PDA

View Full Version : The Big Bang Theory and God



Demigorgona
Tuesday, March 25th, 2003, 10:34 AM
There is now little doubt that our universe was brought into existence by a "big bang" that occurred some 15 billion years ago. The existence of such a creation event explains a number of phenomena including the expansion of the universe, the existence of the cosmic background radiation, and the relative proportions of various sorts of matter.

According to the Big Bang theory, there was an explosion out of nothing and there was nothing there before it. Most elements can be derived from hydrogen, but where did the hydrogen come from? It was suggested that it could be created with a colossal high temperature from subatomic particles. Some finds that back up the big bang are; the universe is still expanding and there are still slight variations in the temperature in space to suggest that space is still cooling.

It all begins with a dramatic big bang producing nothing but tremendous heat. As the heat spreads out slight variations occur. The hot spots start to convert into particles and antiparticles. The slightly cooler ones become the first voids in space. These particles start to be drawn together by gravity by a electromagnetic force to make them combine. Most of the anti-matter is lost in annihilations leaving only matter swirling around in clumps. It takes 300,000 years for space to cool down enough for electrons to combined with the nuclei of the subatomic particles to form the first atoms. It takes 1,000,000,000 for enough helium and hydrogen atoms to clump together to form the first cosmic bodies (typically whole galaxies). And the rest is history.


Life was able to sustain itself, grow, and evolve on Earth because the conditions here allowed it.

There are several theories as to how life occured here on earth. I myself believe the theory that we evolved from Bacteria that came to earth by way of falling meteors.

However, that hasn't been proven yet of course

If the earth didn't have all that it does, we either wouldn't be here discussing why science is wrong, or life on earth would be profoundly different. It's all coincidence and luck. Perfect conditions are needed for life. It's silly to say its impossible...to have these exact conditions without having some superior being around to just create it all perfectly. The fact of the matter is that there was a chance of it all coming together properly on at LEAST one planet out of millions in this universe! (and who is to to say that we are the only one!)

So goes the pro-God logic among us. Let the person of reason and logic judge.

I suggest reading this article:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/smith_18_2.html



Is it nonetheless possible that God could have caused this universe? No. For the Wave Function of the Universe implies that there is a 95% probability that the universe came into existence uncaused. If God created the universe, he would contradict this scientific law in two ways. First, the scientific law says that the universe would come into existence because of its natural, mathematical properties, not because of any supernatural forces. Second, the scientific law says that the probability is only 95% that the universe would come into existence. But if God created the universe, the probability would be 100% that it would come into existence because God is allpowerful. If God wills the universe to come into existence, his will is guaranteed to be 100% effective.

Which pretty much means, if you believe in a higher being, you can't follow the big bang theory. You cant have it both ways

Here's more interesting articles for other non-theists and atheists...

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_schick/bigbang.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/bigbang.html

Moody
Wednesday, March 26th, 2003, 05:52 PM
Unfortunately, the theory you expound does not touch the God-hypothesis.
This is because the Big Bang cannot explain;
1) What existed BEFORE the Big bang, and
2) Why did the Big Bang occur when it did?

Likewise, we must ask why did life evolve when it did?
How was there a point when there was no life, and then life occurred?

Ultimately, the Big Bang theory is just a secular version of Creationism and has been easily absorbed by Christian/Islamic Theology, for example.

Tore
Friday, August 8th, 2003, 08:14 AM
http://ssscott.tripod.com/BigBang.html

Excellent site for those interested in the afforementioned topic.

Götterschicksal
Friday, August 8th, 2003, 03:41 PM
The only hard thing I find about this theory is that one must believe the universe started as a mass of junk. What was before? Who or what triggered the event? Why? It is an interesting theory, but it is still a theory - we will never know.

Tore
Friday, August 8th, 2003, 08:01 PM
The only hard thing I find about this theory is that one must believe the universe started as a mass of junk. What was before? Who or what triggered the event? Why? It is an interesting theory, but it is still a theory - we will never know.

That is a good point.

Everything is derived from something, and the process is continuous.

Science can only trace our origins back so far without running into such an obstacle.

Of course, creationists like to point this out as the flaw in the theory of evolution, as "everyone must come from something," however, the theory of creation hold the very same flaw as surely a God must have its origins as well.

Perhaps it's widespread acceptance in the scientific largely rests on the fact that an alternative theory is lacking.

