought we agreed not to force feed our children poisonous fairy tales !

  96. Have you not wondered why when science finds an answer to one question it always without fail raises more questions. It appears that no matter how hard we as human seek out answers we always windup with even more questions. So we follow those questions into infinity. Man appears to get smarter, but if you step back to where you can see more clearly you find that yes mankind appears to be getting smarter, but they loose wisdom. So mankind is smarter but is not wiser. Would it not be better to be wiser than to smarter?

    1. I think all wise men will agree it is not wise to make men smarter.
      Wait a second, something doesn't sound right.
      Something smells brainwashed.

      Hear the echoes calling:
      "Don't eat the fruits of the tree of knowledge!"
      A strange dogma sung by the envious blind,
      Scared of the unknown,
      Yet so familiar with the dark,
      The light might sting their eyes,
      Eyes wide shut, locked and forgotten,
      It is true - they are still around,
      Thus they call themselves - the wise.

    2. good point my friend. Have you ever looked at an animal and thought to yourself, "I wish i could be that naive". Someone who is wise will find pleasure in life with the simplest of things, but yet understands why they choose this. Smart people are the most primitive of people in they dont understand what drives them so they will consume their whole lives with ignorance to the blissfulness of simplicity. Man only evolved to use technology because he had a desire to make his life easier. It was a necessary evolutionary step, just because it happened before man was wise. (arguable now that i say it) But what would wise man have done when the smart man started to progress get lost in desire for easier and materialistic gratitude's that we don't need to fulfill are nature needs.
      He would sit back and enjoy his or her life. anyway they could

  97. All your religion topic discussers, think about this:
    Egypt started the first religion with the worship of the sun, they gave various stars and constalations in the skies various persona's, they created a little cute story that would be a nice bed time fairy tale for their kids, and they perhaps whent abit over the top in their worshipping with the mighty statues, however, every single religion ever since,is a total and complete ripp-off of the Egypts story.

    Horus: Died on the cross, dead for three days, thus ressurected...
    .. Sounds familar?
    I recommend you all to watch "Zeitgeist" - all 3 of them.

    (I pardon my poor english, I did not have school to teach me that language or it's grammars, only forums like this)

  98. I am god, your god, the leaves on a tree is god, the light reflecting off your skin is god. but god isnt god

  99. is this the same morgan freeman ive watched 3 or 4 days ago in an other doc.his voice was somehow more monotonous,monophonic ,technology lacking..

  100. Why is everybody jumping up and down about religion? These docs are obviously wasted on those minds only focusing on their own thoughts and beliefs. And how on earth can science ever prove their is no creator? People prefer to believe in flying saucers than to believe in a divine entity as God.
    I think God at some stage - now or then pressed 'enter' and is sitting back enjoying the show x

    1. Science is not interested in proving, or disproving your divine entity of your invisible telepathic deities, they have better things to do.

    2. Before you get all uppity Achems_Razor, how many particles do you think will be found composing the higgs bosun if it is ever captured? I don't have any invisible telepathic deities, and I question 'man made' religions more than most. Created matter and fields within our known universe are like Russian dolls, the more you open - the more you keep opening -theoretically - for infinity. I know its cool to be perceived as an atheist, because it indicates intellectual impartiality to rites and beliefs.There is no bearded old man keeping score on us - cause and effect handle that too well. Where is this proof that everything was created from zero? Show me the numbers/equations! God is outside the realm of science and logic, so therefore G=z (zero)

    3. Well actually the proof falls to you prove your ad hoc, divine entity scenario that you claim a deity is controlling everything, pulling all the strings. That is something that is strictly in your own mind, a subjective reality that you, since you are a separate entity have formed. Give us the evidence!

    4. If science has taught me one thing, its that we must keep a open mind! Countless times in history we jumped to completely absurd, false conclusions because we assumed that we had the universe " figured out". Science is built on theory's, too dismiss a theory because it does not fit with society's views, or because it seems to be beyond our conventional knowledge would be complete ignorance! KEEP A OPEN MIND, Just because a idea is incomprehensible at our current time does not make it false.

    5. People prefer to believe in flying saucers more than to believe in divine entity because some of them actually saw flying saucers (or at least that's what they thought they saw).

    6. i like that thought, especially in the case of evolution. how fascinating would it be to set the laws of nature in a computer and do exactly what you said! so who's to say that's not whats going on with us?
      there are far weirder things than a creator in science, it's badass! love this website....

  101. I guess prejudiced reactive humanity is the best we can ever hope for then..

  102. One more thing for you religious crazed,materialistic,zombies out there...materialism an greed is a sin from your imaginary space zombie! Fuc*in hypocrites!!!!!

  103. Believing in a god is a mental disorder! Also,Science has disproven the whole fairy tale bible!

    1. Naa - people who get angry about people who believe in something they don't believe in are the ones with the mental disorder

    2. I suppose he gets angy at alot of children around Christmas, Easter, and Halloween.

    3. What I find rather funny about your comment is (firstly) how blatantly narcisistic, (secondly) you're being a hypocrit (you're pretty much worshiping science as if it WERE a god, which it's not (it's a tool, a system to learn things from. That said, humans do science, and humans have this crazy thing called getting their own ideas, which can greatly bias the results. Everyone has bias; I know I do, but you seem like you have a lot more bias than most. Do humanity a favor, don't go into science.). I mean, come on, you even capitalized science!!! I'd be willing to bet that you just had some traumatic experience with a theist at some point, and I'm sorry for you, but that's no reason to start trolling all religion).
      Third, you aren't the only one entitled to an opinion...

      Chill out.

    4. I'm with kevin122380 on this, for one thing nobody worships science.
      Science is all around you, even as you use your keyboard to type your posts, that is science in action. No beliefs in any deity will give you the same results.

      Humans do not do science, science does humans, right from the genomes, cells, and bodily bacteria, to all the electrical impulses in our brains and bodies that keep us, the human machine running.

      And yes, religion is a disease of the mind. An obscure internal belief system of some kind of invisible telepathic deities that only have their source in individual minds, absolutely nowhere else.

    5. Funny that you mention the "own ideas" part. What the heck is the bible then? Didn't the bible start of as someone's ideas? Is something written 1600+ years ago when they didn't know what electricity was a more reliable source for and answers then the truth and facts being figured out now adays?

      "He unleashes his lightning beneath the whole heaven and sends it to the ends of the earth."

      I mean seriously, one must be totally brainwashed to still believe in non-sense like that? The bible is just a mouth-to-mouth story, exaggerated and eventually written down. We all know now adays how a 15cm fish can turn into a 30cm fish after being switching mouths just once or twice. Imagine how these stories about god, jesus, blablabla were exaggerated by hundreds of people until they actually ended up at someone who was able to write? Splitting the ocean? Walking on water? Hell, it probably was just a tree laid over a tiny river!

      Original: "A tree was laid over a tiny river to be able to cross without getting wet".
      Person 1: "Not sure what they did, but they crossed a lake without getting wet!"
      Person 2: "He simply walked acrossed the water without getting wet!"
      Person 2.1: "He split the ocean with a piece of wood"
      Person 3.1: "He bashed his stick into the ocean which caused the ocean to split, giving him free path to cross without getting wet!"

      Pretty good "idea" I just had...

    6. How has science disproven anything? Evolution? Cause that's just a theory, that's a major flaw in most doc's is they try and sell ideas by declaring them as truth. There is little to any hardcore proof that we evolved, our existence is still a mystery and to completely accept the current theory may not be the smartest move. To declare that science has systematically picked apart, and proven that there is not a creator of some sort is completely and utterly false. The human Genome project was partially a disappointment because everybody thought it would be the miracle solution for all of humanity and it clearly was not, although some medical improvements were found. To assume life is that clear cut and simple is just ignorance, keep an open mind and do some research. Modern day scientists only "Believe" they have shit figured out, like evolution because society wants answers, how is that any different then the people who "believe" in a creator, that you are clearly bashing?

    7. Evolution is a theory just like the fact the earth revolves around the sun (helio-centric theory) is a theory. Although we can never view it, it is taken as FACT because all the evidence (undesputed) agrees with it. This goes for evolution too. I hate when people say "oh, it's only a theory." That's garbage. You say that there is "little hardcore proof" but clearly you haven't done your research. There is mountains of evidence. And all it would take is one piece of evidence to the contrary to disprove it. but alas, after decades, the "theory" still stands. While the existence of a Creator, ultimately cannot be proven unless he/she/it shows itself, as evidence to the contrary piles up, we can increasingly say that the probability of a Creator existing is less and less. The problem with many believers is that THEY are the ones who are not open minded. They quickly discard the evidence because they don't want answers, they want blind "ignorant" faith.

    8. I would also like to add: you don't need to "completely accept" evolution, but you should note that there is currently no other theory's with enough supporting evidence to challenge it. I would recommend you Google evolution or buy a book because your comments sound a lot like some of the ideological mis-information I hear. Also, the Human Genome Project was one of the greatest scientific achievements yet. I don't know why you think it was a "disappointment." It's benefits are still coming to light, finding causes of diseases and allowing us to target cures. Using the results has also reinforced our "theory" of evolution by finding genetic links to our ancestors. No one says evolution is "clear cut" or "simple." This is more rhetoric you get from your pastor. It's a very complex process that took millions of years. Lastly, Mr. keven122380 isn't right either by saying "Science has disproven the whole fairy tale bible" because it hasn't. But science has given us a very possible explanation to life, the world, and existence that is backed by tested hypotheses that stand up to critique. We can't say the same for a Creator.

    9. @ Kyle Fennell

      Firstly, my comment may not have been a complete thought. Evolution is the current accepted view based on the current evidence, and yes I agree no other theory’s hold the same scientific weight that evolution does. My point was purely not to disprove evolution, but to point out the ignorance surrounding certain science orientated ideas. Just like believers can be blinded by faith, we look to science for answers, and can logically be deceived as well. Just because an idea seems to make logical sense and fulfills our need for answers, it does not make it correct. People believed the earth was the static center of the universe because we would feel the intense wind caused by hurtling through space. As for as the genome, yes great achievement, like I said it did provide medical improvements and I cant deny any of those points, but it did fall short of the hype allot of scientist had associated with its completion (that conversations for another day). Not to mention the common mouse (Rattus norvegicus) has more HomoloGene groups then the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Evolution still requires scientists to extrapolate data, and make assumptions in order to obtain conclusions. Adaptation sure that’s a easy one to prove, but for a single cell bacteria ( somehow created by the big bang theory, since there is no creator :p) to form into a specialized multi-cellular, self aware, creatures that are Human beings, almost makes me wanna go buy a bible! Essentially my long convoluted point (for Mr. keven122380) was that if all scientists followed the status quo, earth would still be the center of the universe and we would all have three lobed livers. Scientific controversy seems to breed innovative ideas, and we should embrace that concept, not bash it.

    10. much better articulated comment. Though I don't believe most people are "logically deceived" by science like they are with religion. We can't live our lives thinking one day evolution could be disproved so we shouldn't believe in it now. While some theory's are young, evolution has been tested and built upon for 150 years now. Enough evidence has been produced that is pretty conclusive. Our understanding of biology, genetics etc is much more developed now. Religion defies "logic" and is completely dependent on "faith." Without faith, religion is equivalent to the myths of the greek gods. Being a scientist myself, I read and study a lot, so I can rationally judge what is right. I know others, possibly Mr. kevin, just read the headlines and blurt out bit and pieces they've read, but the ones that matter are doing the research, and their work is many times over critiqued so we have refined, accurate theory's and results. Don't knock the science.

      By the way, the big bang never made single celled organisms. The world was formed and cooled over million (billions?) of years before single celled organisms formed from organic soup mixing in the oceans (not conclusive). I'm sure these were no more self aware than bacteria today. There are many examples of evolution documented and we can see evolution all around us happening. It's a fun and exciting science to study. Maybe if you you do, that bible won't look so tempting anymore....

  104. All the information science gathers does not prove there is NOT a creator.It just proves that we are getting further and further into unraveling the mysteries of nature. No matter how far we go into the realms of hidden worlds, dimensions and time, it feels like infinity always beckons. Thoughts within the mind of man are the key - the 'love particle' xx

    1. Science will prove that there is NO GOD real soon though! Infinite universes,with no beginning an no end!

    2. That is not strictly true kevin. Science will never disprove the existence of a supernatural god because science by definition deals with natural phenomena. A god, as most people I imagine would conceive of it, has little or nothing to do with the natural world that we can access. There's no point in an evidence-based argument for or against the existence of something super-natural.

      Make the evidence-based argument about the useful effect of a viewing of reality through a particular process (discovery as in science, authority/teleology as in religion), and that will probably make any dogmatic view of god irrelevant anyway.

    3. OK let me ask you this, do you even know the definiton of infinity? Infinity is literally endless. IF there were infinite universes, which is a current hypothesis if I'm not mistaken, then there would literally be endless numbers of possibilities. IF there were Infinite universes, then there is infinite chance that every individal universe has its own individual God and ther is infinite chance that no God rules any universes in the multiverse. (In place of God, put whatever suites you). That scenario, if I'm not mistaken, would be a what is called a paradox. In my opinion, you can look at it this way, either everything is Infinite and has lasted forever, which makes no sense; or you can think of it as everything has came from nothing, which defies the laws of physics! (At least in this universe). Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

      Having stated these things, I believe that SOMETHING has created everything, and being raised in a Christian family, I prefer to call whatever or whoever that thing is, GOD.

    4. @swords

      That's not the defintion on infinity. Infinity means everything not endless. Numbers can be added to or subtracted from and it is still infinity. The "endless" comes fromlaymans terms meaning that the number is so high that we don;t have the brain capacity to imagine it so they just say it goes on "forever".

    5. @avd420

      You need to look up the definition of infinite. Limitless, boundless, and endless are synonyms. On the other hand, reguardless of each others opinions of what infinity means, do you not agree with me that it is a very hard thing to believe that either

      1. Everything, be it the universe or (more likely) multiverses and everything that they consist of and everything that consists of them on an even larger scale, has been here forever.


      2. Everything, be it the Universe or Multiverses and whatever makes them, came from nothing.

      This is a something that literally noone will ever know. This is the problem that cannot be solved. There is evidence of another universe pulling matter in this universe towards it via gravity (If it is true that gravity isn't bounded by the constraints that other forces have to comply with in this universe). Even if this is the proof we need to concretely decide that there are multiple and possibly endless numbers of universes, as humans and limited by the constraints of the universe we are in, we will never be able to go out there into whatever it is that contains the multiverses and even observe them, let alone draw conclusions about where EVERYTHING came from.

      For these reasons, I choose to live my life in the way I see fit. To do the human thing and be compassionate to others, abide the laws that govern me, and try to set an example for others to make this world we live in a better place.

      Just as physicists call their lack of explanation for the beginning of the big bang and the center of a black hole a SINGULARITY, I call my lack of explanation for the reason of either the beginning of everything or why Everything has been here forever GOD. Noone needs criticize my opinion because I can just as easily criticize theirs, and probably make a more valid point.

      I'm not targeting the group at whole, but many of the athiests I have met and talked to believe that the opinion that there is a God or whatever Diety(ies) is totally ridiculous, and they are completely free to express their feelings and beliefs. BUT many of these people need to realize that the Christians, Muslims, Buddists, and whatever other religions there are out there, have thoughts and feelings too, are not animals, and do not deserve to be treated as such. They are constantly belittled and made out to be complete lunatics by many athiests for expressing their beliefs. There are things such as extremists in religion, but there are also extremist athieists.

      I can sit down and talk with any athiest and explain the reasons for my belief in God just as well as they can their belief in there being no God.

      Any athiest, religious buff or otherwise that dares to challenge this argument feel free. I like an intellectual challenge every now and then.

    6. @swords
      Looking up the definition will not adequitly explain what infinity is in mathematical terms.

      Yes I do agree with you that both of those things are hard to believe. Even those who created these theories find it hard to believe, which is why they spent decades getting ther numbers right, because the numbers don't lie. And just because I don't, or you don't believe it, doesn't mean it isn't so. If I don't believe 2+2=4 it doesn't change the fact that it is. With something so complex,the answer shouldn't be so easy (IMO).

      To say that "noone will ever know" is ignorant since neither of us know the future. Imagine what things people alive in the early 20th century thought we would never know, many of those things are now common knowledge.

      The way you choose to live your life sounds alright with me and I strive to do the same, although you do it while believing in a god while I don't.

      I would just like to point out that if you're focusing on extreme athiests than it should be of no suprise when athiests focus on extreme aspects of religion. You're playing the same game, but noone wins.

      I like that you're up for an intellectual challenge, it's refreshing considering most of those who follow in blind faith usually arn't. But to be truely up for it you must be willing to change your stance, even if that never happens, you must always be willing to, otherwise it's a pointless arguement rather than a debate. And if you are than you're alright in my book.

      And the way I see it, the world belongs to the religious, and I am happy that I get to live in it during a time where I won't be indocrinated to believe or punished for my lack of belief in the supernatural. If humanity is eventually destroyed by religious wars, than that's what we deserve and that's what we have evolved into. (Just a side note)

    7. "Thoughts within the mind of man are the key- the 'love particle'.

      i like that!

  105. Andre, the idea here is not "created" by chance or at random. The idea has more to do with scale. When dealing with infinity or simply, the finite but extreamly large scale of "universe" or "universes", chance goes out the window. It is not as though our universe/reality was a single, impossible shot in the dark that miraculously worked, affording us the ability to be here today and wonder how "it" all begain. It can be more acuratly described as an infinite number of shots in the dark, and with that many shots, one (at least) is garunteed to hit the mark. To clarify, playing the lottery would not be considered a gamble if you could pick every single number combination possible. You would be garunteed to win. This is not a specifically "finely tuned" universe, but rather, the one of an infinite amount of shots that worked. The shot in the dark that was able to sustain life in our universe. This was the garunteed result for life the way we know it, no matter how many shots were taken, eventually, this one had to be struck in order for us to be here with these questions.

  106. I could not watch the doc, but I've read some coments, and I may say that people are fool enought to believe that universe, in its full harmony, and even people theirselves, were created randomly. Rather ironic as those people theoretically (according to their beliefs (yes, beliefs!)) can't even trust their own conviction that life evolved and the astonishing universe were "created" by chance, because if they believe their brain is product of random chemical reactions, so, how can they trust in their own thoughts? How can they be so sure of all this things? THEORY of evolution is mentioned in almost every doc as a absolute truth. Cheers to this new religion called Theory of evolution!

    1. Thank you. I've been WAITING for someone to bring this up.

  107. Pretty sensationalist but some good information. I keep on thinking war of the worlds is about to begin.

    Also the fact that life AS WE KNOW IT has lots of big and small factors present that are necessary to exist does not in any way suggest intelligent design. It seems pretty obvious that life has evovled specifically to fit this environment. The environment was not made for life, life was made for the environment.

    One more thing: right ear, right queer.

    Yet another thing: comparing a computer to a human brain is ridiculous. The brain is more than ten thousand times more powerful it is infinitly more powerful. The human brain has understanding, original thought and randomness. The computer can never achieve this because the brain has millions of different connections happening at one time. The computer is analogue compared, it is nothing.

  108. "this video contains content from Discovery International, who has blocked it on copyright grounds."
    very displeasing, just a few minutes from the end of episode one!
    anyone know where else i might be able to view it?

  109. speculative attempts to know the cause of everything by conditioned living beings with no stock of personal austerity and penance are likened to a frog blowing up its throat to try and
    estimate the size of the ocean.

  110. O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs. Quran, Chapter 4, Verse 171

    1. honestly man, nobody really cares.... go to a muslim website and spout out whatever you want to there.

  111. And say, "Praise to Allah , who has not taken a son and has had no partner in [His] dominion and has no [need of a] protector out of weakness; and glorify Him with [great] glorification." Quran, Chapter 17, Verse 111.

  112. Knower of the unseen and the witnessed, the Exalted in Might, the Wise. Quran, Chapter 64, Verse 18.

  113. Allah - there is no deity except Him, the Ever-Living, the Sustainer of [all] existence. Neither drowsiness overtakes Him nor sleep. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. Who is it that can intercede with Him except by His permission? He knows what is [presently] before them and what will be after them, and they encompass not a thing of His knowledge except for what He wills. His Kursi extends over the heavens and the earth, and their preservation tires Him not. And He is the Most High, the Most Great. Quran, Chapter 2, verse 255.

  114. Say, "He is Allah , [who is] One,
    Allah , the Eternal Refuge.
    He neither begets nor is born,
    Nor is there to Him any equivalent." Quran, Chapter 112

  115. He is Allah , other than whom there is no deity, Knower of the unseen and the witnessed. He is the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful.

    He is Allah , other than whom there is no deity, the Sovereign, the Pure, the Perfection, the Bestower of Faith, the Overseer, the Exalted in Might, the Compeller, the Superior. Exalted is Allah above whatever they associate with Him.

    He is Allah , the Creator, the Inventor, the Fashioner; to Him belong the best names. Whatever is in the heavens and earth is exalting Him. And He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise. Quran, Chapter 59, Verse 22-24

  116. subtitles

  117. On the G-d theories, i can feel the simulation option...

  118. i agree, great documentary. On the G-d theories, i think we can discount the G-d only in our minds, electro-magnetically inspired theory. I've personally witnessed a situation where an event happened, and then another person came into the room and confirmed the, let's say, "remnants" of the event, i.e. where did this/that come; therefore, that could not have been just in the mind only...

    1. On the G-d theories, i can feel the simulation option...

  119. The idea that we are the simulated environment under the whim of a Supreme Programmer is one that has been somewhat implied by ancient Eastern thought. It would explain why we can never know God, just as a program merely operates, unconscious of its creator.

  120. this is a great documentary. I think it is possible that all of these theories could be correct and could explain how the universe was created...imagine u would "creator" of the most realistic simulation of the world and this universe. u could do anything imaginable in this "god-like" simulation and u populated it starting from two people and making hundreds of babies!!! well wouldnt u love all of those people as if u were the god of this world...i think it is very posible the god of this universe is our future selves and he currently lives inside of us or one of heres the twist that will blow ur the infinity universe theory every possible outcome and choice in life for every single person has already happened in different dimensions of time and space...well what everybody does live in their own dimension does that mean the creator of this universe is myself or everybody else? well imagine that the creator is just myself that means that all of my recollection of how humanity is, is portrayed in this world and now i have been born into this world for one purpose to bring people from this world that i love and bring them into the next dimension where we could all be gods of our own universe kinda like "heaven" but in a virtual world that is a new dimention and new universe.. now think about how it would be different for sumbody else in their own dimention..they themselves get born into there world at the right time to enter the next dimension and become gods of the next universe...wouldnt u think they would have their lives already predetermined by their future selves who are in fact the conscience of their current human body...i could talk about this forever because this cycle goes on for infinity but im prolly confusing alot of people by ask me some questions

    1. I have no idea what you are talking about? For one thing do you ever stop to take a breath while talking?

      Make sentences, with paragraphs, and learn sentence structure with proper spelling, and write "you" instead of "u", gave me a headache.

      And no do not want to ask you any questions.

  121. An interesting documentary. The sense of an all pervading,ego deminishing,oneness,described by people who have undergone the mystical experience,
    compared with the ego observing hallucinations of the yellow helmet experiments,make the God claims rather premature and more to do with the keeness of the experimenter to shape the results to fit his beliefs.

    How such experiments might help in fields like mental illness, would be better questions to ask.

  122. If scientists today are re-creating the big bang in labs, wouldn't we (humans) be in the role of the "creator"?

    perhaps that is all that happened

  123. If the infinite-universe theory is correct, and there are an infinite number of universes where each and every possibility is realized, wouldn't that mean that there is a universe that was created by a God? If there was such a universe, and the God was all-powerful, that would mean that he would be able to cross over into our universe.
    Not making any kind of point what-so-ever about religion here, it was just a thought that occurred to me and I thought I would share.

    1. this is a great documentary. I think it is possible that all of these theories could be correct and could explain how the universe was created...imagine u would "creator" of the most realistic simulation of the world and this universe. u could do anything imaginable in this "god-like" simulation and u populated it starting from two people and making hundreds of babies!!! well wouldnt u love all of those people as if u were the god of this world...i think it is very posible the god of this universe is our future selves and he currently lives inside of us or one of heres the twist that will blow ur the infinity universe theory every possible outcome and choice in life for every single person has already happened in different dimensions of time and space...well what everybody does live in their own dimension does that mean the creator of this universe is myself or everybody else? well imagine that the creator is just myself that means that all of my recollection of how humanity is, is portrayed in this world and now i have been born into this world for one purpose to bring people from this world that i love and bring them into the next dimension where we could all be gods of our own universe kinda like "heaven" but in a virtual world that is a new dimention and new universe.. now think about how it would be different for sumbody else in their own dimention..they themselves get born into there world at the right time to enter the next dimension and become gods of the next universe...wouldnt u think they would have their lives already predetermined by their future selves who are in fact the conscience of their current human body...i could talk about this forever because this cycle goes on for infinity but im prolly confusing alot of people by ask me some questions

  124. fascinating documentary. A bit of science, a bit of star trek and a bit of the matrix! Comparing our brains to a computer, hence our entire existence to a computer simulation is intriguing, but as I have just learned that the way we deal with the unknown is to reduce it to something we already know, via comparison, analogy etc, I feel a bit sceptical about the god-computer programmer idea. The surfer physicist on the other hand may be onto something real... he surely understood more about life than most of us! Thanks for another great doc vlatko!


  126. banging dubstep bro

  127. Why isn't string theory mentioned in this documentary? Isn't that the current, working theory of everything? Or was it at some point discredited?

  128. @clix

    Im pretty sure achems point is that the universe does not evolve to fit life, but life evolved to fit the universe. and this is absolutely true. natural selection is the process that guides the random mutations. thus environment shapes organisms. of course once an organism exists and has the ability to alter its environment, they start working with one another so to speak. but the environment shapes the organism.

    the earth and the universe are absolutely not fine tuned for anything other than black holes. the presence of black holes and dark matter make up much more of the universe than life or livable space.

    if both of you ignored the stupid personal attacks, maybe you could have stayed on topic.

  129. Who created the Alien gamester?

  130. Why are we here and how did we get here?

    The problems with evolution: there are gaps in the fossil records and there are gaps in our knowledge of the transformational processes of one species to the next.

    Both of these problem have reasonable answers that have been given time and time again on TDF and many other forums of learning.

    The problem with a god theory: There is absolutely no evidence to support it. There are no testable or falsifiable results. It explain absolutely nothing about the process of special development. It has no basis in the empirical. It has thousands of years of bizarre literature associated with it.

    Be honest. Which is better? and what are reasonable the alternatives to evolution?

  131. @clix:

    Understood! No harm, no foul! have a good one!

    1. You never answered the question.

  132. @Achems Razor

    I have my answer in form of forfeiture.

    I do apologize if my initial comment came across as an ad hominem attack, as that was not my intention. However, I was a bit irked by the sweeping nature of your statement, to which I responded. Nothing personal.

    I have read many of your arguments against ID. If I have a need to engage you in ideological discussions, I would have done it there. It is not my forte.


  133. clix:

    You can presume anything that you want, so then I can presume you are an ID propagandist. Did you graduate from a theology college maybe?

    I can see where this is going with your ad hominem attacks., nowhere!

    In case you do not know, you brought this whole thing up.
    Your first post to me was nothing but a ad hominem attack!

    I have better things to do than indulge in your fantasies, so bid you adieu.

    I'm just sayin, (Carl Sagan)

  134. Hmmm...why the animosity? Have I struck a chord? I presume you're an older guy (the extensive library thing gave it away), and you lower yourself to juvenile name calling (Carl Sagan!)?

    Why are we discussing my intentions and the source(s) of my knowledge? I am not the one who made such an outlandish and indefensible statement while claiming to read the theory of evolution everyday at my 'extensive library'.

    Do you have a problem with college students and professors? Obviously you haven't been a graduate student. I have seen my professor a handful of times in the last 3 years, and when we do talk our conversations are very brief. Sorry to disappoint you, but he doesn't consult me about what I do on TDF.

    I not only use Wiki, but also edit a good amount of science articles on the site. It is an excellent resource on relatively uncontroversial matters. So, get off of your high horse, with your extensive library and all, which most of them are written by college professors, BTW. So, following that logic, most of what you know is told to you by a college professor of one sort or another! ;-)

    And no, I am not arguing this point from an ideological position. However, I do take issues with ill informed individuals like yourself who try to use science to advance their ideological ends.

    Getting back to the topic, if you do read the theory of evolution everyday, how can you miss the essence of the theory by so much?

  135. @clix:

    I never rely on "Wiki" for anything, as you it seems.

    Good for you! a graduate student in "bio-chem"...Wow!!

    Could be another influx of college students who know it all, because their Prof's said so...Hmmm?

    Are you maybe trying to instill some ID here?

    I'm just askin, (Carl Sagan)

  136. @Achems Razor

    Interesting. Everyday?

    If that's true how can you make such statement even at a rudimentary level of understanding of evolutionary theory? You certainly wouldn't need an extensive library to see the faulty logic in such a sweeping statement. You can read the Wikipedia entry on evolution to see evolution happens to organisms that are already in existence.

    I read evolutionary theory as often as I need to stay on top of it. I am a graduate student in bio-chem, and I have a need to visit the subject once every while.

  137. @clix:

    You asked me one question, "when was the last time you cracked open a book on the scientific, not popular, theory of evolution". My answer, everyday! from my extensive library, no computers back in "them thar" days.

    My question, when did you?

  138. @Achems Razor

    The Universe (including the Earth) and its constants are “not” fine tuned for life and humanity; instead life and humanity, through “Evolution”, are fine tuned to the Universe (especially the Earth) as it is.

    That was said with so much gusto, I would have believed it had it not occurred to me you are making a statement which is impossible to substantiate. It is arguments like this that cause the theory of evolution to overreach its limits and lose credibility among the least informed. On the flip side of the coin, it is also such overreach that gives the least informed 'believers' in evolution the gospel they need to repudiate theism.

    When was the last time you cracked open a book on the scientific, not popular, theory of evolution?

  139. Started to watch this one. They keep talking about "everything being in perfect balance". I don't agree with this. Everything is just as it is. There's nothing special about this state, that we're in right now.

    Just like rolling 1000 dices, and writing down each outcome. And then afterwards gaze at the numbers and think that it's amazing that this exact row of numbers are the result. What would the chances be of rolling the same dice again? The row of numbers is one of a kind, but there's nothing special about it, as everytime you would do this experient, there would be a new row of numbers.

    Like staring at static noise in the tv. Totally individual, and special....but not interesting.

    We, as living orgranisms, are not special. We just think we're special. When in fact, the universe doesn't care if we where a rock or a living organism. We just are as we are.

    The only things, that think that humans are special....are humans themselves.

    1. I actually believe in God ,but I think your point of view is excellent .

    2. Firstly, your dice wouldn't exist if the universe wasn't in "perfect balance", never mind roll "random" numbers.

      I think you are both right and wrong - an individual is nothing without a collective and a collective is nothing without an individuals idea.
      Consider our (collective) technological acceleration and it isn't hard to see humans creating something very special ....but whether or not that makes us special....hmmm.

  140. @shovelyjoe:

    What is your point? do you actually believe that hogwash that you just wrote, or copied? your God is a gentleman?? in a p*gs A55!

  141. @eireannach666

    What you have asked is not easy to explain,but even if it is easy then iam not capable to do so with my limited knowledge.but I just try to put forth my point of view.

    With all the development in scientific field we still cannot draw a perfect circle,and to quote Plato:

    'All geometric figures are in your head. Outside, close enough is good enough.

    and perfection in Hinduism is defined as 'spiritual transcendence'

    In ancient times in India at around 700 B.C there used to exist six philosophical schools and I would rate 'samkhya' and 'Nyaya' schools as the best,your present day 'watchmaker'
    theory was answered by Nyaya school in 600 B.c itself.and they wrote extensively about the perfection of gods and imperfection of humans,you can just google 'Nyaya' for further info.


  142. @anurag

    Please elaborate further and provide some testable evidence that says perfection or imperfection points towards or away from a creator of any kind? Just want to know what you are basing your statement on. Do you have more than text is what I guess I'm asking.


    Brod Eireannach.

  143. @Achems

    Actually looking at the studies being done on black holes has been quite entertaining. Have you heard about


    Until now, the problem of simulating the merger of binary black holes with extreme size differences had remained an unexplored region of black-hole physics. "Nature doesn't collide black holes of equal masses," says Carlos Lousto, associate professor of mathematical sciences at Rochester Institute of Technology and a member of the Center for Computational Relativity and Gravitation. "They have mass ratios of 1 :3 , 1 :10 , 1 :100 or even 1 :1 million. This puts us in a better situation for simulating realistic astrophysical scenarios and for predicting what observers should see and for telling them what to look for. "Leaders in the field believed solving the 100 :1 mass ratio problem would take five to 10 more years and significant advances in computational power. It was thought to be technically impossible." "These simulations were made possible by advances both in the scaling and performance of relativity computer codes on thousands of processors, and advances in our understanding of how gauge conditions can be modified to self-adapt to the vastly different scales in the problem," adds Yosef Zlochower, assistant professor of mathematical sciences and a member of the center. A paper announcing Lousto and Zlochower's findings was submitted for publication in Physical Review Letters ....(They used resources at the Texas Advanced Computer Center, home to the Ranger supercomputer, to process the massive computations. The computer, which has 70 , 000 processors, took nearly three months to complete the simulation describing the most extreme-mass-ratio merger of black holes to date. "Their work is pushing the limit of what we can do today," Campanelli sObserving and measuring gravitational waves created when black holes coalesce could confirm a key prediction of Einstein's general theory of relativity .

    Also check out the study they've been doing on the black hole that's supposed to be sitting at the edge of our galaxy. The analysis was carried out by Amitai Y. Bin-Nun, a theoretical astrophysics and cosmology graduate student at Penn, with guidance from Justin Khoury, assistant professor, and Ravi K. Sheth, professor, both in the Physics and Astronomy Department in Penn’s School of Arts and Sciences. The article appears in the journal Physical Review D . “We found that, if our universe is described by a theory incorporating extra dimensions, light near the black hole at the center of our galaxy may appear brighter than it would if we live in a universe without extra dimensions,” Bin-Nun said. “Detecting images at the brighter intensity would represent evidence of extra dimensions and would be an incredibly important development.” Bin-Nun studied the effect of gravitational lensing on the stars orbiting Sagittarius A*, or Sgr A*, a radio source in the center of the Milky Way. Sgr A* was chosen because it hosts the supermassive black hole hypothesized to exist at the center of the Milky Way. The strong gravitational pull of the black hole distorts the light from Sgr A* before it reaches Earth, creating the illusion of multiple images of the same star. Bin-Nun simulated the orbits of stars near the black hole and treated each star as a source lensed by the black hole, solving for the location and brightness of the “secondary” image which appears near the black hole. For each individual star, Bin-Nun found that the brightness of the secondary image would change over time and would peak in brightness when the star is nearly aligned with Sgr A*........
    Get the rest on physorg

    Ill post links but I always get stuck in moderation so we'll see.

  144. The Atoms are inanimate objects,and inanimate object do not align with each other on their own,and even if so they align they make chaos but will never be perfect so there is indeed an creator who was guiding this perfect harmony.

    Look at certain ancient text:

    1)In vedas they talk abt 'Hiranyagarbha'i.e.cosmic egg,and from this all the creation started,and now science agree with the above concept,in Vayu Purana it is mentioned that the Sun,stars,moon earth all were inside the cosmic egg and they were in fluid state and were rotating but the Egg was stable,so there is astrong possiblity that an axis mundi exist in the universe.

    2)In Jainism it is mentioned 'In our universe and in our times'

    3)Buddhism talks about 'Parellel universes'(M theory)

    4)An ancient religion in india named 'Ajivika' was based on 'Niyathi(Fatalism)states the following.

    "If all future occurrences are rigidly determined ..., coming events may in some sense be said to exist already. The future exists in the present, and both exist in the past. Time is thus on ultimate analysis illusory".Every phase of a process is always present. ... in a soul which has attained salvation its earthly births are still present. Nothing is destroyed and nothing is produced. ... Not only are all things determined, but their change and development is a cosmic illusion.

    If the today;s world scientist understand the 'time' is a illusion they will be able to understand the universe and as well the creator.

    Anurag Awasthi

  145. well, i'm left with even more questions that i started off with.
    utterly discombobulated.

  146. Can anyone please throw more light on what the LHC has really been upto?The news are very vague.Did they create a temperature a million times hotter than that of the sun?HOW?without any cataclysmic disaster here on Earth?!

    If anyone could post related links,i'd really be grateful...

  147. euh!

  148. @eire666:

    How's youse doing man, not see for a long time! I do not believe that Randy is around any longer, Oh! he is alive and kicking, just not alive and kicking on TDF. He seems to have parted ways, and am sure we all miss him.

    Yes have been delving quite a lot on all the new paradigms concerning parallel universes, many worlds theory, still have not got Hawking's new book yet, "The Grand Design" but plan on getting it soon.
    Anything new on your end about science?

  149. @Randy

    LOL dude, I have a shirt that says "sorry I can't, and on the back ."I'm mormon!" Nice.