Götterschicksal
Friday, August 8th, 2003, 09:04 PM
Humans must come to the reaization that we are stupid and we will never know. Scientists will find ways to explain why we are here, and religions will do the same aswell. In the universe we are sooooooooo small, it isn't even funny. The funny thing is, is that we make up stuff to make ourselves feel more important, like that a god created us in his own image.

You are right the Creation Myth has that flaw aswell. Who is the God of God? He must have been created, there must have been something before. Most creation myths start out with, "In the beginning."
The beginning of what? Everything? If that is the case, where did God come from?

Btw.. I will say the Big Bang and Evolution are the best theories we have for now.

cosmocreator
Friday, August 8th, 2003, 09:13 PM
Who is the God of God?


That would be me. And you must never question it -- or else :burn


Existence has always existed. It can not be otherwise. Creationism and evolutionism seem to be contrary and maybe they were created to turn people against one another. Something has to be created before it can evolve. And evolution creates new life forms. They are not mutual exclusive.

Borivoj
Friday, August 8th, 2003, 09:19 PM
Humans must come to the reaization that we are stupid and we will never know. Scientists will find ways to explain why we are here, and religions will do the same aswell. In the universe we are sooooooooo small, it isn't even funny. The funny thing is, is that we make up stuff to make ourselves feel more important, like that a god created us in his own image.

You are right the Creation Myth has that flaw aswell. Who is the God of God? He must have been created, there must have been something before. Most creation myths start out with, "In the beginning."
The beginning of what? Everything? If that is the case, where did God come from?

Btw.. I will say the Big Bang and Evolution are the best theories we have for now.

I forget what this theory is called but it basically is the reverse of the Big Bang theory. Apparently in several billion years, the universe might have expanded so much, that matter begins to collapse inwards due to the vacuum created by the matter exiting the region of space where the Big Bang might have occured. Apparently the effects of this would be similar to a large black hole. I was thinking, maybe all the matter in this universe came from an older one before it, which collapsed on its self, became extremely dense and exploded out again, creating this universe.

Also, we get into the problem of parallel universes, which I think have been mathamatically proven to exist. I wonder how science tries to explain the creation of those? I will search the net on this topic and see what I come up with.

Götterschicksal
Friday, August 8th, 2003, 10:46 PM
Premisyl, that is the expansionism theory. It isn't a rival of the Big Bang, but rather an attempt to explain that the universe is a continuing cycle.

Stríbog
Friday, August 8th, 2003, 11:36 PM
Premisyl, that is the expansionism theory. It isn't a rival of the Big Bang, but rather an attempt to explain that the universe is a continuing cycle.

That's the "oscillating" vs. static universe debate, which is also related to the open vs. closed universe debate. The universe is known to be expanding because of red shifts. However, what is it expanding against??? Is there an eventual barrier it will reach (closed model) or will it eternally expand towards the endless nothingness (open)?
The "what God created God"/"what was before the Big Bang" debate either creates infinite regression, or creates a "something from nothing" scenario. Even whether time itself once had a beginning is hotly contested. Of course, if time itself had a beginning, and that beginning was the Big Bang, then the issue of what was "before" the Big Bang is irrelevant.

Tore
Saturday, August 9th, 2003, 02:49 AM
The "what God created God"/"what was before the Big Bang" debate either creates infinite regression, or creates a "something from nothing" scenario. Even whether time itself once had a beginning is hotly contested. Of course, if time itself had a beginning, and that beginning was the Big Bang, then the issue of what was "before" the Big Bang is irrelevant.

Interesting.

Time itself is a concept created by man.

Perhaps the problem is not with the theory itself, but with man's need to impose the concept of time upon it?

Borivoj
Saturday, August 9th, 2003, 03:34 AM
Premisyl, that is the expansionism theory. It isn't a rival of the Big Bang, but rather an attempt to explain that the universe is a continuing cycle.
Ah yes, the Expansionism theory...I didn't say that it was a rival of the Big Bang theory. I meant that it attempted to explain how the universe would end due to the matter being thrown out because of the Big Bang, continuing the cycle of the universe from birth to death.

"The universe is known to be expanding because of red shifts. However, what is it expanding against??? Is there an eventual barrier it will reach (closed model) or will it eternally expand towards the endless nothingness (open)?"
If the universe was expanding, it would probably be expanding against empty space, unless this space had some sort of barrier or ending, which seems unlikely. Could the universe be expanding against dark matter (the huge percentage of matter that makes up the universe, which is unaccounted for?)