    But I agree hadron collider fun! I mean m-theory etc is a heck of a leap but is there anyother good ones coming out? I mean look at what we have and then here comes string , m , etc.... The probabilities seem only to lead to such theories being of some fact, maybe even more than we would like.

    But of course again, the facts do not equal the theories. But as Achems has stated, quantum tech and nano tech is on a march and have advanced quit far recently. Like I said, that's just what they are leaking t the public! We really don't know how far this has really gone. Its gone far enough that the question has risen as to how nano waste and nano tech will effect our environment if at aLl and its effect on us? So we know if these questions are being asked that the scale of our knowledge base on this is a lot broader than we know as simple citizens.

  150. Also, in some ways, the "order" is quite a subjective expression. As we know, the "perfection" is created by little imperfections. What is a perfectly designed Universe for you? Is that our Universe? Why not some other?

    Let's say that there are multiple 'Uni'verses (the Multiverse) and that they include intelligent beings. Would they consider their Universe perfect and our imperfect? Maybe their laws of physics wouldn't allow us to even exist there?

    The "reality" is much more complicated than someone would like to believe.

  151. Even if there is a "creator". what created it?
    How can you even assign gender to God?
    OK, I don't say there's "nothing" beyond. Besides, I do not believe in "nothing". I think the best solution is in infinity, just like numbers, no beginning, no end, you can't even tell which one comes after another (2 doesn't come after 1, there is 1.5, 1.02, 1.000000001235 etc). Even if we were created by an intelligent being (which is really not a necessity), that being was created by something.

  152. As the quality of spelling,grammar,and style of writing decreases, there appears to be an increase in the probability a comment attempts to speak for a god.

  153. @Dr Randy,u r seriously the funniest person around,although some of your initial comments did sound scary,i'd like to presume you were joking.LOL

  154. Oh my God this stuff is sensational,informative and uproariously funny

    @Dr Randy,Hate Machine,Epicurus,razor and eire,it's a HUGE relief that human beings like u exist,very comforting indeed.LOL

    The Mormon stuff will keep me in incessant laughter for days to come!!!

    Science,maths,physics,psychology,philosophy,biology,evolution,genetics,theology.....wat not,it's a damn good conversation.i LOVED the sarcasm....sheer poetry to my ears(eyes rather....okay lame one)

    I admit i'd been out f touch with all this,recent updates et al,thnx 4 d it evry1

  155. JonasX24

    If God can create anything he wants, why didn’t he make human the way he want us to be, IE Believers.
    Why does he need worshipers and why does he condemn people who does not believe or happens to sin? Why doesn’t he show up and tell us that he is real. Cant he speak for himself? And why does he need priests or preachers that make good money in spreading the lie when he could just program us with the bible in our mind from start?
    There is no creator or God, period.

    1 word. Choice. If a God or the God created something just like him then the entire purpose of the excercise would be moot.

  156. Crazy. Comparing pixels to actual matter.Interesting analogy, but something is incorrect about that premise, I'm going to have to work this one out for a few hours in my head.I mean,from a philosophical standpoint, it may be sound, but as a materialist, it's just not sitting right with me.

  157. Laurie: On one of the 0ther threads (now deleted I think), there was some kind of discussion about Dr. R. being contacted about his comments here from one of his former religious organizations (cults). It had nothing to do with Vlatko's website, but just the comments they didn't like, but they threatened a suite against Dr. R for his opinions and mentioned they would try and harm TDF in the process. Dr. R. relented and defended TDF and the posts were removed for everyone's "protection." However, I think V. basically said it was R.'s personal problem and Dr. R. felt offended because he felt like he was sticking up for TDF. That's what I pieced together, trying to be as accurate as I can be. As far as I know, he wasn't banned here, but he voluntarily exited the site. But, we are "guests" here and need to act that way.

    I like Dr. Randy too, and it upsets me a bit thinking he might not post any longer.

    This is my understanding at the moment, right or wrong.

    Sorry for the "gossip" Vlatko, but I could just tell that Laurie missed the good doctor's "exit" and I felt sorry for her not knowing as she would feel "ignored" when in fact that wasn't the case.

  158. @Laurie:

    Typical it seems, you can't see the forest for the trees, right?

    Of course there are many other doc's here on TDF. that Charles does see and comments on, therefore by default alone, he is more voiced than you are on many different matters and aspects, besides just religion.

  159. @ Charles
    Why do you think they had a fall out? I don't see anything here that suggests that. He was kind of fun in a weird sort of a way. Do you go on other of these sites? What do you know that I don't know?

  160. Laurie: I think Dr. Randy and Vlatko had a falling out. I don't think Randy will host here any longer.

    But, the reason why he has a Book of Mormon, but not a Bible is because the Bible is the heart of "Christianity" which he seems to hate with a passion.

  161. Laurie: Bananas in a cake?!? You're crazy!

    I knew a cook that put chocolate in her chili, and I mocked her choice of ingredients . . . . . until I tasted her chili. It was truly fantastic! :-)

    Anyway, how precisely God created the universe is still under investigation for me. I think it was indeed ex nihelo as God is the only eternally originating reality in my paradigm of the universe, and even that is a bit hard for me to comprehend.

    [wife's singing in the dining room getting ready for lunch -- all is right in the world]

    I do know that God is just and God is holy and that by no other means can we enter Heaven, but through the Gate of Jesus Christ. However, I had an epiphany many years ago, that God's not "cookie cutting" Christians. We are to be like Christ, yes, but no two TRUE Christians hold identical understandings and comprehensions of God. Therefore, God has standard, yes, but also has "fudge room" for lack of a better word in the areas of doctrines and concepts of what is true and not true theologically speaking; love his Son with all your heart, soul, and mind, and accept His gift of substitution on the cross for yourself, and trust God to "justify" the righteous. I'm quite convinced there will be some professing "pastors" in Hell, and surprising "saints" from unexpected places.

    Don't rebel against the "voice of God" in your heart, and that's a good place to start.

    Peace to you.

  162. @Randy
    Why do you have a B.O.M. in your library but not the Bible?

  163. @Charles
    Yes, I believe in an eternal God; one God, but eternal existing in unity as three separate entities known as God the Father, God the son (who took human form and became whom we call “Jesus”), and God the Holy Spirit. As I understand it, God the Father and Jesus have bodies.

    from Laurie
    It warms my heart that we agree on this part.

    So He isn't an "all pervading essence." I was raised Catholic and that is what the Catholics believe. I don't think too many religions believe that God the Father and his son Jesus Christ our Redeemer and the Holy Ghost are three separate entities with a common goal. "To bring to pass the eternal life of man" Most believe in the Trinity three God's in one. I believe they are three in one in purpose only.

    Remember you said: I think Mormonism is “fringe” Christianity and only God knows how “fringe” it is. and you also said this: so many totally unbelieving watching/reading our comments.

    So our differences is your God creates from nothing and my God the Creator creates out of eternal existing materials.The elements listen to his voice and His priesthood (His authority, His power).

    Big Bang model . . . thus describes a universe that is not eternal in the past but that came into being a finite time ago.

    When I create (design) a cake I use materials: flour, milk, butter, sugar, vanilla, baking soda, baking powder,bananas, pineapple etc.
    When I make a dress I use materials: a sewing machine, cloth, thread. Then I show it to my friends and they say wow! Laurie did you make this? I say yes with pride.
    I am a creator of some things. I am practicing to create bigger things. When I write a story I use words that have already been used by many but I put them together in my own special way. Then I write written by Laurie even if I asked God for inspiration. Think about this Charles.

  164. Metta for U all. in christian terms: forgive them G 'couse they know not what they do. Dhamma one out there to forgive. if you believe you need to forgive someone that means that you blamed someone first. no forgiveness just compasion. LOVE YOU ALL.In life there are no rewards or punishments ...only consequences.

  165. Laurie wrote:

    "Hey Charley let us consider the doctrine of God’s OMNISCIENCE. Many Christian agree that God is infinite, eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, immaterial, and in general exhibits perfection in all attributes. God is an undifferentiated, all-knowing, all-encompassing, all pervading essence. God cannot be divided; God has no parts or pieces. Furthermore God is the only -contingent entity: God necessarily exists, while all other beings, objects, and forces are conditional upon God’s creating and sustaining power. God’s OMNISCIENCE is generally interpreted as knowledge of all things past,present,and future.
    Is this your God?

    Here is a fascinating question for you.
    Is free will at best an illusion, that humans are not mentally responsible for their actions and even more radically that the ultimate responsibility falls upon God? Is that faith without works?"

    Laurie: This is pretty heavy stuff, sort of like walking across the floor full of mouse traps!

    Yes, I believe in an eternal God; one God, but eternal existing in unity as three separate entities known as God the Father, God the son (who took human form and became whom we call "Jesus"), and God the Holy Spirit. As I understand it, God the Father and Jesus have bodies much like our own (as we are created in their image), but perfect in all their ways. We can add meaning to the words "omnipresent" etc. that may or may not fully fit God's own definition. It ends in just "word play".

    God is eternal and I do believe in creation ex nihilo (creation by God out of nothing other than himself). I think His finger was the torch that started the Big Bang and the creation of the earth followed in His timing. Or, God created the universe "in process" such as is it is now, such as stars that seem to be older younger, forming, etc. He truly is perfect in all his ways.

    I do not believe that as God is now, we shall one day be, and as we are now, God once was (LDS standard teaching).

    Ultimately, we are responsible for our own decision to follow or not to follow God. We can word play with accountability, but it's just arguments that are not very productive, especially with so many totally unbelieving watching/reading our comments.

    Peace to you.

    Charles B.

  166. @Laurie

    Listen, we are just ignoring you.

    Listen, for me, I just HATE mormons. I'm sorry... I just hate Joseph Smith and his whole con...

    I'm sure you are a very nice person! But the Book of Mormon, the bible, any christianity just makes me want to tear humans up!

    Science calms me... it liberates me... it keeps me sane! Math and the simple structures of nature, genetics, human history, cosmology!

    These are my salvations. And the things that keep me from eating your brains!

  167. This has become a ghost town. They all called each other and said let's get out of here.

  168. Happy Thanksgiving to all the Canadians. Where is everybody?

  169. @Charles B.

    from Laurie
    Charles you didn't answer the questions.
    Is this your God?
    Is that faith without works?
    Are you in defense of Creatio ex nihilo?

  170. That was good, Laurie!

  171. @Epicurus
    “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” – Seneca

    Who is the common people? I hope it's the humble in heart.
    Who are the wise? The proud and boastful
    We know how religion has been used by some rulers

  172. @Charles B.
    I think Mormonism is “fringe” Christianity and only God knows how “fringe” it is.

    from Laurie
    Hey Charley let us consider the doctrine of God's OMNISCIENCE. Many Christian agree that God is infinite, eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, immaterial, and in general exhibits perfection in all attributes. God is an undifferentiated, all-knowing, all-encompassing, all pervading essence. God cannot be divided; God has no parts or pieces. Furthermore God is the only -contingent entity: God necessarily exists, while all other beings, objects, and forces are conditional upon God's creating and sustaining power. God's OMNISCIENCE is generally interpreted as knowledge of all things past,present,and future.
    Is this your God?

    Here is a fascinating question for you.
    Is free will at best an illusion, that humans are not mentally responsible for their actions and even more radically that the ultimate responsibility falls upon God? Is that faith without works?

    Many mechanisms (data storage)consistent with the known laws of nature to store and transmit information all require energy and at least a two state system. 1.electrochemical impulses 2. positive and negative charges in an electrical circuit 3. tiny dots of magnetic north or south on a tape or disk surface 4. particles with spins up or down 5. the quantized magnetic flux of a supercomputing loop 6. photons in a fiber optic cable 7)temperature differences in material objects 8. velocity differences among molecules or atoms or electrons 9. polarization of photons or electrons 10. holographic patterns of refraction in a physical medium

    Again any storage or retrieval of data requires energy and a system with distinguishable states.
    Within the realm of currently understood scientific laws 1. quantum mechanics asserts that it is fundamentally impossible for position and momentum (to be known to unlimited accuracy) 2. chaos theory asserts that microscopic alterations or uncertainties of the present state can be amplified to produce arbitrarily large changes in the future course of the physical world. The future with predicted unlimited, precision cannot be foreseen. It appears fundamentally impossible for any one-state system to be a repository of data. A perfectly undifferentiated, completely homogeneous, immaterial essence (either mass or energy field)cannot be a repository of data.

    This is the heart of the difficulty. If God is a "perfectly UNDIFFERENTIATED completely homogeneous, immaterial essence, and God works in any sense within the realm of physical law,then it follows that God can neither store nor process any information, much less be "OMNISCIENT"

    How can one address this difficulty?
    One can conceive that temperature differences or velocity gradients exist in God, but this goes against the traditional notion of an OMNISCIENT, OMNIPRESENT, immaterial God.
    Another solution is to identify God with the Universe (or the vacuum), but this is a pantheistic theology, distasteful to many. God would be able to compute as well as the Universe (or the vacuum)computes, and God would be as OMNISCIENT as the Universe which indeed contains a vast amount of knowledge. But such a God would also be exactly as caring and compassionate as is the Universe, and would answer prayers to exactly the extent they are answered by the Universe--no more or less! This does not seem much like the God worshipped as "our Father in heaven" by Jesus.

    Are you in defense of Creatio ex nihilo?
    An initial physical singularity in the standard big bang theory both requires and proves creatio ex nihilo—the creation of the universe from absolutely nothing. The standard Big Bang model . . . thus describes a universe that is not eternal in the past but that came into being a finite time ago. Even if time had a beginning (which is still an open question), creation from nothing does not necessarily follow.
    To be included among Christians, Latter-day Saints must reject the doctrine of eternalism and adopt the doctrine of creation from nothing.

    The surprise discovery in late 1998 of the current acceleration of the expansion of the universe, apparently caused by an anti-gravity force similar to the huge energy of the vacuum or Einstein's cosmological term. This background energy alone may destroy the argument of creation from nothing.

    The doctrine of God's OMNISCIENCE where in the Bible is it? I know it was Constantine idea at the council of Niece

  173. @Epicurus
    and wouldnt a church goer who invests in something they believe their god says is bad be akin to someone investing in a drug dealer?
    from Laurie
    Webster’s defines flexible as “yielding to influence: pliable.” By that definition, being flexible could be helpful or harmful.
    If we are easily influenced by the wrong things, we might yield to those things, as in “yielding to the enticings of that cunning one” (2 Ne. 9:39).
    To avoid being “tossed to and fro” (Eph. 4:14), our flexibility–especially to accept certain challenges–must stem from “yielding to the enticings of the Holy Spirit” (Mosiah 3:19). That happens when we follow the Savior’s example and yield our will to His. (see Hel 3:35).

  174. @ Charles

    that’s just plain “unAmerican”!

    from Laurie
    It's also plain un-Canadian! un-European!

    We are a peculiar people.

  175. @ Charles

    However, they own a lot more than what you listed.

    from Laurie
    The things I listed are for profit. I didn't list the non profit.

    Did you skip over this in the comment?

    The only for-profit businesses overseen by the Church as the Church is a non-profit organization.

    Yes. They own more buildings and land but it is non profit.

  176. Epicurus10/02/2010 at 07:28

    why is it okay to drink pop but not coffee? what about tea? what about energy drinks?

    why the distinctions? its all caffeine?

    and wouldnt a church goer who invests in something they believe their god says is bad be akin to someone investing in a drug dealer?

    seems a little hypocritical.

    from Laurie

    Why do you think the reason for not drinking coffee and tea is because of the caffeine?

    There is caffeine in Coca Cola, chocolate bars, chocolate chip cookies, chocolate ice cream etc. Yum! Yum! It's making me hungry.
    One thing I do know it is to show obedience. It isn't a hard thing to show obedience in. The reason has never been given. We are a peculiar people.

  177. Mormon church members own or operate a ton of businesses. Easy to look up, do not feel like listing them all here.

    Like Epic said, cherry picking to suit there interests!
    And agree With Charles, no coffee? that is just plain "Un-everything"! Coffee is actually good for a person, in moderation of course! I ain't teasing!

  178. In answer to your question, there is not one way to live life. Firstly if there were it would be a very boring and homogenous existence! Secondly there is no/are very few universal truths, only subjective context dependent truths. Thirdly, any attempt to introduce one version of reality/existence will be regarded as a fascistic bullying of the non 'conformists'. Consensus cannot and will not be achieved be it by religion or 'king of the world' type organizations. Many have tried and ALL have failed.

    There are no absolutes, especially not religion if that is the direction that are trying to steer the conversation in. Hope that answers your question. At the minimum Its my response...

  179. Man this website is great, documentaries to watch followed by commentaries and various opinions that opens up your prespective and broadens your thinking. i would like to invite you guys to discuss this 'which way of life are we to lead? why? and what evidence backs that up?

  180. @Laurie, why is it okay to drink pop but not coffee? what about tea? what about energy drinks?

    why the distinctions? its all caffeine?

    and wouldnt a church goer who invests in something they believe their god says is bad be akin to someone investing in a drug dealer?

    seems a little hypocritical.

    you might say it is because in the book it only mentions "hot drinks" but that would be very very silly. since it seems obvious that there wasnt cold caffeinated beverages yet back then, so naturally Joseph Smith couldnt have known there would be when making up his religion...actually if he had said something about them it would be more impressive.

    in fact what you are doing here is cherry picking. seems religious people have no problem extending the things in their books to make sense in modern times, but clearly ONLY when it fits want they socially accept.

    that you cant see how obvious that is makes me question your ability to be skeptical about something you already accept. very dangerous.

  181. @ Charles

    from Laurie
    Just in case you ask me about Pepsi
    Since PepsiCo, Inc. is a public company, anyone is welcome to buy shares in its stock. Theoretically, that could mean that there are some members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who own shares in PepsiCo, Inc., and ultimately own a portion of the company.

  182. @Charles
    Is Coca Cola still owned by the Mormons? The documentary about the “Coca cola case” claims some serious matters. Looks like the big wigs would reign in any unexthical practices if they were still owned by the Mormons. I would think.

    from Laurie
    No. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (commonly called the "Mormon" church) has never owned any commercial food or beverage company. The Church itself does not hold stock, but individual members may.
    The only for-profit businesses overseen by the Church (as the Church is a non-profit organization, it does not 'own' these companies. They are owned by the Corporation of the Presiding Bishopric, which has top Mormon officials volunteering on it's Board of Directors) are:
    Deseret Book (a religious book and gift store)
    Bonneville International (a newsmedia source)
    Deseret Management (apartments and office space in Salt Lake City)
    Temple Square Hospitality (cafes and reception centers in Salt Lake City)

    Get your facts Charles.

  183. @ Charles
    But then again, drinking caffine isn’t supported by the Mormons either, is it, and the they OWN a company that makes drinks with caffine in them. That always seemed a bit odd to me.

    from Laurie
    Though I hate to ruin a good bit of lore with the facts, the truth is that although Mormons have been advised by church leaders to avoid caffeinated beverages, this suggestion ( like a doctor would suggest) has not been passed down as official church doctrine to which all members in good standing must adhere (unlike, say, the admonitions against coffee, tea, tobacco and alcohol, which are church doctrine). Mormons can still swill Coca-Cola, eschew it and all other caffeinated beverages, or indulge in the occasional Coke and still be considered churchgoers in good standing.

  184. Epic: For once I agree with you except for the Seneca quote.

  185. @Laurie,

    "The man who established a religion in this age of free debate, who was and is to-day accepted by hundreds of thousands as a direct emissary from the Most High, —such a rare human being is not to be disposed of by pelting his memory with unsavory epithets. Fanatic, impostor, charlatan, he may have been; but these hard names furnish no solution to the problem he presents to us. Fanatics and impostors are living and dying every day, and their memory is buried with them; but the wonderful influence which this founder of a religion exerted and still exerts throws him into relief before us, not as a rogue to be criminated, but as a phenomenon to be explained."

    whether he has influenced a large group of people has NOTHING to do with his claims being true or not. they also dont address the fact that it is hard to accept claims of this nature from a known con man using the same methods he used earlier.

    Muhammed who was a war monger and pedophile has influenced faith and happiness in billions of muslims. does that mean his claims about religion are true?

    L Ron Hubbard who founded scientology was a known liar and science fiction writer, but im sure scientology has made some peoples lives better....

    BUT DOES THAT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER THE CLAIMS ARE TRUE OR NOT. that is the issue. not the influence in peoples lives.

    @charles, i dont think the catholic church encourages pedophilia but they have no problem hiding those responsible for it.

    i dont think mormons would care too much about their ethics. im pretty sure most of the people at the tops of these religions actually care more about money than they believe in god.

    “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” - Seneca

  186. Laurie: Just because there are big numbers or lots of followers for a particular "faith" doesn't mean it's a correct one. Both of us would agree that Islam, Hinduism, etc. for example, miss the mark entirely. Etc.

    I think Mormonism is "fringe" Christianity and only God knows how "fringe" it is.

    I do have one queston for you, however. Is Coca Cola still owned by the Mormons? The documentary about the "Coca cola case" claims some serious matters. Looks like the big wigs would reign in any unexthical practices if they were still owned by the Mormons. I would think.

    But then again, drinking caffine isn't supported by the Mormons either, is it, and the they OWN a company that makes drinks with caffine in them. That always seemed a bit odd to me.

    Peace to you.

    Mr. Razor: You made me laugh! By commenting like you did, it proves that you DO still have words to say!

  187. You know, sometimes I actually hate people! Don't even know what to say, words escape me!!

    Schizophrenics!!! get some pills!

  188. @Epicurus

    so you say that the claims that joseph smith was a con man and someone who wandered the forest with seer stones looking for treasures are untrue? but what about the DOCUMENTED papers of joseph smith being arrested and wanted in particular states? those are not made up.

    you follow a con man just like scientologists.

    Epi this is how I feel

    The man who established a religion in this age of free debate, who was and is to-day accepted by hundreds of thousands as a direct emissary from the Most High, —such a rare human being is not to be disposed of by pelting his memory with unsavory epithets. Fanatic, impostor, charlatan, he may have been; but these hard names furnish no solution to the problem he presents to us. Fanatics and impostors are living and dying every day, and their memory is buried with them; but the wonderful influence which this founder of a religion exerted and still exerts throws him into relief before us, not as a rogue to be criminated, but as a phenomenon to be explained.

    A phenomenon indeed! Having been immersed in the visions of eternity, Joseph Smith could actually exclaim, “I calculate to be one of the instruments of setting up the kingdom of Daniel by the word of the Lord, and I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 366).

  189. @ahmed
    I read from your comment above that you don’t believe in a creator, if so, then thats your choice which you decided.

    You must have me confused with somebody else. I believe in God the Eternal Father, Jesus Christ His son our Redeemer and in the Holy Ghost. I have faith.

  190. Dangit, that should be rebuttal, obviously.

  191. By the way Epi, you have yet to provide a sound rebuttle on the "war on science" page, or should I take your lack of response as conceding? I certainly hope not..

  192. I too found the inherent obliviousness rather entertaining. Non-sequitorville must be a comforting place..

  193. LOL Laurie posts THIS

    "Don’t confuse technology with progress. When we tether ourselves to technology we stand in jeopardy of losing sensitivity to ourselves and our environment. Your biological sensors are far superior. Put down that gizmo and go for a walk."

    unaware of the complete IRONY involved. absolutely priceless.

  194. I would say FEAR is actually a precursor for faith not the antithesis of it.

    my actual question to you is, you say you have evidence for some creator in the form of written, visual evidence....could i see this evidence?

    you were talking about how we have comforts for fear and included long term fears like afterlife or what happens when supports we have like family or friends are gone, but you seemed to miss how obvious it is that the human psyche would invent a comfort that could outlast those things. an omnipotent, omnipresent support.

  195. The antithesis of faith is fear. It is fear that drives many people into the deceptive, illusory shelter

    I read from your comment above that you don't believe in a creator, if so, then thats your choice which you decided. Fear is a natural feeling that a human feels when in danger or uncertainty, it takes shape when hormones flow in our bodies resulting in response of fear depending on the situation. Worry or anxiety if long term. So fear is an inseperable part of our human makeup. the feeling of fear is a weakness i agree, that is the whole point. to feel safe and secure we tend to rely and lean on a ‘shelter’ whatever this shelter could be, our friends, wife, parents, colleagues, relatives etc. But really and truly are they reliable in the long run? Would they benefit you after you have passed away ? the nature of the human is to call upon anything all that can help his weaknesses. So fear is not the problem but who you rely on to aid your weaknesses is the problem. You are possibly referring to people who believe a creator can aid their weaknesses as deceptive i agree with you, but on the condition that you bring evidence to back it up. I base my belief in the one creator on the basis that there is evidence for what i believe (written,visual evidence). On the other hand one cannot just rely on the creator solely and not take the initiative and plan everything in his life but they must plan for everything: having children, aiming for a particular position, etc. All plan should be within the greator purpose and goal (we can discuss this)which the person aims fulfull.

    I agree with you in your second comment that many are afraid of the mockery of the proud and are duped into following the crowd... your comments carry on about fear etc.

  196. @ Randy

    from Laurie

    Oh Happy Day! Randy now has the latest app to remind him
    of his daily appointments - scratch for worms, lay an egg,
    peck at corn, go to sleep. This is certainly a relief!!

    Don't confuse technology with progress. When we tether ourselves to technology we stand in jeopardy of losing sensitivity to ourselves and our environment. Your biological sensors are far superior. Put down that gizmo and go for a walk.

  197. @Achems Razor

    from Laurie
    You need to figure out the difference between Lawn and Pasture!

  198. @Ahmed

    i would like to also have a discussion about the relationship between our choices and the evil that happens in the world

    from Laurie
    This is my two cents worth

    Many are afraid of the mockery of the proud, so they are duped into “following the crowd” even if the crowd is headed for disaster. They become slaves to fashion, totally under the control of the “gods of this world” who dictate what to wear, what to watch, what to listen to, and even what to think. But vogues change by the minute so that those who fear the opinion of the crowd are forced to continue the flow of cash into the coffers of the “merchants of Babylon.” (ix)

    Some fear death or terrorists or the bomb or old age or wrinkles or poverty or bad weather. And some, as Franklin Roosevelt said, are just addicted to fear itself—nameless, unreasoning anxiety. It is an age of fear.

    The false security promised by Babylon’s political leaders, financial planners, and pop psychologists (“astrologers, stargazers, monthly prognosticators”) (x) is no salvation from fear. In this telestial world we will not be free from adversity—trials are part of the Lord’s plan for shaping us for better things.

  199. @Ahmed

    from Laurie
    The antithesis of faith is fear. It is fear that drives many people into the deceptive, illusory shelter.

  200. we will always be great as long as we know we are finite creatures that live for a short period of time. and that means in our quest for truth about the future we are limited but at the same time we have the tools of 'fitrah' which everyone is born with ( the partial ability to 'know or feel' what is right and wrong') to reach a conclusion that there is a creator.

    now the trouble starts when we try to ponder on the nature of the creator with our finite limited brains and hearts because the nature or purpose of being is not to find the nature of our creator because that is impossible. firstly our hearts and brains acknowledge that there is a creator as our minds and hearts 'know' that for an event to occur there has to be something or someone behind it.

    secondly from fitrah to just 'know' that there is a creator should be enough but then the creator created all the elements and the necessary forces for us to visualise and analyse and further examine the relationship between these to strengthen our consious or unconsious fitrah of the presence of the creator. thirdly did the creator leave it at that, no , the reason then that the creator left certain mysteries and revealed certain others. this is mainly because the creator created us to test us if we are going to follow the fitrah he put in us and the books he sent to us and the human messengers he sent to us (leave the discussion to the validity of the books and messengers to another discussion) and that we will never know everything otherwise we are the creators since the creator knows what will happen what happenend and basically everything that will happen before it happens. i would like to also have a discussion about the relationship between our choices and the evil that happens in the world. to conclude is there a creator yes, was the reason 'he' created us to know the nature of 'him' no, will we ever know 'his' nature no, we are to use all the creations ( elements forces) to know 'he' is the creator yes
    many thanks

  201. Randy:

    Am still laughing at that!

    How do you hold a womans liquor?...By the ears!

  202. @Achems

    HAHAHA! Indeed!

    At least you know Laurie will never p-u-k-e on your shoes.

    Mormons don't drink...

  203. @Laurie:

    You are quoting the mormon's book's of fairy tales again, the kolob theory is the mormon's veiw of the starry universe, to me that is "MOOT"

  204. @Laurie

    Yes, that is an entertaining thought.

    But, of course, you know, nature is a closed system, nothing goes in or out. It grows by eating itself...

    The Houruborus. The serpent eating its own tail.

  205. eireannach666
    I’m just entertaining the idea of infinitecy and cycle concepts that apply to all gravity affected objects or molecules

    I like this idea of re-cycling. I think it's done through the black holes.

  206. @Randy: It's such an underused setting as well, have fun with it, I say!

  207. Also, there is already a functioning nitrogen-cooled quantum computer operating. TDF actually has a doc on it, wherein a strangely giggling scientist goes at length on the matter.

    I think it might be in the Technology section, perhaps it's "visions of the future" although I'm not entirely sure on that.

  208. Oh I know it's a-coming, I've been getting antsy ever since I first heard of Michio Kaku and Ray Kurzweil. I've been reading up on radical life extension, transhumanism and biotech for a while now. Couple of weeks ago I bought a Quest that dedicated much of it's textual real-estate to publishings from the various Nanotech departments, discussing the short-term applications.

    I love nothing more than projecting on this very issue. The practical implications in respects to modern morality will be staggering, let alone the profound changes to global and local informational infrastructure. Dazzling! Exciting!

  209. @D-K

    Yes, the multi-universe theory is fun to study and play with, but, certainly not proven and, perhaps, unprovable (?), although it would be awesome if it were. (Hadron? I'm lookin' at you...)

    Therefore, nothing to get worked up about...

    However, I am writing a novel about it and it is a wonderful field to play in!


  210. @D-K:

    Perhaps, but the quantum revolution is a-coming, no ifs, and no buts.

    Who knows what may transpire in the near future?

    Quantum computers are probably in the makes, for one.

  211. The many worlds theory is so logically inconsistant, that I really can't take the concept seriously. We know too little of Quantum Mechanics to form theories/theorem around it, in my opinion.

    Barbour makes for fantastic brainfood and projections though.

  212. @D-K:

    This stuff I am about to say is off the wall, just thoughts, no sources. Except "Julian Barbour", have studied his works for some time.

    I always seem to revert back to Julian Barbour's "The end of time" theory.

    Everything is static, we are living in our "nows" that are forever frozen in time, one now after another, gives everything linear direction, gives us our seemingly flow of time, but that is illusion, not really flowing, time is a series of events, following one after another.

    But in the quantum world it is one vast sea of probabilities, I guess that is why they say in many world theory, whatever you envision that did not happen will happen, and has happened.

    Everything is run on vibrations, re: string theory. one different vibration will set a new series of events into motion that do not overlap other series of events, re: our universe.

    And there are different vibrations ad infinitum that set other series of events into motion therefor unlimited universes. And since everything is energy, even matter, matter is coalesced into our objects, that are of course illusions. Because in reality matter has really no substance. An Atom is 99.99999% empty.

    Keep in mind these are just wild thoughts, but there you have it!

  213. Gravitons? Gravity a "mystical force"?! C'mon. Isn't it obvious. We know all elemental atoms attract each other to form molecules. So if a mass, such as Earth or the Sun, is comprised of a surreal number of these atoms, then it is fair to assume (this is a fact actually) that some of them are combined to form neutral molecules, while others are trapped still seeking this ideal balance and decaying to more stable metals. Therefore a mass, made of matter, has atoms with forces of attraction on all other atoms in objects including our body. This cumulative atomic force is what gravity is. A black hole is a mass comprised of highly unstable particles seeking to unite to form a balance. This is why photons are sucked in...they are necessary for the unification of endothermic elements. Of course, these atoms comprised of smaller particles such as bosons, quarks and lepton...but it is the lack of subatomic-electromagnetic balance of attraction between these particles that create gravity. Gravitons don't exist...there is no scientific requirement for them.

  214. Well they said the same of the atom and we saw how a jungle turns into a desert in a fraction of a second.

    No I'm not worried just throwing out random. But they and we really don't know. And when we figure out where the universes source of origin was we will then move on to the sources.(Say that 5 times fast! It got me while I was thinking it lol)

    But we are really close and we all know about and discusses the Toe of dog" papers and all these theoretic particles and how much trace evidence goes into backing these theories like string ,M, etc is piling up.

    I want to know but really as seeing how our lives are so meaningless to the grand scheme o things, any of those theories just really make us even more obsolete. Which is fine with me , but they know more than they say. The /@ isn't ready to accept that we are yet but a pimple about to bust on the back of the cosmos.

    I mean I was just kinda kidding about the explode/implode idea but using that as an example(terrible I'm sorry) but we are counting down anyways not to mention our just over the hill source of everything we need to live, the sun. There are so many things in our solar system we have to be aware of that the GP can't handle a meaningless existence in a system like a piece of sand in an hour glass dodging bullets on a daily basis.

    If string is true and gravity "leaks" then its going to be reeeal interesting when the leaks turn to holes as everything expands. It would only be fit that rips tear and tears turn to holes etc when stretched. What then? Maybe liker a rubber band of gravity? Sling shot status,lol. J/k but hey you never know.

    Then it could have the opposite effect like a magnet and push or perhaps like a magnet and attract one another into collision which I've heard of before.

    Who knows. Won't be here to care but I'd like to go out that way. What a better way to go than a cosmic wreck and collapsing into that void nothingness from which we came.

    Cool stuff to ponder but I need visual evidence for any such ideas, even thought the pile is getting higher.

  215. Sorry, 666, that should have been "do not be fooled by Dan BROWN..."

  216. @666

    Don't be worried about the energies being unleashed at Hadron. It is so miniscule that no significant effect can be had upon the world.

    Do not be fooled by Dan Grown and the people who believe "mad-scientists are going to create a black hole and destroy the world!!!"

    That is silly. Tiny little particles of matter... nothing to it, really.

  217. @ Achems/DK/Randy

    I'm on the fence on this one because as you know and Randy touched on is the work they've been doing in the collider. I mean holy shy*e man they are making little stars in there and watching them collapse! And what is the real messed up part or fun if you ask me , is the fact that they are just opening the wrapper on sustaining one for energy consumption and more than likely some kind of arms race will follow but they are playing with fire. As the say gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet. As long as they don't kill us all in the process. Awesome science going down there.

    As for string , well maybe could be which implicates some truth to a lot of weird and unexplained phenomena. But I've always had the thought that the universe was more like an ocean , in the sense of tides, for example it is possibly just infinitely exploding and then recollapseing on itself only to go "big bang" all over a gain. Let's call it "balloon theory" although I dint have a whole lot to back that crazy thought up. Still there is some small reasonable logic there. I'm just entertaining the idea of infinitecy and cycle concepts that apply to all gravity affected objects or molecules

    But they've got a long way to go to sell me on anything. Although I love the path they've chosen and think funding is too low .


    Its like saying playful in bed if you catch my drift.

  218. Okay, that is a start, have to actually go out of doors today and see the sun and stuff, no life sitting behind the computer all day.

    Get back to this stuff later, Chow, for now!

  219. @D-K


    That was very interesting! See how it works? We go from some wierd British hippie-ch*ck to String thoery.

    I am still digesting your post. Let me think on that for a bit...

  220. Randy: Wild ideas? Oh I got those, some bordering on the nonsensical. read below.

    AR: Actually, that is pretty much what I think.


    Well that's a lousy discussion, guess I'll take the opposing side of popular opinion to generate some thought.

    Gravity can't be a bleed-through because gravity "moves" as a linear force. Seeing as entering different dimensions requires a bending of space-time, thus subsequently a bending of gravity, it is inherently impossible.

    Our universe cannot possibly be a vibrating string because vibration on macro-scale would lead to an amount of energy that would overcome the residual strong force between sub-atomic particles, shredding all matter apart.

    Any given object CAN in fact supercede lightspeed, if such an object is capable of moving as both a particle and a wave, obviously made possible by nanomachines that rearrange the composition of the matter involved with quantum computing.


    Tadaa, brain food. (it's hard being silly)

  221. @Randy:

    Did not expect any answers, but as you said, any wild thoughts?

  222. @Achems

    There aren't any answers to those questions, yet. The good men and women working at the Hadron Super-Collider are trying to answer them, but I don't see any answers yet...

    (Don't mean they don't have them... and what I have seen is interesting... but they could certainly be, keeping the hardest data from us for further study.)

    I'm just sayin'

  223. @D.K.:

    Okay, I'll bite, why do you think that gravity is so weak?
    Doesn't seem strong enough to stop the universe from speeding up at above the speed of light in the deep field, that in itself does not make sense since nothing can go faster than the speed of C. So then apparently inflation is still happening, no?

    As been suggested, is our gravity a bleed-through from a super gravity, a brane, at a planck length from our own vibrating string of a universe?


  224. @D-K

    Well, Vlatko took down the forums, so, it has become something of a free-for-all...

    However, a free exchange of wild ideas can certainly be productive and conducive to learning.

    I find...

  225. ...?

    What's with all this personal hoo-ha, people? What happened to discussion of the source material? I personally had rather we focus our brainpower towards solving the gravity weakness conundrum, reverse fossilisation.