"Time itself is a concept created by man."
I think that there is some flaws in this theory. First of all one has to remember that nothing exists except the present. Because of this, maybe time doesn't exist at all since every "moment" can be divided into infintessimal proportions. Also, if time is manmade, how does one explain the cause of time travel as an object moves extremely quickly through space or is caught in an intense magnetic field such as a black hole? I believe that time is something much more than a human invention due to it's properties regarding these topics.

I hope you can understand me, It's pretty hard to express these things!

cosmocreator
Saturday, August 9th, 2003, 04:56 AM
I thought I'd post a continuation of what I posted above. This could also go in the is there Higher Being thread.

This Being is timeless. It does not know time but created it when it created the universe we live in. What did it created it from? From itself. Where does this Being exist? Invalid concept. It is existence. Nothing exists beyond it. Must think outside of the box of 3d space.

Any other questions?

Stríbog
Saturday, August 9th, 2003, 05:15 AM
I thought I'd post a continuation of what I posted above. This could also go in the is there Higher Being thread.

This Being is timeless. It does not know time but created it when it created the universe we live in. What did it created it from? From itself. Where does this Being exist? Invalid concept. It is existence. Nothing exists beyond it. Must think outside of the box of 3d space.

Any other questions?

Yea, this is one possibility that has crossed my mind. Just because this Being/Energy/whatever you want to call it seems us to have created everything from nothing, does not mean this is logically impossible. Things are often not as we perceive them. Even when they are, our fallible human minds try and categorize/define them in our own terms which are often incompatible with the larger universe and lead us to describe these things as "fallacies" or "impossibilities" when in fact they may not be. I don't claim to know for sure; I am ruminating over possible ideas/solutions to this ontological problem.

Götterschicksal
Saturday, August 9th, 2003, 08:06 AM
What did it created it from? From itself.

Impossible.

A worm can mate asexually. Creating one worm from another, yet one must have the first worm first. My mother cannot creat me before she is born herself. :scratch

If believing what you say, God must first be created before he can put into action the creation of himself.

:coffee This makes me tired....


However, what is it expanding against???

Read my "Dark Matter Mystery" thread and the sites I posted in there. :)

cosmocreator
Saturday, August 9th, 2003, 06:59 PM
Impossible.

A worm can mate asexually. Creating one worm from another, yet one must have the first worm first. My mother cannot creat me before she is born herself. :scratch

If believing what you say, God must first be created before he can put into action the creation of himself.

:coffee This makes me tired....


The Creator is not a biological entity though biological enitities are part of the Creator. The Creator has always existed. It is timeless, it had no beginning and has no end.


Yea, this is one possibility that has crossed my mind. Just because this Being/Energy/whatever you want to call it seems us to have created everything from nothing, does not mean this is logically impossible.


The Creator didn't create everything from nothing. It created the universe from itself.

Milesian
Saturday, August 9th, 2003, 07:27 PM
The science of metaphysics eventually arrives at the conclusion that there must have been at least one "uncaused cause".
This "uncaused cause" is what people call God.
The being that ordered all the laws of physics so precisely that not only life, but sentient life could exist.
If any of the laws of physics were slightly off, then there would be no life, or perhaps planets, or even matter (depending which laws were off).
These various laws all have to be so precise and in tune with each other that the chances of it happeneing co-incidently are literally astronomical.
There is actually more chance of taking all the raw materials for a house, sitting a load of TNT under it, detonating it, and everything ending up as a perfectly constructed house, than all the laws of physics being just right. In other words, incredibly unlikely.

The old reply to this used to be - "Well, if things weren't just so, then we wouldn't be here to notice".

I'm informed that this is no longer used as it is now recognised that this isn't an answer but a simple cop-out.
It's just a blatantly obvious statement, which doesn't really explain anything. Just makes an observation which is apparant to all.

Rudra Chai Siphra
Tuesday, August 26th, 2003, 12:35 AM
Modern Physics agrees with the idea that the universe sprang into existance without an initial cause .... Out side of the universe is 'the void' which does not have any rules... the laws of physics dont apply as such spontaneous creation can occur.



The science of metaphysics eventually arrives at the conclusion that there must have been at least one "uncaused cause".
This "uncaused cause" is what people call God.
The being that ordered all the laws of physics so precisely that not only life, but sentient life could exist.
If any of the laws of physics were slightly off, then there would be no life, or perhaps planets, or even matter (depending which laws were off).
These various laws all have to be so precise and in tune with each other that the chances of it happeneing co-incidently are literally astronomical.
There is actually more chance of taking all the raw materials for a house, sitting a load of TNT under it, detonating it, and everything ending up as a perfectly constructed house, than all the laws of physics being just right. In other words, incredibly unlikely.

The old reply to this used to be - "Well, if things weren't just so, then we wouldn't be here to notice".

I'm informed that this is no longer used as it is now recognised that this isn't an answer but a simple cop-out.
It's just a blatantly obvious statement, which doesn't really explain anything. Just makes an observation which is apparant to all.

dinarid love
Thursday, December 4th, 2003, 07:49 AM
couldn't the string theory answer all of this?

Ahura Mazda
Monday, December 8th, 2003, 04:04 PM
Also, we get into the problem of parallel universes, which I think have been mathamatically proven to exist. I wonder how science tries to explain the creation of those? I will search the net on this topic and see what I come up with.
That can be explained by Quantum Physics, IIRC. Quantum Physics is a screwed up world where relative logic does not exist; causes can happen after effects; things can be instantly transported from one area of the universe to another with absolutely no reason; randomness is the rule there, and massless particles appear in vacuum all the time and disappear all the time, for no apparent reason. The chance that a random massless particle will appear in one place as compared with the chance that it will appear one micron over, or a billion light years over and everywhere in between I think is what explains the parallel universe (I think it is the Baby Universe theory or something like that) ideas.

And seeing as your brain operates through quantum physics, alternate histories would exist, too.

At least, this is what I think it is about; I have read some books on science and this is the theory that I figured was the most sensible.

The Blond Beast
Sunday, January 4th, 2004, 10:31 AM
couldn't the string theory answer all of this?

Hopefully!

As proposed by Whitten, Weinberg, Kaku et al., String Theory offers the only present alternative to the Classical (point-particle) conception of the universe. The two most heralded theories of physics, Relativity and Quantum Theory, seem to be mutually exclusive - relativity governs the macroscopic; Quantum Theory governs the microscopic, yet is amazingly counter-intuitive (observation reduced to probabilities, the observer influencing experimental outcomes as in wave/particle duality; entanglement (Einstein's "spooky action at a distance") ...).



Yet both theories are correct on their own, as Relativity has been tested and confirmed [i]ad nauseum using stellar observations and particle experiments (i.e. CERN particle accelerator), and QED (Quantum Electrodynamics) is the most accurately tested theory of all time (see Feynman). String Theory reconciles the two, demanding that one theory necessitates the other.

Strangely, String Theory demands 10 dimensions, yet we only perceive four (three spatial, one time). The remaining six naturally must be "hidden", or a String Theory posits, are "buddled" on such a small scale (the Planck length: exp(-34) metres) that they are imperceptible (i.e. Calabi-Yau spaces).

Unfortunately, humanity (in the next few centuries, anyway) will never be able to probe Planck scales and test String Theory, as the theoretical energy requirement to do so is unfathomable: exp(+29) eV!.

String Theory also remedies, to a certain extent, the "free lunch" ("Where did everything come from"?) paradox of the Universe, as all matter and energy is a resonating string (different resonation frequencies yielding the different particles of the spectrum, such as bosons and hadrons ...), but all strings are, in themselves, constituted by space.

Interesting stuff to say the least...


For a good overview of String Theory, see Brian Greene's exceptionally well-written "The Elegant Universe."

For a good overview of higher-dimensional physics, see Michio Kaku's very persuasive "Hyperspace."

For a good overview of Relativiy, see Banesh Hoffman's "Relativity and its Roots."

For decent overviews of Quantum Theory, see John Gribbins':
"In Search of Schrodinger's Cat," or
"Schrodinger's Kittens and the Search for Reality."

I strongly suggest you don't waste your time with Stephen Hawking...:D

Louky
Sunday, January 4th, 2004, 03:43 PM
If the universe continually explodes into being and then collapses on itself in an eternal cycle, wouldn't there be an "incarnation" of the universe where the differences in the relative positions of all units of mass between the current and future incarnation go to zero? Or does String theory make such a question irrelevant?

In other words, will I, after an unimaginable stretch of time, be sitting in front of the same computer getting ready to type the question mark at the end of this sentence?

If the answer to this question were "yes," I still couldn't say what the purpose of life is, but I'd know the purpose of death: an alternative to waiting.

cosmocreator
Sunday, January 4th, 2004, 07:38 PM
In other words, will I, after an unimaginable stretch of time, be sitting in front of the same computer getting ready to type the question mark at the end of this sentence?