    I'd even take a discussion on the 2slit experiment at this point.

  226. @ Eire ive been coshed by the mod too

  227. @ Eireannach666

    what does freaky deaky mean Eire? (I mean Im sure its a compliment) I just havent got a clue! sorry
    So today was a fab day here in Cardiff - because for the 1st time in my life - I dared to question a religious man with a megaphone...he was one of several...preaching 'slap-bang' in the middle of Cardiff - Im NOT a tourist, I live here! - so I have got the right - right?
    ( by 'question' what I really mean is I punched his bloody lights out)
    well actually thats an exageration - he only chipped a molar

    and Im feeling soooooooo goooooood

  228. Once again the leprecauhn is in moderation. We're a very , uh , prolific bunch.

  229. D*mn Sadie is freaky deaky! I admire that in a woman.

    3andy behave. You're old lady would slaughter you both.

    What did you think pf Deicide? Anyone?

    Oh well, Death fu**ing Metal!

    Also see Vital Remains song Dechristianize and Infidel.

  230. @Charles B.

    Yes, but that is not s significant color for you. In fact, I see black as the color of your pain...

    Interesting. For me black is freedom and beauty, for you... not so much...

  231. Dr. Randy: Red is my favorite color! Crimson, actually.

  232. @ Randy

    I think you should have said;

    'minor research research'?

    minor research has 'dirty old men' connotations - but hey!- could just be my very dirty damaged mind!

  233. @ Randy

    Minor research is fine by me Randy! (just so long as its got the word 'research' on the end)
    - I feel strangely comforted
    Im not too good with internet - but Ill see you 'on the other side' ooooooooo


  234. You know what? Don't answer that question. This is a public forum and not the place for it.

    I wish I could direct you to somewhere we could talk privately, but I have no other internet presence except a YouTube page, that I signed on for, only so I could watch music videos with bad language in them.

    Whatever, YouTube...

    Anyways, my YouTube screen name is Paganguy1, that's for anyone who cares. You can "friend" me but I doubt I will ever talk to you as I only use YouTube for minor research and music...


  235. Pigeon Hole? I know nothing of any pigeon hole, but what does the color "red" mean to you?

    (You seem evasive, that usually means I am on to something...)

  236. @ Randy

    Happy now chuck? - there, thats given you somthing to 'pigeon hole' me with!

    hahahahahahaha .........brilliant!

    errr (what IS a ball game anyways?)

  237. @ Randy

    .......Daddy never came to my Ball games.......WHERE WERE YOU DADDY??!!

  238. Ok... Second Life, the online game for the truly sexually perverse.

    Yes, I think my reading was fairly accurate... And I know what the trauma was, now.

    It's good to know my cold reading skills are still sharp. I could open a shop and make 300grand next year, tax free, if I didn't have this ethical problem....


  239. @ Randy
    I can have a dark side, if you want me to?
    but Ill need your credit card details
    now go back to bed - rest that brain ready for round 2!
    cos Im off to second life

  240. @ Randy

    I can have a dark side if you want me too?
    but its extra!
    now go back to bed - cos im off to second life to get myself a piece of penis - (or somethink like that)

  241. @Sadie

    Ok, clearly you've become unhinged. Step back, sister-woman, Randy is the property of a deadly jealous, mexican woman that would eat you alive for looking at me too long!

    Did my reading mean anything to you? On this full moon...

  242. @ Randy

    (pssssst!) ...Im whispering to you Randy!

    Is this like we are talking in the dark? in the middle of the night? when all the grown ups are asleep?

  243. @ Randy

    ....but we COULD get married in second life!..........couldnt we?

  244. @ Randy

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahha.......your way too clever for me, alas!

  245. Also, my psychic powers tell me you are on crystal meth because that last post was completely incoherent!

    Although, I think I touched a nerve...

  246. @ Randy

    So Ive been thinking....about computers.....and why I couldnt 'connect'....and then it hit me like BAM!

    I dont need bibliographies,references, primary sources anymore....its all being done automatically for me, for you, for the WHOLE WIDE WORLD!

    with utube

    little word with so much social responsibilty dont you think Randy?....Randy?? u still there?

    so in answer to your question - or should I say prognosis - I answer with ....
    U tube tim minchin not perfect
    god almighty that was easier than looking inside the back cove of a 'Barnes & Noble' - or inside my head for the answer Randy - cos its very very dark in here!

    thanks for that Randy - Im seriously touched x

  247. @Sadie, of course, in media res... I assumed you were misspelling something, so I overlooked the obvious, even as some part of my mind knew it was latin...


    Listen, my psychic powers are very sharp on the full of the moon. When I think of you, I see the color red, a recent fight with a parent, (that has NOT been resolved even if there is peace between you), and a deep sadness that comes from some loss at an early age...

    You try to hide that sadness beneath layers of optimism but the strain is telling... the more I think on it... the darker it gets. But you hide the trauma well, I can not see it... I think that is best.

    Any of this ring true?

  248. @ Randy

    (I think you are a very very clever man)

    having said that, do you REALLY want my opinion on why you dont sleep Randy? Im sure its got nothing to do with the full moon......lets see, ummmmm maybe I should spend a few nights in your bedroom? I am positive we will come up with something.....

  249. @ Randy

    Morning Randy! lol wakey wakey
    yes its latin....I wanted to say that I came into the blog in the middle of it ('it' being the 'conversation') - and i couldnt think of the right words so i succumbed to Latin

    and I gotta admit, it made me roll about laughing - i mean, WHO would ever have believed that we would be using 'computer jagon' and Latin in the same sentence?!
    Im buzzing on this thought, its like i found a new drug!

  250. @Sadie

    You wrote: "and because I came into this blog in media res..." What does that mean, "media res" is that latin?

    I don't get it. 'Course it's 3am here and I am still awake.

    I seldom sleep during the three days of the full moon, why do you think that is, Sadie the Celt?

  251. @ Eireannach666

    Eire I understand totally where you are coming from, and because I came into this blog in media res, its only fair that I should apologise!

  252. I'm sorry, I believe that would be:


    The subtle play on words confused me in my distraction as I did other things...

    Sorry, I would not want to mis-represent a Slayer song...

  253. @666

    HA! Yes, well I like loud and angry music! I didn't get my nose broken at a "Slayer" concert because I wanted to reflect on the beauty of Mozart that night...


    (Although I love Mozart, as well...)

  254. @eire666:

    Sorry, it is audio, with prompting.

  255. @eire666:

    It is about a hippie chick with a butterfly tattoo, talking about hippie stuff to this dude, he keeps his cool for a short while than lays into her, about the real reality, Its funny!

  256. @Achems

    Its not that I don't trust your opinion its just my tolerance level is low compared to most and I am a picky person about what goes into my head. I mean even if ythe tv is on and your not watcbing it you still are receiving it, you see what I mean? I don't know I'm just picky and don't want to be frustrated.

    But if you guys say watch it then to me it would be a good idea to do so. I trust you two wouldn't say that about just anything and we all are on the same team on most things so ill check it out in a bit.

    What exactly is it a movie/clip or audio or what? How long? What would be a introductionary briefing n it?

  257. @Ep

    Ok man, ill trust your judgment. Ill get back to you on that one.


    Still you just have to realize my views and distaste for religion are not unfounded at all. I've seen its impact all my life. I have family that are clergy and huge believers but I look at myself and what I do and how my life is and see it more fulfilling, rewarding and less restrained due to the fact that I can see through the illusion of things that can never be seen or proven. Faith is a word that can be used it different contexts and mean slightly different things. Example , faith in a deity is not the same as having faith that your team will win or that you will make it 50 miles on a 1/4 tank of gas. Blind faith and faith as positive thinking or optimism are far from the same. The thing about American English is context. So sorry if you misunderstood some of what I said. I see from a lot of your replies that you may have misinterpreted what I meant but that's ok, ill just be more direct. Slainte.


    Of course that's fine my brathair. But check the lyrics. That's the words. That's my favorite band. I've seen them three times and met Glenn Benton twice and smoked with him.

    You'll dig it but its loud and angry. Achems liked the In The Eyes video. Its awesome I swear. All their songs are bad a** to me.

  258. @Ep

    Ok man, ill trust your judgment. Ill get back to you on that one.


    Still you just have to realize my views and distaste for religion are not unfounded at all. I've seen its impact all my life. I have family that are clergy and huge believers but I look at myself and what I do and how my life is and see it more fulfilling, rewarding and less restrained due to the fact that I can see through the illusion of things that can never be seen or proven. Faith is a word that can be used it different contexts and mean slightly different things. Example , faith in a deity is not the same as having faith that your team will win or that you will make it 50 miles on a 1/4 tank of gas. Blind faith and faith as positive thinking or optimism are far from the same. The thing about American English is context. So sorry if you misunderstood some of what I said. I see from a lot of your replies that you may have misinterpreted what I meant but that's ok, ill just be more direct. Slainte.


    Of course that's fine my brathair. But check the lyrics. That's the words. That's my favorite band. I've seen them three times and met Glenn Benton twice and smoked with him.

    You'll dig it but its loud and angry. Achems liked the In The Eyes video. Its awesome I swear. All their songs are bad a** to me.

  259. @eire666

    Do you think I would put my seal of approval on religious or hippie
    stuff, if you do not believe me than believe @Epicurus:

    "Storm" is neat!

  260. My Gaelic brother,

    Deicide? You know, I know of that band, but I don't think I ever heard them. I love the name, of course, and the song title, "F*ck your God" warms my cold-heart...

    Ima hafta ta check those bad-boys out...

    Thanks, 666! (That's what I'm gonna call you from now on, is that OK?)

  261. @ Eirannach666

    How are you Eieannach666? - I didnt have a 'stance' then - and I dont have one now. oh dear me I am sorry - yr right, I really dont know who I am talking to! goodbye x

  262. @Sadie

    "I got Achems to watch/listen to.."

    Perhaps you should remember who you are talking to. I don't think I'd enjoy it much and I am pretty solid as far as my stance goes,when concerning science and religion/belief etc...m Music as well. Ill tell you what , ill make a deal with you. Go listen/watch the videos In The Eyes of God by Deicide , and look up the lyrics. Then do the same with the video/lyrics to F*ck Your God by Deicide also one of my favorites, the video with lyrics of Cult by Slayer. All on you tube. Then ill go watch yours. Deal?

    The lyrics count the most but it might give tou an idea about how I am about some religiouX stuff.

  263. @ eireannach666

    thanks for your lovely words back there Eire - only just noticed them - and i couldn't agree more, and I certainly won't! ('quit science for religion') - I just need to find the key to open the door - its not science thats at fault - its definately me.
    must try harder

  264. @ Charles B

    Charles! Hello again - Ive just replied to you but its gone to moderation. This is not because I swore at you! - quite the contrary, but I think my mentioning of the eastern block caused it to be blocked, and may be in the east too - who knows! its no biggy deal, i only said thanks, basically Charles!
    from Sade

  265. @ Charles

    thank you for the link - Im useless on the computer, Im learning at breakneack speed - (the art of socialising) - is socialising like turning Russia back to communism? or rebuilding the Berlin Wall?
    anyway charles I will deffo have a look at the tube post - but is it about religion? and is it from ONE particular standpoint Chales?
    cos if it is Im going to have to put it on the back burner, (if you want opinions on the tube thing I mean?)

  266. @ Eireannach666
    @ Randy

    hey you guys! howz stuff? I managed to get Achems to listen to Tim Minchin - I got feedback @ the Transgender...doc post, seems Ez2b12 got into it too.
    Achems reckons you will love it - listen to 'storm' (as an alternative to 'creationists..')

    and then I suggest nothing at all - except to say that he is also a remarkable musician, religious misfit, and heart renderingly unforgettable.

    (listen to 'Not Perfect)

    I know that its cheeky of me to hijack yr ears - but I think you may forgive me - at least I hope so,

    regards! Sade

  267. @ DK

    I have to agree with you there a bit. On the fact that researching and studying are one thing. But to let that become worship is a far more harmful and useless use.


    Well in Oakland, Ca, give me your wallet means give me your wallet. And shoers. And gold. And as a matter of fact. It means get nak*d and put it in the bag!

  268. @Achems

    HAHA! Excellent use of the term "youse guys"! "Youse guyses" would have also been acceptable in Jersey...

    Soon, you'll be able to visit and fit right in, they'll think you're a native.

    Remember, in Jersey "Go f--k yourself!" is the same as "Good Morning!"

  269. @D-K

    Yes, that's true, and even as I wrote it, I thought the statement too strong.

    Afterall, I studied Tarot extensively as psychological tool, and astrology... (plus it made me gigantic bucks!)

    So, I will go along with that...

  270. @Charles B:

    I actually tried to watch your so called scholarship, could hardly get past the first part, had to fast forward.

    There would not be enough money for me to watch stuff like this!

    All I can say is youse guyse definitely march to the beat of a different drummer!

  271. @Randy: I disagree, although only with the final statement.

    The bible is a window into the basic human psyche, studying the bible is to study social constructs, large scale sociological manipulation, and it unearths many mysteries of the brain. While I obviously discard it's original intention/message, being a critical thinker and all, one cannot deny the intricacy in which the supernatural is interwoven into one's social paradigm, leading to all sorts of sociological and philosophical shifts.

    I find the thing fascinating, not directly because of it's content or it's implications, but more of it's influence of the basic human psyche, the R-complex, the basal nuclei and social consequence calculation. Fascinating!

  272. @Charles B.

    All due respect, Charles, but you and Laurie wouldn't know good scholarship if it took you out to dinner, drove you home, and made passionate love to you all night long.

    Good scholarship begins with good scholarship. The bible is NOT good scholarship. We can not check the veracity of the authors, because it is mostly apochryphal, (authors unknown), immediately, it must be rejected as a strong information source.

    Therefore, no good scholarship can come from the bible.


  273. @ Sadie

    Don't quit science because of religion. Quit religion because of science. That's the problem with the world and is unfit to make the decisions needed to progress our technology,understanding of how the universe works. Keep religion at home and leave the world to science.

    History is great , as long as it is factual history and not speculated assumption based on hear say. I love history and am ,in fact, a bit of a history buff myself.

    As far a the de vinci stuff, I say you can develop a code or pattern in anything if you look for it. I see them everywhere. I think that most of it is just a beating of evidence until it tells you what you want to see/ hear. I can't stand conspiracy theorist garbage. That's just me though am whatever floats your boat.

  274. Sadie: I know, I have to focus my goals. It was mostly just run-away daydreaming, but I do plan to study theology for sure for a masters degree, and I have to take some classes in education for my teaching license, and my wife wants me to get some kind of degree from U.P. too. In what, is yet to be decided.

    Epic: Why can't I study archeology, or even paleontology? I'm not a "young earther" actually, but I do believe in creationism.

    Dr. Randy: The Caliphite will be reestablished by Turkey soon. Dark days for us all are coming.

    Laurie: I'm going to post a link to the Star of Bethlehem if I can find it. Truly awesome scholarship.

  275. @ eireannach666

    I wanted to learn about Science but religion kept getting in the way, so Ive moved into History - and other stuff cos I feel more comfortable when Im not around religion.
    Ive got an MA in religion, so Ive got the right to turn my back on it - I still respect religion and those that are devout, but I didnt come here for that
    If u know what I mean? thank you Eireannach666 for asking

  276. Yes, well see, THAT was creepy...

    I have seen the Medici doc before and I loved it... of course I studied them extensively in college, and wrote a paper on them, (for which I got a "C", thank you Professor! He didn't get my snese of humor, either...).

  277. @ randy

    thas funny - i get it at last!
    i like you more now yr voice has gone all falsetto -
    eunuch suits you, and I bet yr jeans is looser?
    now come 'ere - i need a kidney

  278. Ok I give up, I don't know what I did wrong... maybe just delete them both, Vlatko, it's not important.

    Sadie, I know it is difficult for you to follow the thread with your tiny, British brain, but I was correcting Epicurus about Leonardo, not you. Your usage was acceptable.

    I'm kidding you, Sadie... and yes, the stilletto in the balls is pretty much a typical Saturday night for me...

    See, in Jersey, this is how we show affection, through insults!

  279. "Oh, the Chinese, Japanese, and Ancient South American civilizations did alot of that vivisection stuff, too.

    ‘Course they were practicing brilliant surgery long before we even knew what shoes were… so…"

  280. @ eirennach

    nooooo im afraid not, ive lost my train of thought cos rndy has lost both his balls and I fear I may be the cause.

  281. The only thing I know about the Medici is that I saved one's ass in Assassins Creed 2.

    Which was awesome.



    *retreats back to shadows*

  282. @ Randy

    anyways, I like Python, red dwarf, etc too - but I find it hard understanding english programmes - I like to S4C - its a welsh channel but we only got the one channel!

    anyway iff you want to continue this discussion, why not meet me in the History annex? Im currently watching 'Medici. godfathers of renaissance' and I would appreciate your input cos im currently talking to myself there! (Im not learning anythink) x

  283. Sadie, now you know light years measure distance right?

  284. @ randy
    well wouldnt it be cool if you could be known as of America/ dont tell me that your ego couldnt take it?? I would have called him Leonardo - but was worried you may have confused him with that leonardo de capprico bloke?

    Just mashing yr balls with the heel of my stiletto Randy

    cos it seems you liked yr wife doing it?

  285. @Sadie

    Fine come back! And I enjoy the ol' ball-vice... so...

    But, the "sanctity of corpses..."? I don't know where to begin there...

    Leonardo, like all of the great anatomists throughout history, from ancient Greece to the present day, advanced our knowledge of medicine exponentially.

    His incredibly accurate drawings of the human anatonmy, (inside and out), were standard reference for surgeons up 'til the 18th century... hell, even today, in some cases!

    How else are you gonna learn how the body works unless you cut it up? In England, in the 18th and 19th century, it was common for doctors to cut prisoners and the insane, open ALIVE and observe their inner workings... so that was a fun time...

  286. @ Randy

    ooooooo dont start me off randy! - Ive got a little penny in my wallet - thats older than your country
    I like boiled meat! and as a matter of fact - you americans should do a bit more boiling instead of loading yr arterys up with choloesterol - a right 'lardy' bunch if you ask me

    just smashing your balls in a vice Randy

  287. @ Epicurus

    only thinking it because I was thinking of Da Vinci during the renaissance - thats why! well I didnt know how long grave robberys been operating for (I dont mix in those circles) but you gotta admit that Da vinci did NOTHING for the sanctity of corpses did he? epicurious?

  288. @Epicurus who wrote to Sadie:

    "grave robbing and tomb raiding was around loooong before da vinci. i dont know why you would be thinking that..."

    Yes, you beat me to it Epicurus. Strange question. Every one knows it was invented by Dr, Frankenstien... duh!

    (That was a joke, I am in a weird, a**hole-ish mood today. Already, I have had many beatings from my wife for aggrivating her with snide comments... good thing I enjoy that sort of activity.)

    Interestingly, Epicurus, "da vinci" is not considered proper usage for Leonardo. Indeed, in the art world, and in the acedemic world of History, and such, he is just known as "Leonardo". One name like Cher or Sting... he is that cool. Da Vinci is just where he is from, "OF Vinci".

    It's funny, that ridiculous book by Dan Brown, (that I just couldn't get through it was so badly written), it's real title is:

    "The Of Vinci Code!" Doesn't make much sense... but then again, neither did the rest of it...

  289. @Sadie
    (the following will be a joke, I love the Mother country, and I grew up on Brit-Coms like Monty Python, Fawlty Towers, The Black Adder etc...)

    Hush, you British loonie! If it weren't for we Americans you would be the teeniest, weeniest, English speaking satellite of the German Empire!

    Why don't you go boil some meat and let the adults talk!

    LOL! Just breakin' yer balls there, Sadie...

  290. as my grandmother used to say;

    "the art of revealing, is part concealing"

    its what you DONT see that lends to your imagination, and thats what I am trying to say. The americans have about as much 'subtlety' as a swinging sledgehammer
    and as for that british voiceover - cringe cringe - who is he? he would NEVER get work on British Television, all I can say in his defence is that he must have been very very short of money or patriotism (oops an 'ism')

  291. @Sadie

    "..but at whose expense..."?

    At the creationists' expense, obviously. In my opinion, as they defy science and want their primitive beliefs taught in schools, they deserve to be slapped around, as well as laughed at.

  292. BBC would never ever have given this the time of day - and again, I dont have enough light years left to go into the reasons why ('isms' 'ists' ology'......blah blah)

  293. @ Randy
    I wold never take them creationists seriously Randy. I just did NOT like the way the documentary was produced. it was just terrible, I could not watch it - i like to learn but I do ot like it rammed down my throat. this documentary may have been funny to some - but at whose expense?

  294. @sadie, grave robbing and tomb raiding was around loooong before da vinci. i dont know why you would be thinking that.

  295. @ Randy

    I hear yoU.

  296. My mind has been all over the place today - I keep wondering if Leonardo da Vinci was the (unintentional) instigator for Grave robberies or Tomb raiding

  297. @Sadie

    Yeahv that thread was fun. A lot of feet went up the rear ends of the religees on that one. Lol.

    @Randy I'm surprised this one has gotten so many posts.

  298. Truth is, my mind has been elsewhere today, I keep pondering on Leoardo Da Vinci and wondering if he was the instigator for Graveyard robberies or Tomb raiding.

  299. Yeah Sadie, we loved "Why do people laugh at creationists?" Because you SHOULD laugh at creationists. It is not only acceptable but our responsibility to mock and deride bad ideas. Until they can be proved. That goes for science as well.


    Well, I was talking about the word f@g, the f word. That's like the N word for African Americans. They are allowed to use it, but we are NOT, and that is fine.

    To the homosexuals that I know g@y is fine, and I often use it like you do, "What a g@y show!" right in front of them.

    The F word, is only for them to use.

  300. heck im talking on the wrong page! oooh im needing more practice, its the creationist doc i was referring to

  301. @Randy

    The gay people you know must be different then the ones I do. Its not offensive if not directed towards them that way. Like I could say "Aww that g@y" in reference to something being broke and it wouldn't be in that context. You see what I'm saying?

  302. @eireannach666

    Yeah, come to think of it, it may have been a nasty comment, but I assumed that was the same Galloway that I had been talking to on other threads, and they seemed like friendly exchanges...


    Careful now, me and my friends had a blast on that documentary! We passed The Bong of Truth!

  303. @ eireannach666

    grrrr what a patronising git! dont care if he is 'british' - he smokes way too many cigrettes to make his voice credible!
    too much repetition.....too much 'in yr face' bright red....writing - all it did was get my dander up!
    Thanks for allowing me to let off steam Eireannach! your such a good therapist! (today at least!)x x x x x x x

  304. @Randy

    I didn't find it funny. I couldn't tell if he was being derogatory or attempting to be clever as if I hadn't heard that reference yet.

    How ya doin kitten? Thae why do people .... Wasn't meant to be on tv but was a youtube thing. Those clips were taken from a long period of time.

  305. SORRY! I meant the above post (from me) to be put on the 'Why do people laugh at creationists' site - Im sorry - it doesnt apply to this!

  306. I just watched this - (correction) I TRIED to watch this - I skipped into every section but got more and more bored - this programme would not get air-time on BBC or any channel with integrity and values, in my opinion

  307. @Galloway

    That was a good one! LMAO!

    You got me, you f@g!!!

    (Just a joke! All in fun!)

  308. @ Randy
    It had to do with me reading it wrong. O thought you were serious and figured you were a bit tipsy. Then I just thought I'd pay respect to those that deserve and have gained it. Nothing more really.

    @Galloway Grumblefield

    Pouge muh thoin!
    What is your ancestry? What heritage do you claim?

  309. @ Randy
    It had to do with me reading it wrong. O thought you were serious and figured you were a bit tipsy. Then I just thought I'd pay respect to those that deserve and have gained it. Nothing more really.

    @Galloway Grumblefield

    What is your ancestry? What heritage do you claim?

  310. @Randy,

    Why did you call eireannach666 your gay lick brother? That is really gay!

    Anyway, this was an interesting doc in a pop doc sort of way. Thanks!

  311. sorry should say 268% not 258%

  312. @ laurie
    you mentioned Scott Wolters testing but his own results showed approx 200 years of weathering (from date found) so his date is approx 1698 not 1362. now his dating could be off but in order to get a date of 536 years instead of 200 he would have to be off by a 258% not reliable in my books. in 2009 he also claimed the stone was made by the knights templar and also claimed columbus was a member of the knights of christ order and was giver a map of the west indies pre voyage .

  313. @Laurie

    Why is this important to you? Science has shown the possibility of many cultures and civilizations discovering the New World long before Columbus's grandparents were born.

    The Chinese, the Polynesians, maybe even Egyptians... there is good scholarship there posing the possibility of tons of people tramping around South and North America hundreds and hundreds of years before Columbus.

    Cool, huh? So what? Doesn't prove that the mythological character of jesus "teleported" there in a Star Trek-Transporter Beam... as you show in your mormon cartoons for mormon kids...

    Science does not care about it if it can't be measured. Maybe it exists, who cares? If it can't be measured, it is pointless to consider, because you can't BUILD things with it, and it can't make the world a more tolerable place for human life, which is the goal of science...

    Yes... it is! It's not the goal of politicians, or money-men, they want to rob you and leave you for dead, that's what they do. No big deal. They gotta eat, too.

    But, science? Their only true agenda is knowledge and building stuff that helps people.

  314. @ Epi Bite some more.

    from Laurie
    A Scandal of Scholarship and how often does it happen?

    Professor Gibbon was pleased to chair the workshop, at Fort Snelling in St. Paul, April 2003, and to explain to the audience how the weight of probability now lies on the side of authenticity (and had since the late 1960's when L'Anse aux Meadows excavations proved that the Norse had built a colony on Canadian soil.) Still the representatives from the Smithsonian and Minnesota Historical Society could not give up their dogmatic insistence that 1898 linguists' opinion has to trump the hard data of geology and more than a century of advances in knowledge of Scandinavian languages, manuscripts, and North Atlantic settlements and trade.

    Richard Nielsen had engaged Scott Wolter for the laboratory analysis of the Runestone carvings because Wolter enjoys a national reputation for expertise in petrographic analysis. The geologist, although a native Minnesotan, knew nothing about the Kensington discovery. When he went to the Minnesota Historical Society archives to look at his predecessor geologist's report, that of Newton Winchell. Wolter of course knew of Winchell, his name graces the University of Minnesota's Geology Building. Reading Winchell's field notes and report, carried out ten years after the initial discovery, Wolter was deeply impressed by the pioneer researcher's thorough, well-considered fieldwork and conclusion that Inference to the Best Explanation supported authenticity for the inscription -- basically, the same weathering data Wolter confirmed at stronger magnification. Disrespect for Wolter's presentation puzzled the forensic petrographer, but disrespect for the scientist who had fathered Minnesota geology appalled him! Now Wolter systematically searched the Archives for clues to the rejection; what he has found is, as he says, "a scandal of scholarship," dismissal of leading geologists' evaluations, failure to publish or follow up letters validating the early settlers' accounts of the find, refusal to consider later judgments by the leading Danish archaeologist, Brøndsted, and by the distinguished American linguist Robert Hall.

    Did anybody gain anything by this secret of the Pre-Columbus land claim? Is it collusion for power? Like I asked Randy before is the tendency of science to declare that something does not even exist if cannot be measured by an instrument? Why am I asking you because you take things seriously.

  315. eireannach666

    You thought I was tipsy? I wish, my gaelic brother! I haven't a drink since... I guess the end of August? That holiday that happens then? What is that? A month?

    I just got too much work to do, I'm working now, on a sunday, the lord's day... the bible says I should be stoned to death! (and I worked on the Jewish sabbath too, so...).

    Anyways, I really have no idea what your overall point was there in relation to my posts, but I do feel as you state there, ALOT! Frustration and anger at st*pidity.

    BTW, please avoid the word "f@g" or any of its variations. my homosexual friends find it offensive, (except when they use it themsleves, lol) so I do, too. G@y, is fine, but not with Vlatko, obviously...

  316. everything i am going to write here, I write with the fact that I have taken advice, but firstly I need to mention that I had my first personal computer in april 2010, up until then I used public ones - provided by the government - so I didnt 'play around'. just did what I had to do.
    I was connected to the internet on 28th June at home - its the best tool I have ever used, but a little frightening to say the least.
    Ive been banging my head against a brick wall - and I think its because I am treating this blog like I would any written piece of work, i.e. everything stated must be clearly defined as either an opinion, a primary source, a secondary source etc., with evidence of the latter by way of bibliographies et al.
    And most importantly - not to deviate from the subject matter. (ever)
    These rules (so I have been told) do not exist in cyber land.
    I am trying to get used to this, but until I do, I need practice. so I am going to do this by watching 'easy' documentaries, because its insulting to everyone, if I were to continue.

  317. Dang Randy, I responded but its in moderation again. I stay in moderation. Maybe - should apply for a job. You hiring Vlatko? LOL just kidding.

  318. @Randy

    Well I thought you were as lil tipsy pisky and was getting all emotional on me. LOL then I decided to include the rest out of respect for those that keep it real on here . Ended up forgetting to acknowledge Vlatko. Sorry 7Vlatko you know I include you in the same category.

    But ok you got me to take the worm on that one.(sounded a little fa*ish)
    Still, I say I work around a bunch of great mechanical geniuses
    But when it come to any other science they are as a box of rocks. I'm the onle non-religious person up there and the conversations I have consist of work related issues and a bunch of idle BS that I normally avoid. That is why it is refreshing to talk to you guys after wasting so much brain space listning to the garbage work and society's average persons thoughts. But my old lady is as I and my good friends as well. But you know I don't really do a whole lot these days. Got to stay out of the streets. Too much trouble to get into and it always seemsto find its way around. I mean don't get me wrong at all, as history has shown , I don't want any trouble but I'm not scared of it,in fact while in the moment I enjoy it tremendously. So I just try to stay away from society as I despise it and loathe the constant pushing of commercialism and religion down my throat everytime I step out of my house or turn on a tv. It sickens me to the point of outright disgust and pure unadulterated hate.

    Wish I could petition for a religious free and pop culture/mainstream free state or even city for me to live in or govern as I see fit. Be nice eh?
    Show them how much better it is without the stench of religion and filthy rap*ng of the mind done by tv and the mainstream propaganda dealt by the rich to the poor and needy weaker minds.

    Ok I'm done. I don't want to make V get me.


    I like how for the last few posts I've addressed to you ,you ignored as you seem to avoid direct confrontation and flock towards quoting scripture,talking in circles ,avoiding topics in which you cannot argue,and of course changing topics. So I will let you be for now since you seem to like to debate Ep with no avail. However in doing such things it really shows really how delusional you are and it is saddening to see how extremely brainfu**ed you are from all the years of listening and never questioning to the point of belief. Sorry but you need to come hit the bong of truth over here on the darkside for a while and get all that jesux h christ out of your brain and fill it with the sweet facts and undeniable proofs of Science H Logic.and we must do something about the whole planet Kolob thing and the whole coming from another planeyt fathered by aliens the force us to wear magic undies and our species coming from the southern U.S.

    I don't hate religious people , I'd have to hate my family and the majority of the people I know but I do hate religion . Look what its done to you. Tis a shame. I think of an egg in a frying pan, like the commercial,(anyone remember that?) THis is your brain , this is your brain on religion, any questions? Lol.

    Ill bet someone remembers that.

  319. @Laurie

    why did you say that to seems extremely pointless that you would brought it up. but i guess i will bite.

    Gustavson, Helmer. "The non-enigmatic runes of the Kensington stone". Viking Heritage Magazine (Gotland University) 2004 (3). "[...] every Scandinavian runologist and expert in Scandinavian historical linguistics has declared the Kensington stone a hoax [...]"

    Scientists today are NOT saying different. you probably found an example of one scientist who never heard of it and believes in it. but in no way are "scientists" starting to say it is authentic. actually what scientists do say is that it is a hoax from around 1898.

    A swedish/canadian scientist who studies it Birgitta Wallace disagrees -- forcefully. Wallace, who is considered a foremost expert in west Norse archeology, gave the keynote address at the conference at which Wolter and Hanson (the scientists arguing for its authenticity) presented their hypothesis. She blasted their views. said, "Neither the runes nor the vocabulary reflect the 1300s, If you know
    Swedish, that is the way my grandfather would write, not my ancestors from the 1300s."
    Also, she said, the idea of Norsemen exploring for the sake of exploration, as the runic legend suggests, is ridiculous. There were no economic reasons to go to Minnesota, nor has even one artifact been found that suggests the Norse were anywhere nearby in the 1300s. She finds the coincidence "amusing" that Norsemen explored an area more than 600 years before it was heavily settled by Scandinavians. Plus, geologic studies indicate that a cold climate prevailed in much of the 1300s, making travel very difficult in mid-America.

    now would you like to explain why you even brought that up? how it was relevant to anything i previously said?

  320. @Sadie the Celt

    This is a quote and I don't know who wrote but it's how I feel.

    What seems to be proved may not be embraced: but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned.

    Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish."

  321. @Epicurus

    Do you know that in America there is history lost and erased for a reason. What's happening in America isn't about truth. There is a difference between Divine Providence and manifest destiny. Manifest destiny perverts things it is a collusion for power.
    An example of a good recipe for transformation.
    Ben Franklin Science
    Thomas Jefferson Government
    Alexander Hamilton Commerce
    Sam Adams Religion
    They were all in check of course that is in the past. (old stuff)

    When government wants to expand, commerce wants more land and money, and science says that Native Americans are savages, and religion says the son's of Noah are not all quite human that is a recipe for collusion for power.

    Have you heard of The Kensinton Runestone dated 1362. It was declared a hoax but scientist today are saying different.

  322. @Laurie

    First of all, it's not a mosque, it's a muslim community center. And, though I think it is disrespectful for them to try and build it there, I do not think it is right for Americans to prohibit it.

    Better that they come to their senses, have better manners, and build somewhere else. Too sensitive an area, whether it's right or wrong, is irrelevant.

    Cordova Spain Islam is part of an overarching ideology of Islamic fundamentalists to try and bring back the Great Caliphate.

    You remember that Spain was once part of the Islamic Empire around the time that the Great Caliphates basically ruled the world.

    There was a time, from about the 7th century and up and around the time of the Black Plague, that Islam was at a Golden Age of knowledge, medicine, science, literacy, etc. We have much to owe to that time in their history, (including the cure for the Black Death, which is atrributed to King Saladin and administered by none other than Nostradamus... that's a long story...).

    The crusades were all about christendom trying to wrest that control back into the hands of what was left of the ROman Empire, the Catholic Church.

    This is a simplified history, obviously.

    The rest of your comments are trying to get me into conspiracy thoeries and I am not going to get into that, except to say, no one is in charge, there are just a bunch of greedy, unintelligent, rich guys running away with our money. Nothing personal, they are just thieves.

  323. @ Dr. Randy Batman the American

    I appreciate you as a research person. I'm confused. On the 10th anniversary of 911 who is financing the mosque? What does Cordova Spain Islam mean? Is religion and government together for power? Are we all placed in boxes pitted against each other for those who want power??

  324. I don't have time to look at all the blogs to see who it is that asked me if I have Mormon friends helping me with posting. Not at my age. We don't get together for posting. We don't get together and look at u-tube and stuff. My kids however ask me to look at videos or listen to a song on the net. My kids don't live at home anymore so that is a rare thing. Maybe on Thanksgiving when we get together. I don't know what made you think that anyway. I think that I'm more open-minded than some of my Mormon friends because I also have friends outside my religion. I have certain friends for shopping, others for going to the movies, others for home parties, others for discussing books others for exercise etc. I'm on my own here.
    Why am I here? You heard the statement no pain no gain. Well I have a child like love for the Gospel and I want to grow strong muscles. One way is to read things that piss me off. You challenge me.

  325. @ Randy

    if i had balls theym shattered for sure and if i keep sending mesges when driving im gonna die and who would argue with you then dr randy? thank you for being kind to me, i know im hard work. whoooosh that was close call ( oh those juggernauts) x x x s q x

  326. My Gealic Brother,

    Dude, I was just breakin' yer balls a little bit, there...

    No worries!

    BTW, just for the anthropological edification of everyone here, earlier, I wrote to Eireannaech666, "Where's the love, is all's I'm ASKIN'..."

    Now if I truley wanted to do a Jersey accent with that line, it should have been "all's I'm AXIN'..." See? We "axe" people questions.

    LOL! It always cracks me up when some Jersey girl or guy says, "Let me axe you sumthin'..." or "Can I axe you a question?"

    I ususally respond, "Well you can try, but I think that's really considered aggrivated assault with a deadly weapon... carries a fairly heavy prison term..."

  327. @ Eireannaech666

    I had to stop at Aust services - love yr blog im getting addicted to this! am I the 'double poster' to which you refer Eire? I hope I am because thats such a compliment its make me euphorically happy, truly its what I want to be, and that dont meant im 2 two faced. just two minds. im pecking this message out on nokia E71 - is hard going, im on a mission now ill be back tomoz thank you Eire for that! have a lovly day evey one. over and out from Sadie (over the border on the M4)

  328. @Randy

    Ha! Nah my brotha you have it all wrong on this one , rare as it may be, but I just liked the fact that laurie was quoting this and that verse and then some dou**e of a supposed scientist, then after he checked her on it he pretty much was just making a side point on that by showing her an example of how to quote someone while supporting what was being said against her argument. Plus that was a great pick on Sagan material relevant to their talk.