If the answer to this question were "yes," I still couldn't say what the purpose of life is, but I'd know the purpose of death: an alternative to waiting.


According to that theory, not only would you have did it before, you would have did it infinite times. The theory is false, imo.

The Blond Beast
Sunday, January 4th, 2004, 08:34 PM
If the universe continually explodes into being and then collapses on itself in an eternal cycle, wouldn't there be an "incarnation" of the universe where the differences in the relative positions of all units of mass between the current and future incarnation go to zero?

Are you referring to a singularity (i.e. a point of infinite density)?

The cyclic view of the Universe's behaviour is probably wrong (a Big Bang occurs and then, under the influence of gravity, an eventual contraction - "Big Crunch" - which leads to a singularity and another Big Bang...).

As a matter of fact, the recent WMAP survey (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) has shown the Universe to be relatively flat, in which case it is assumed that it will continue to expand forever (i.e. no such cycle of expansion and contraction will ever exist in the future, irrespective of whether it has occurred in the past).

String Theory puts a finite (a classical singularity is infinite) limit on the possible size of the Universe - the Planck length - at which it attains maximum temperature (strangley, a further reduction in size results, theoretically, in a smaller temperature).

So one can imagine, that when the Big Bang occurred (it most certainly did, as the COBE background radiation survey verified Glashow's prediction with amazing precision), starting from the Planck length, symmetry reduction occurred whereby our three spatial dimensions were "selected" and the remaining six (String Theory demands ten dimensions) remained of the Planck length, forever hidden from our scrutiny.

Waarnemer
Monday, June 7th, 2004, 09:20 PM
I could more easily believe in the Big Bang theory than I can believe in a "god". God does not exist.

The Christian god does not exist, but the chance that there is no god is minimal. there are enough things that are not explicable, and that are supernatural.

jesusfreak
Monday, June 7th, 2004, 10:20 PM
If the Christian God does not Exist, then what God does. I would think that the World's leading religion would be more likely to exist than another. And I think that God is more logical than Something being created out of nothing. That is not possible unless it is made that way by a supreme being. It just makes more sense. btw. I am a christian if you haven't looked.

Loki
Monday, June 7th, 2004, 10:35 PM
If the Christian God does not Exist, then what God does. I would think that the World's leading religion would be more likely to exist than another. And I think that God is more logical than Something being created out of nothing. That is not possible unless it is made that way by a supreme being. It just makes more sense. btw. I am a christian if you haven't looked.

I also used to be a Christian, but mature reason has persuaded me to leave God for good. There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of God. It is all speculation - and speculation is not good enough for me.

Awar
Monday, June 7th, 2004, 11:04 PM
Have you ever thought that something-out-of-nothing perhaps CAN be created, and is a perfectly natural thing, but science isn't nearly developed enough to explain it.

God may exist, but religion shouldn't :P

jesusfreak
Monday, June 7th, 2004, 11:05 PM
Do you Really have something better to believe that is more logical. You were never a christian. A true Christian is a Christian for life.

Stríbog
Monday, June 7th, 2004, 11:31 PM
LOL

God in the Semitic sense cannot be proven or disproven. Asking people to prove God does not exist is asking them to prove a negative. The evidence is not on the side of Christians, though. There is little or no evidence for the Christian-Jewish God.

The definition of God is however highly subjective. Are we referring to the Aristotelian prime mover? Are we talking about Leibniz and all the garbage about perfection, monadology and the best of all possible Universes? Or what? Plato's cave metaphor and Leibniz' perfectionism are misguided and irrelevant because nothing is static and furthermore perfection is an entirely subjective definition.

I respect Loki admitting that he was a Christian and came to his senses, as I did the same thing myself a few years ago. There is little or nothing of moral value in the Bible. It does however at least serve as a record, and in some cases an exposé, of Jewish behavior.