    Trust me , you shouldn't see it in that light as you have because I always quote your stuff and have the utmost respect and admiration for you sir. As my elder ,a teacher, a fellow seeker of truth and knowledge and a friend as well. I loved your example you gave and laughed as I read it because of the fact ,(and I'm sure you were thinking) that it had to be and was broken down so simply and still she would not budge. It was funny it came to belittling condescending examples even a child could understand.

    The way you explain things is always good to me. I always look forward to the next 3andy bong of truth session, trust that.

    I think that his pick on that specific quote by an undeniably brilliant scientist , was a good way to show her how to and to make the point together.

    Don't look into it too much ,man. I learn a lot from you guys especially. You mostly since we both enjoy and despise the same things , so you should already know I agree with you on almost all things.apologies if you felt that credit was due and wasn't because I'm going to steal that from you ant ways lol. I was really just following along until Ep busted out the Sagan. Heck I expected you to enjoy that as well, seeing as I myself liked sagan and knew of him and his work. Knew of the cilosmos series but didn't have the admiration I do now for him if it wasn't for me talking with you on here.

    Point being , I think you took that in the wring light. Plus I got caught up in the whole universal geometry thing and obviously wasted time on Sadie since she claimed to want to discuss UG but instead seemed to like Laurie delusional jabber over some really interesting basic ideas on the way the universe operates. So I too sigh as you on that one. Like said my bad for spacing out there. Love ya man. Your the CEO remember and the dealer that loads the bong of truth and sparing nobody. Se you like the hunt as I. Can't forget ; Achems the man of few words but they are always well mostly right on, Ep because as far as evolution is concerned he's up on his game on that and I've always supported and acknowledged it as fact but I like the way he speaks on it. Usually a lot of info in there , most are usual to me but he throws in a curve from time to time that makes ya think a bit., HM because he and I just don't like the major majority of our species and are all about ruffling some feathers(as are you) with no regard for someone's pansy feelings and religious beliefs and of course the fast talking one who entertains us with some of the best double-sided posts on here , the infamous DK when he's not on one of his off the wall trips of mass ridiculed though he makes my chuckle with his (no offense) for lack of better words)sluggish sarcasm.

    You see what I mean now bro? Its a given that I support your thoughts and ideas. I think you are the only one besides Acjems that I havnt gotten into it with before. (And Epi Log,whom I haven't seen on here in a long time. Hmm?)

    I think you catch my drift no? Horns and thorns for anything,physical or ideological , that puts a man on his knees. Only one exception and that being a beautiful woman.

    Hey changing subject because now I feel like I'm pivoting in a circle catching se"guys" all over. You all can now have your nu*z back.

    I was thinking the other day, about how many signature you would need and is it even possible/plausible to petition religion abolishment in public and/gor all together? Maybe in just one state? Any thoughts? I mean especially get it out of the government and science. I mean like you said jokingly?,"In a wood chipper." But I think the grand canyon would make a great place for elimination and disposal, lol N/K.

  329. @ Laurie Robbiard
    @ Eireannach666
    @ everyone

    Laurie, thank you, eireannach - again I apologise
    I think its evident that I am not approaching you all correctly! - like you said Eire - I am fiesty, but I mean well. The reason I am tying to filter out the relgious aspect id not because I am not interested - its simply that I am short on time. My cousin Andrew graduated in Pure Mathematics from Oxford - it runs in the family, (the purity of knowledge I mean) and fascinates me - but I know I approach it in the wrong way.
    SO! the rugby season is about to descend on us, which cam only mean that the cricket season is over. I say this because I am heading off to Stanton Harcourt in a few hours, I need to talk to someone about my 'pitch' - and I dont mean Im the opening Batsman either!
    I plan on getting some advice to improve my techinique (what technique!!) I know grrrr

  330. @eireannach666

    Listen, I love Epicurus' genius as much as much as the next really smart guy, but he cribs some Carl Sagan and you gush all over him. I made up a perfectly good alegorical story about a tiger behind a bush, (scroll up), and I get nuttin'!

    I mean, my little alegory had a whole thing with a cage that represented how people limit themselves out of some fear of an imagined god, and everything!

    I even had an illustration of how you can get robbed by that fear... where's the love? Is all's I'm askin'!

    I mean, my stuff was all original... and stuff...

    No? *sigh* Ok, fine...

  331. @Ep sorry about the *2* up there. These BB keys are small and I hit the wrong key sometimes.

    But again that was broken down to where that dude from the show "Life foes on" Corky could understand and retract. I was rollin dude.

  332. You know this doc is quickly becoming the number one commented one on the site... it was ok, but not cool enough for that. Not like, "Why People Laugh at Creationists"!

    I'm not trying to convince Laurie that I am right and she should think like I do, I just want her to get her religion out of my science, her chocolate out of my peanut butter!

    I am trying to get her stop trying to use science AGAINST science, to prove her magic-books RIGHT.

    And I must admit, like I was with Sadie, I am a little concerned that she is falling for a con... In all my mysanthropy, I still have some kind of empathy for humans...

    I don't like 'em, but I don't like seein' 'em get hurt... Like spiders, I am terrified of spiders, but I can't kill one, or see one suffer.

  333. @Ep

    Bravo.Bravo! *whistles *applause! Best post today goes to 2picurus the man of logical reason! *baloons and confetti. You have won an all new.never worn and fully loaded nothing!

    Nice one man. Hats off for sure.

  334. @Laurie

    Boy , you sure are persistent aren't you? Will you please just quit the scripture and religion quoting and answer a question with just pure evidence and not opinion and hearsay?

    Or do you only believe in fairy tales?

    Now don't get your magic undies in a bunch but try this.
    Provide evidence of creation and then I will rebutle with my evidence of no creation on top of the tons presented here on this thread and others and then we can weigh them to see which ones hold up to end the debate on a productive note.

    Doesn't have to be long just list your verifiable evidence, verified meaning I can see it and its been tested by real scientists in a peer reviewed situation and tested as well in an environmental controlled and perhaps blind. Situation.

    Ok go.

  335. "A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

    Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

    "Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.

    "Where's the dragon?" you ask.

    "Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

    You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

    "Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

    Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

    "Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

    You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

    "Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

    Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

    Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

    Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

    Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

    Carl Sagan.

  336. HA! Not at all, over the edge, I thought your comment was far better. Much less smart-assery, much more direct, and you brought up that aspect of mormonism that I had forgotten about!

  337. @dr randy aka batman
    how come every time i say something you say it better lol.

  338. @Sadie

    Hey there Miss Sadie, ciamar a tha thu? I hope your claws have since retracted ,as our wounds have yet to heal.

    1.Of Course I agree that the four forces are a definite factor on everything that is. We however have a lot of research to do in order to really understand the impact on the quantum level. Although there are many examples tha these factors impact us at all times. 2 if these factors were to change in some way , I'd speculate that we would cease to exist but as for everything else, I have no clue but can only speculate, which I do not really like to do. You know what they say, when you assume you make an "a*s" out of "u" and "me"

    As far as geometry ,therein lies a question I know a bit about. But divine to me implies a creator and I can not see that as even an idea gut universal geometry is a different thing.and it all starts with general relativity. In which einstein , (one more time , eienstein) shows how mass curves space, and anything of mass travelling in curved space will have their paths altered, like if a force had "acted" on them. This is relevant because it depends on if you are talking 2d or 4d. Because curvature of 4d spacetime is much harder to explain or understand but not too much so.

    GR says that space as a whole, not something in sace but space as a singlular context, can be curved. Which is how we get that we don't exist in just a 2d universe but rather a 3space + 1time universe and is proven or explained mathematically using the same maths you'd use on 2d. Relevant
    for the geometry of the Universe that would have 3 possible outcomes that are one with how much mass and strength of the gravitation the univers has. Which is cool because this would mean there is a different past and future for our and possible other unniverses (string,M,etc).

    The universe could be either 2.flat or 3.closed. I personally have always thought closed was more conceivable to me. As the universe implodes and explodes imfinetly forever. However all are valid theories and require knowledge greater than mine to prove. An open universe would mean the universe has a negative curve and would just expand forever and ever and a flat universe or "euclidian universe" (yes euclidian like in high school.) Because it would have just the right amount of mass in the universe to cause the expansion to cease but would have unlimited space and would expand forever, but the expansion would come to a stop after an infinite amount of time. Which I don't care for this one much, but still maybe true. We just have no ways to calculate the mass of the universe to say with certainty which is correct but even if we could say, that just opens more questions
    and leaves just another small .00001 percent of wiggle room for the religees to still believe and thump their comic books ata us.

    They kind of got a handle on measuring the mass but not so much to convince me that's its a fact one way or the other. The geometry of the universe is a tuff question but god is not even in the multiple choice list on this. And I know we haven't and may not ever detect or know all the mass that is in niverse yet

    The general ideas of most of the scientists comes from the cosmic inflation)thing and they seem to lean towards a flat universe where it would just stop. But who knows. We could all be just the offspring of another diminsion or reality . I love some science, like randy said an if you can't test it it or show results than shut the Fu** up and try something else.

    9osmology and astronomy , real science, not to be confused with theology or astrologY, dum*a** sciences and actually scratch that because they are not worthu to be included with the word of logic and reason. The word of Science H. Logic. So Science da** you pseudobeliefsyatems!. ?

    Hope this shed some light for you In the name of the Logic the Reason and the Mathematics , Slainte.


  339. @Laurie
    "There is a fundamental and unproven dogma underlying much of modern science, especially evolution. This is the assumption of scientific naturalism, namely the philosophy that empirical nature is THE ONLY REALITY about which we can have solid knowledge. As a result the hypothesis that a God or an Intelligent Designer was involved in the creation of life on earth is , in effect excluded from scientific discourse. If scientists removed their naturalistic blinders, they might see the creation in an entirely new light."

    the reason there is a basic assumption in naturalism is because nothing has been shown otherwise. it isnt just scientific methods that show religious and superstitious claims to be false but actual LOGIC. IF someone can give a way to test whatever else you propose there is then the world would be HAPPY to embrace it. i will admit the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it certainly is evidence to be skeptical and not just take it on faith.

    NEVER has the idea of a designer been excluded. we have shown no reason to assume a creator and any time we search for one we dont find it. if you removed your western religion blinders you might see creation in a new light also. you might see it naturalistic. why not look at creation from a hindu viewpoint?

    you said:
    "When the Lord reigns during the millennium, we can expect that the typical scientist will believe like Louis Agassiz, probably the greatest naturalist of his day, who said, “In our study of natural objects we are approaching the thoughts of the Creator, reading his conceptions, interpreting a system that is His and not ours.""

    this is funny because you start the sentence with your assumption that there is a lord and it will reign during this millennium...amazing how people always think the coming of their god is always in a time close to their bringing up someone from the 1800's again and trying to pass them off as some authority is just silly and shows you lack the ability to tell real logic from rhetoric.

    however if you actually payed attention to the real world you would notice that as science and understanding of this universe progresses our beliefs fade away. how about we quote stephen hawking, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.
    It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

    there i used a quote, therefore im right.

    you say:
    "in our day, the world teaches that scientists should be atheistic so that they are not prejudiced by the false traditions of religion, which hamper progress. A century ago the name of God appeared in many science books, but now his name has systematically been removed. We are taught that the thought of mixing God into science is “unscientific.”

    I say
    Science Need Not Be Atheistic."

    the world doesnt teach scientists to be atheists. they decide that on their own by shedding off the idea that religious claims cant be questioned. you are trying to make a positive claim for something you cant prove, so you try to say that it cant be proven because of the way we view the world. this is a very immature cop out. if you can give us a way to test god or any claim made for god using science then we would be VERY happy to put it to the test. but it is the religious people making excuses why their god cant be tested. and that is clearly because it doesnt exist.

    science need not be atheistic but it need be skeptical and not based on faith.

  340. @Laurie

    Achems mentioned your magic/zero-point energy-wand and it made me think of a "guff".

    Grifters, (con-artists) like I was, called the props we used in a "game", guffs. A guff can be a useless thing you make and sell, telling the "mark" (victim), that it has special properties, or just something to add credence to your con-game.

    In a "quack" (a medical scam, the worst of the games, because it can really hurt and kill), the guff is some useless item that the mark thinks will heal him or her, so they pay through the nose for it.

    My game was called a "head-game", the psychic, spiritual advisor game, and I suppose my tarot cards, atrological charts, and crystal orbs could be called guffs. But, I made a fortune selling little clay talismans that I sculpted for each mark.

    Each guff was personalized and could attract money, the opposite sex, good fortune, etc... you get the idea. I sold them for 50-200 bucks US, (depending on how much the mark could afford...)

    You zero-point energy wand is a guff.

  341. Science should be and usually IS, atheistic.

    Science says, if it's not measurable, testable, or provable, it is meaningless. Can you measure god? No? Meaningless-- move on...

    Science builds things in the real world. Physics makes your DVD players, and computers, and electronic data storage possible. Not jesus, physical science.

    There are some scientists that believe in god, but they put that aside when they are doing science. Like the catholic astronomers at the Vatican observatory. One of the best observatories in the world, and some of the best scientists, even though they are priests.

    They don't talk about god and astronomy in the same sentence. They keep it seperate.

  342. @ laurie
    i wonder why you omitted #5 on your list
    "(5) the Bible and other LDS scriptures are subject to official interpretation by the First Presidency -- the scriptural texts themselves are not the final authority."
    maybe because it basically states the beliefs of your church can change and what you are supposed to believe is not up to you in the churches eyes. also science deals with the natural world and takes no stance on religion . religion is a belief outside of the natural world and therefore it cannot be looked at scientifically . now you have the right to your religion and your beliefs don't affect me, but the fact you or others want them included in science offends me. by sheer definition they are not science.

  343. @Laurie:

    You never did answer me, do you wear magic underwear? maybe to go along with your "magic Wand"?

  344. @Epicurus
    you are really not arguing for anything here. you are saying theories are not facts. no one is saying they are. what is your point in bringing this up. what is your conclusion for the argument?

    from Laurie
    Creationism contrast sharply with fundamental LDS (Mormon) beliefs, which teach of harmony between science and religion.

    There is a fundamental and unproven dogma underlying much of modern science, especially evolution. This is the assumption of scientific naturalism, namely the philosophy that empirical nature is THE ONLY REALITY about which we can have solid knowledge. As a result the hypothesis that a God or an Intelligent Designer was involved in the creation of life on earth is , in effect excluded from scientific discourse. If scientists removed their naturalistic blinders, they might see the creation in an entirely new light.

    When the Lord reigns during the millennium, we can expect that the typical scientist will believe like Louis Agassiz, probably the greatest naturalist of his day, who said, "In our study of natural objects we are approaching the thoughts of the Creator, reading his conceptions, interpreting a system that is His and not ours."

    This is your school of thought

    In our day, the world teaches that scientists should be atheistic so that they are not prejudiced by the false traditions of religion, which hamper progress. A century ago the name of God appeared in many science books, but now his name has systematically been removed. We are taught that the thought of mixing God into science is "unscientific."

    I say
    Science Need Not Be Atheistic.

  345. Sadie the Celt

    from Laurie
    Since you read all the post then you know that I'm a Mormon. We believe
    1) The bible is incomplete since revelation continues
    2) The Bible has numerous errors in translation
    plain and precious material has been dropped

    3)Certain segments such as song of Solomon are of dubious inspiration
    4)Certain passages such as Eve being formed from Adam’s rib should be interpreted figuratively

    Even those most devout and sincere believers in the bible realize that it is, like most other book, filled with metaphor, simile, allegory, and parable which no intelligent person could be compelled to accept in a literal sense.

    The Lord has not taken from those who believe in his word the power of reason

    The opening chapters of Genesis, and scriptures were never intended as a textbook of geology, archaeology, earth –science, or man science. Holy Scriptures will endure while the conceptions of men change with new discoveries. God works in accordance with natural laws.
    True science is a discovery of the secret, immutable and eternal laws, by which the universe is governed. Scientific truth cannot be theological lie. They have the common ground of truth on which to meet.
    I suppose I and Charles are the God Squad. x

  346. The documentary was interesting, Id like to get some consensus as to the common ground with regard to content.
    Does everyone agree on the 4 forces? what do you think would happen if they were out of sync?
    do you think that Garrett Lisi could be proved right with his 280 twisted circles (E8LeeGroup) (sic)
    What would happen if his theory is proved? - do you agree that it would be a blueprint for divine geometry?
    Im only interested in the finite if anyone cares to tell me what they think? Id be grateful
    ps God Squad need not answer - thanks all the same

  347. Epicurus:

    Establishing inherent doubt in scientific explanations/conclusions is a guerilla warfare technique. By pointing out inherent uncertainty, one can equate, for example creationism, to a theory with well-established logical inconsistansies in an attempt to put both explanations on equal footing.

    It's a convoluted form of mud-slinging.

    Such would indicate that there isn't a conclusion, only circular logic.

  348. I'm cool? That's a first, lol.

    On second though, I'd revise my statement. Scrutiny is a instrument belonging to the overarching methodology of critical thinking, so in a sense, we're both right.


  349. @D-K

    Well, sure, "scientific scrutiny" is a term that could apply, but, I always think of that as something actual scientists do.

    Critical thought is a process that can apply to lay-people as well, and really, every human being should employ it, all the time, every second, of every day of their lives-- AND, for every time/space event that happens in their lives

    Otherwise, just lay down, go to sleep, and get out of the way... (them, not YOU, D-K, you're cool...)

  350. @Laurie:

    What websites are you copying/paste from? my guess, mormon right?
    And/or, it seems to me you are being prompted by someone else, a third party, am I right again? is it your mormon friends?

  351. @Randy:

    Isn't that called "scientific scrutiny"?

  352. You're going to have to spell out the point you're making there, because I'm probably missing it.

    "When the underlying foundations are wrong, it often requires rebuilding the entire scientific edifice"

    That, I can disagree with in advance, because a faulty theory does not devaluate the scientific method, logical insonsistancies come forth from our incomplete understanding of natural laws.

  353. That's actually very true, Laurie. Many scientists are compromised by religious and political agendas.

    That's why you and I must search diligently and do our homework on any study. Who funds it? At what point are they in the research? Is it preliminary, or conclusive? (News outlets love to shout preliminary results of health studies, for example, because they make good headlines, but when the study doesn't prove out, the news never reports that...)

    Again, science is a HUMAN thing and can be corrupted by RELIGION, and politics, and money-men... what's religion's excuse? Isn't there some diety protecting it?

    It will sometimes take me two years of study before I can accept any scientific evidence to be accurate. I have to know the credit rating of the scientist running the study! (exaggerating to make a point...).

    This is called "critical thought".

  354. @D-K

    You strawman a specific example and couple it with reductio ad absurdum to devaluate the entire scientific method.

    Shame on you.

    from Laurie
    Shame on me so here is a better example
    For millennia it was assumed that the plane geometry of Euclid was "true," but then Einstein and others proposed "curved space" which has proven to be a very fruitful theory. Similarly space and time were believed to be absolute and matter was believed to be different from energy, and again it was Einstein who has argued convincingly otherwise. When the underlying foundations are wrong, it often requires rebuilding the entire scientific edifice, as was the case with Einstein.

  355. @Randy

    Tell me again Who are victims?

    Government and Special Interests. Most scientific research done today is funded by governments, so scientists must tailor their agenda (and even findings?) accordingly, or be out of work. This is particularly unfortunate in countries where secret combinations are in control. Similarly, large corporations hire scientists to prove that their products are safe to use or superior to their competitors. We can hardly expect an unbiased report of their findings.

  356. "If most people were blind, would it be “scientific” to ignore all observations by the few who could see only because blind scientists could not invent a camcorder and connect it to their optic nerves"

    When people "see" things, it's most likely not due to the optic nerves, but interference of specific regions of the brain that shouldn't be active in the process.

    Study shows that with certain visuals or scenarios, people will subconsiously engage regions from the limbic system, which means that between the observation and conversion from short-term to long term memory, other part of the brain have tampered with the observation.

    I could probably look up the research for you, but google is also at your fingertips.

  357. You know Laurie, you want to believe in this magical world of yours, I get that. Maybe you NEED to believe in it. I get that, too.

    You know what I call people who WANT to believe in, god, demons, angels, unicorns, goblins, faeries, UFO's, conspiracy theories, sparkly vampires, etc...

    Willing victims...

  358. `" Is this how science discards useless information?
    The classical example goes from a series of observations:
    Swan no. 1 was white, Swan no. 2 was white… Swan no. 3 was white… to the general statement: All swans are white"

    A scientist using an actual scientific method will not succumb to post hoc ergo propter hoc. The general statement in that instance should be:

    All observed swans are white. The extrapolation from those obersvation would be that swans have a propensity towards developing a white coat, i.e have a high probability in general to develop a white coat.

    You strawman a specific example and couple it with reductio ad absurdum to devaluate the entire scientific method.

    Shame on you.

    Side note: Randy indeed claims to have preyed on the ignorant with "psychic" abilities, but he also states that he did so full knowing and stating that the "art" from which his "abilities" derived, was and is, pure hokum.


    "Science is considered to be methodologically empirical in nature."

    I don't know that point you made there, or if you were agreeing with me, but you pretty much just re-phrased my sentiments; "The question of “why” is irrelevant and philosophic in nature, that’s why science doesn’t answer the “why” questions"

  359. Yes, the "conclusion" of a theory is often proved to be inconsistant with evidence. Therefore, it is changed.

    Science is a self correcting mechanism. It can be wrong for as long as it needs to be until it is right.

    Religion should be right all the time, everytime, and never make mistakes... afterall, it's divinely inspired, ain't it?

    And do not give me that "I feel it in my heart, so I know it's true!!" and then the violin swells and the piano goes "tinkly-tink..." This ain't TV, sister!

    I can show you on an FMRI exactly where that feeling comes from. I can describe the chemical process in the brain and the endochrine system that produces the chemicals...

    Means nothing. Science tests, with peer review and instruments, because the "feelings" mean nothing.

  360. @D-K
    Science (the entity) has a tendency to discard useless information because humans have a tendency to lie for personal gain, i.e psychics.

    Remember that if the meaning is "observation," then it is as fallible as the observer. If it is a "theory," then it also could be disproven someday.

    If it is claimed to be "truth," then it is a statement of the personal conviction of the speaker, which is outside the domain of science.

    If most people were blind, would it be "scientific" to ignore all observations by the few who could see only because blind scientists could not invent a camcorder and connect it to their optic nerves?

  361. @ Randy

    Theories which have survived the test of time are sometimes honored with the name "laws". The theory is never proven true because there is always the chance that a new experiment will be devised which will require more than a minor revision to explain the result. A scientific law is really just a theory that has been inducted into the scientific hall of fame.

  362. @ Randy

    And Laurie, all of your statements today are completely without merit. Theories do become scientific laws when they are proven true.Observations are made

    from Laurie
    1) A theory is proposed to explain the observations
    2) The theory is used to predict the results of future observations, which might prove the theory false.

    Note also that no experiment ever proves a theory to be "true," but only that it has survived one more possible falsification test.

  363. @Randy

    Theories are not “guesses” they are based on real veryfiable evidence.

    Science, like the law, has a “jury system” to test all truth in a very strict manner. It’s called Peer Review.

    from Laurie
    No induction can prove that all swans are white, since this will require an infinite number of observations, but that the observation of a single non-white swan will falsify the statement that all swans are white

  364. @D-K
    Science (the entity) has a tendency to discard useless information because humans have a tendency to lie for personal gain, i.e psychics.
    from Laurie
    Isn't that what Randy did to earn money to pay for his university.

    from Laurie
    Is this how science discards useless information?
    The classical example goes from a series of observations:
    Swan no. 1 was white, Swan no. 2 was white… Swan no. 3 was white… to the general statement: All swans are white.

  365. Science has not fully explained brain chemistry and its quirks, having said that, hallucinations, altered perception and sensory deprivation all result in people "seeing" things. Just because you "see" something does not mean it exists.

    Science (the entity) has a tendency to discard useless information because humans have a tendency to lie for personal gain, i.e psychics.

  366. D-K

    The question of “why” is irrelevant and philosophic in nature, that’s why science doesn’t answer the “why” questions.

    from Laurie
    Science is considered to be methodologically empirical in nature.

  367. @Randy
    Theories do become scientific laws when they are proven true.

    Scientific laws. Is that the Hall of Fame of science?

    from Laurie
    Not-yet-measured Equated to Non-existent. Even worse than ignoring the observations of those who can see something which you cannot is the tendency of science to declare that something does not even exist if cannot be measured by an instrument. This is an extra step into ignorance.

  368. @ Laurie Robillard
    je m'excuse! oublez*

  369. The question of "why" is irrelevant and philosophic in nature, that's why science doesn't answer the "why" questions.

    You simply cannot find the answer to a why, not at this point, there is no way to account for the variables in a universe/multiverse which we don't fully understand or even have explored yet.

    "Why, is often the first question asked, yet the last question answered"

    I do have a nice "why" for you though; Why do you look up the opinions of a specifically morman astronomer? I'm positive that if you objectively judge your motivation for doing so, it'd be an eye-opener.

    Or you can go ahead and ignore me again ;)

  370. @ Laurie Robillard

    Non Laurie je comprend le francais dupuis cinq ans (en ecole) mais j'oblez beaucoup! my first language is Welsh - not Celtic, not Gaelic - just Welsh.

    Again no, I dont study Asrology or Astronomy - I used another method, but its obviously inaccurate - I will get back to the drawing board - and then back to you!
    Merci, Sade x

  371. And Laurie, all of your statements today are completely without merit. Theories do become scientific laws when they are proven true.

    Theories are not "guesses" they are based on real veryfiable evidence.

    Science, like the law, has a "jury system" to test all truth in a very strict manner. It's called Peer Review.

    And motives are easy to figure out. People are NOT mysterious. A good cold reader like I am, can figure out a great deal about a person in ten minutes. A good forensic psychiatrist can see a criminal motive a mile away.

    Oh that's right, you don't believe in psychiatry... neither does Scientology... hmmm...

  372. Well, there certainly SHOULD be a law that mormons can't be university professors but... alas, I do not rule the world, (which is a GOOD thing because all ya'll would end up in a wood chipper! KIDDING!)

    What Epicurus is saying is that your professor there is coloring all of his observations with a lovely glaze of mormon. You need unbiased observation to reach any real conclusions.

    You cannot tell me that the information taught at Brigham Young University is not first "cooked" in the foul-smelling broth of Joseph Smith, before being fed to the hapless victims/students there...

  373. Epicurus
    from Laurie
    So what if John Pratt is a Mormon astronomer and university professor. Is there a law that Mormons can't study the sky and calendars? Just because you have no interest in those fields doesn't mean it is silly.

  374. Sadie the Celt
    @ Laurie

    Laurie – do you agree that Jesus ws born on january 6th? at least that was the date I calculted, but I may be wrong – comments?? thanks Sadie x

    from Laurie
    Jesus was born March 6 in the spring. How did you come up with your calculation? Do you study astrology astronomy?

    What language do you speak? My first language is French.

  375. sorry - I should have added IF jesus existed....
    phew ....I thinked too fast there

  376. @ Laurie

    Laurie - do you agree that Jesus ws born on january 6th? at least that was the date I calculted, but I may be wrong - comments?? thanks Sadie x

  377. @ Laurie Robillard

    YES! thats almost what I wanted to say - but Im not very good at English as a first language, thank you very much laurie, Sade

  378. @Laurie:


    So where are the truths that you so speak of, for your religious meanderings. Give us the hard empirical, take it to the bank type of evidence. Remember you said it not I.

  379. @ Randy, Epi,Achems Razor


    Let's take just a moment to talk about truth. If science can never prove a theory "true," then truth really has no place at all in science. By "truth" I mean what is "really" going on. Truth has to do with ultimate causes, which are nearly always extremely elusive and beyond the realm of science. Science deals with theories, usually mathematical, which predict outcomes of experiments. For example, if we drop a rock off a cliff, the law of gravity combined with theories of air resistance and other forces can be used to calculate just how long it will take to hit the ground, and how fast it will go, etc. But science does not answer the question of just exactly what gravity is, or why things fall. It just states that given certain conditions, they will fall. In general, science answers questions like "how," "when," "where", but never "why" in the ultimate sense.

    As an example of the interplay of the three concepts of observations, theories and truth, consider the courtroom. The observations may be that a man was seen shooting a gun and that the person hit by the bullet died. The theory may be that it was cold-blooded murder, but the truth may be that it was self-defense. Truth tends to be invisible and hidden, such as someone's motives, whereas observations are usually visible. Courts are very interested in truth, where the motive (the ultimate cause) for actions is given considerable weight. The distinction between first-degree and second degree murder is based on intent. Motives are not as yet observable in science, and hence are beyond science.

  380. @Laurie:

    It seems that all you are saying is that your Jesus, your religion, has all its origin in the Sun and the planets etc: No?
    It is all anthromorphized and classed as pareidolia, through astrology.

  381. @Epicurus

    from Laurie
    astronomer-astrologers (the Magi)

    Why identify Venus as the Star of Bethlehem?
    Jesus called himself “the bright morning star” (Rev. 22:16). Venus is ‘the bright morning star’.

    How can the ‘bright morning star’ be identified as Venus? First, Venus at its brightest is the brightest natural object in the sky after the sun and moon. It is the brightest object that can be called a star. Second, the ancients referred to exactly two planets as ‘morning stars’, they were called morning stars because they were normally only visible for a few hours before dawn. The morning stars are Mercury and Venus. They are morning stars because when they are visible in the morning they are normally only visible for a few hours before sunrise. This is a result of their orbits being closer to the sun than the earth. All other heavenly bodies are further from the sun than the earth and are therefore visible throughout the night. Mercury and Venus are also the evening stars. Again they are the evening stars because when they are visible in the evening they are only visible for a few hours after sunset. Since Jesus calls himself the bright morning star or Venus and the Magi saw His star as it rose, it is likely Venus was the star the Magi saw and we call the Star of Bethlehem. Venus rises as both the morning and the evening star. Since Jesus is ‘the bright morning star,’ it had to be Venus rising in the morning not in the evening. Venus spends about half of its cycle as a morning star. Once every 1.6 years (584 days), Venus rises for the first time with the sun in the morning. Venus rose to mark Jesus’ resurrection Sunday April 5, A.D. 33.[4] When Venus rose near Jesus’ birth, the Magi had to spot Venus on the first day it rose to observe these signs. The Magi where professional astronomer-astrologers so they would be able to spot Venus at the earliest possible time. Since Venus is the brighter of the two morning stars and Jesus is the bright morning star, it is logical to conclude that Venus is His star. The Magi observed His star at its rising therefore the day they observed Venus rise for the first time in a particular cycle would be that time to which they are referring.

  382. @Epicurus
    which native americans? where is the record of this? i have studied first nations people for a while now and have heard NOTHING about this myth from outside the mormon church.

    from Laurie
    Let's take a walk to the South American jungle Epi

    The Feathered Serpent. Native Americans of Central America had a legend about Venus which is still useful to help remember where Venus is in its orbit. The equated Venus, which they called the Dawn Star, with their god Quetzalcoatl, the "Feathered Serpent." They believe he came to earth and lived as a man and that the evening star represented his life. Thus, point 3 in the orbit when Venus first rises in the west as an evening star would represent the "birth" of Venus. It is then on the far side of its orbit, and so it is at about its faintest at birth. It then grows a little brighter every day as an evening star in the west, like a child growing up, until it gets to point 4 in the orbit. That point is called the greatest eastern elongation because it is as far east of the sun as it can get. By this time, Venus is in its "prime" of life, and is very bright. It then continues to get even brighter for about another month until it is so bright it can cast a shadow on a moonless night and is often the cause of flying saucer reports from someone who looked at the sky for the first time. Because it is at this time so near the earth, it seems to plunge surprisingly quickly into the earth and "die" at point 5 in the illustration.

    It is about the death of Venus that the Native Americans have best preserved their legends for us. A good reference on this is Skywatchers of Ancient Mexico by Anthony Aveni (Austin, Texas: U. of Texas, 1980). He quotes (p. 187) the legend from the Anales de Quauhtitlán (Seler, 1904, pp. 364-365):

  383. @Randy

    I'm the same way. I tend to be condescending when I don't care for someone and always go on the offensive if provoked. But I can debate anything as long as a person does actually take true evidence and fact into consideration when presented. Instead of arguing their point by showing their evidence ans debunking my own. Then I tend to just start picking at them because I see that there is no getting past the delusional wall some people have that won't let them accept that they are wrong.


    Every one looked at the stars in that period and before and wondered. Worshiped and offered. They didn't have a clue as to why and howm neither did jesux. He thought the world was flat too. Wait ...wouldn't gods son know better or was he smart for a human or a god with downs syndrome?

  384. @ eireannach666
    @ Randy

    Im sorry for losing my temper. I know I kicked off like a ninja but I have calmed down now and I feel ashamed...

    As you can probably see, I dont have a sense of humour, well I maybe have a little - but its British and thats my handicap.

    And I guess thats why my Marraige faied - he was an American..... and Im from the Welsh vallies - its so different.

    Anyway, Im off out with a new boyfriend tonight, Ill try and behave......Bye

  385. Well, my sense of humor can be... easily misconstrued as "insulting". I have made many enemies in life by being a smart-a**!

    Certainly, there are people around here I do not mind offending and even go out of my WAY to offend, Vlatko help me... but not you or Epicurus, or Eiren666, or D-K, or Vlatko.

    Too much respect, there.

  386. @Randy:

    Why would it offend? You worry to much, have we not been through this?
    Yeah, the Salem witch trials are something else, as a matter of fact, have the movie, "The Crucible" an adaptation of "Arthur Millers" play, of the Salem witch trials of 1692, interesting.

  387. Ah, I gotcha, LOL! Sorry, dude!

    Well, yes-- I have read your posts about the idea and I've read the scholarship-- as I've said.

    It could very well be. The circumstancial evidence for it is compelling.

    It's like the theory, you've probably read about it, that ergot poisoning was responsible for the Salem Witch Panics in early colonial America. (Salem Mass. is a very cool place, btw... well NOW, probably not THEN...)

    Good theory, probably true, but without bodies to autopsy, at least bodies with soft tissue left in them, there really is no way to know for sure.

    (I didn't offend you with my little Stephen Hawking thing above, did I? I really liked your poem! I was just kidding you, and your poem DID throw me into a black hole at the end... not very nice...! I'm just sayin'...)

  388. @Randy:

    When I say "true stuff" that is just an inflection of speech, just like you "Jersey boys" say "youse". Don't forget am Canadian, EH?

    I know that the magic mushroom thing is a whole conundrum of alternate beliefs, can't say theories. I have devoted some time to this mushroom stuff on various blogs here on TDF.

  389. @Achems

    I am familiar with that scholarship. The conclusions are compelling, but hardly conclusive. I am inclined to believe them, but, I would hardly call them "truth".

    Understand, also, that certain abnormal brain states, like schizophrenia, have the exact same effect.

    In fact, in the ancient world, the insane were considered in touch with the gods. The term "touched in the head" or "touched" in reference to a "crazy" person, is a direct descendant of that idea.

    It is interesting that most aberrant brain states, including drug induced psychosis, seem to include some religious-type experiences...

    Of course, I have always known that the religious were "touched in the head"...

  390. @Laurie:

    Actually, "Jesus Christ was a Mushroom", namely the fly agaric,"Amanita Muscaria", from which most religions have sprung, the magic mushroom gave religious epiphany's, it is even mentioned in the Veda texts. True stuff!

  391. @Laurie

    I'm sorry dear, I can't resist...

    Jesus had no uncanny understanding of anything, because HE NEVER EXISTED! He was a mythological character, like Attis, Mithras, Hercules, King Arthur, Robin Hood, or Gilgamesh.

    There is no concrete evidence that this jesus, or yeshua, or esu, or any of the names by which he has been known was a real person.

    At best it is an amalgalm of many characters/messiahs of that time, at worst he is simply a retelling of an ancient pagan god-man myth...

    It means nothing. It is sad that you devoted your life to a fantasy, but move on, I did, you can too!

  392. @Epi
    from Laurie

    Jesus had an uncanny understanding of all of the stars, constellations, and houses of the zodiac based on Enoch's calendar, and the fact that he was not born in December, but during the Spring Equinox. To determine when the spring equinox would occur to the day during Jesus' time, one had to have thorough understanding of the movements of the sun, moon, and the morning star (venus). He is the morning star becasue his birth was prophesized and planned to happen at the very moment of that equinox, not because of any mysticism or because he "claimed to be God."

  393. @ Epi
    from Laurie
    Venus Testifies of Christ (look it up)

    The Aztecs compared Venus to their white and bearded god Quetzalcoatl, who was born an insignificant boy, then rose to great brightness, and then was sacrificed shortly after his prime. Then in the underworld, he conquered the forces of death, and he resurrected as the bright and morning star in the east. He then finally ascended to become a god. They also maintained that he resurrected at the same time as the planet Venus. It was this tradition, and its similarity to the life of Jesus Christ, that induced me see if Venus was actually rising at the time of Christ's resurrection. It turned out it was indeed, and that led to the discovery of this entire Venus Calendar. The Native Americans watched the phases of the Dawn Star