I believe there are forces that are beyond current human comprehension, and I believe in what some would call the 'occult' or 'paranormal' and I am inclined to believe in a human soul but there is no reason to believe in God(s) as a corollary. Buddhism is a good example of a complete spiritual theory without any need for God(s). I assume that you operate under the assumption that God is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good. Such a God cannot exist. There is evil and suffering in the world and always has been. God supposedly created the world. Therefore God created evil and suffering. Even if mankind "sinned" to create this, God necessarily created man knowing that man would sin, since God is omnipotent and omniscient. God willingly created a flawed man who had no control over his own nature, watched him sin, and then punished him. Furthermore, people who have done little or nothing wrong often suffer greatly while evil, corrupt and tyrannical men thrive. God allows the suffering and inequity to continue. If God were all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good, he would stop the suffering, create a perfect universe, etc. Either God (a) is all-good but not all-powerful and thus can do nothing and is not the primary force in the universe (and thus not "God" by popular definition, (b) is all-powerful but not all-good, i.e. a cruel and sick tyrant reminiscent of a Jonathan Edwards sermon, or (c) does not exist at all.
I entertain the possibility of (a) but the preponderance of evidence and cosmological probabilities suggest (c) to an open mind.

Therefore the traditional Christian God cannot exist QVOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDVM

Skando-naivian-Girl
Tuesday, June 8th, 2004, 12:12 AM
Who here believes the Big Bang Theory and Why? This is religion Related I adhere to it. Obviously the Universe is both finite in size and age as science, has proven. Given those facts it must have started at some, point in time and at a certain size(space).


If it is religion-related, then I will answer: I could more easily believe in the Big Bang theory than I can believe in a "god". God does not exist. :|I think this is really a matter of opinion. Religion is in the mind of the believer. To him there is no other reality. So in that matter what Descartes says holds true "I think therefore I am".

Religion and lack thereof, is part of human nature. Every human culture in history has had their "religion". I see Religioin as nothing more than an extension of human culture. Nowadays some people have found "replacements". I believe every "ism" in itself is a religion. Which is nothing more than a set of traditions that dedicate behavior.


The definition of God is however highly subjective. Are we referring to the Aristotelian prime mover?I think the Simplest way to define God and what Christians think he is is this that God is a Being who is all powerful, all Knowedgeable, all present(Omnipotent, OMNISCIENT ,Omnipresent). And whom they attribute as the "prime mover" that is the cause of all events without which nothing would be.


I also used to be a Christian, but mature reason has persuaded me to leave God for good. There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of God. It is all speculation - and speculation is not good enough for me.My point of view is this. Everything in life can be explained in terms of the "natural laws" and there is no need for one to say oh that happened because God made it happen.

Even if there is a God it would be impossible to Define just who he IS! There are thousands of religious groups each with their own version of God.:P

I think the reason there are so many mysteries is that are "logic" hasn't fully developed. Nor will it ever be fulled matured but it is always developing isn't it? Science maps leaps and bounds every day.

Stríbog
Tuesday, June 8th, 2004, 12:58 AM
The Big Bang Theory is supported by several physical observations. The first is the red shift of light being emitted from distant galaxies in the cosmos which demonstrates the expansion of the universe. Or maybe this is just a deception by the unbelieving. :D

The second is that the pattern of background radiation in the universe suggests an extremely high-energy centralized explosion some time in the distant past, if I recall.

There are other observations as well but I am not an astrophysicist or cosmologist so I can't recite them off the top of my head.

Skando-naivian-girl, are you a Catholic only by upbringing then?

jesusfreak
Tuesday, June 8th, 2004, 04:53 AM
Here's a fact for you. Jesus's last prophecy was that in the near future, there would be a slaughter of Jews almost as bad as the holocaust. There was. How do you explain that: The Jews followed the Old Testimate. There were 206 prophecies in it about the Messiah. Then, a guy comes along and perfectly fits the Messiah description...the jesw just don't see it...but the point is the same.

Awar
Tuesday, June 8th, 2004, 05:11 AM
Here's a fact for you. Jesus's last prophecy was that in the near future, there would be a slaughter of Jews almost as bad as the holocaust. There was.

There was? How come I wasn't notified?


How do you explain that: The Jews followed the Old Testimate.

Testimate
A statistical package for: exact tests, measures of relevance, confidence intervals, tests for equivalence/non-inferiority. Selection of features: several data input modes (files, spreadsheet input, table and statistics editor), audit paper trail, eight different algorithms for calculating non-asymptotic or permutational exact results, emphasis or simple robust (nonparametric) procedures, all procedures validated.

Don't you mean: the old testicle?


There were 206 prophecies in it about the Messiah. Then, a guy comes along and perfectly fits the Messiah description...the jesw just don't see it...but the point is the same.

What if, maybe.......just maybe.......the Jews didn't see it, because there was no Jesus Christ?

jesusfreak
Tuesday, June 8th, 2004, 05:20 AM
and mabye...just mabye...there are other records of him...and you are just a blundering fool with a closed mind. What do you think will happen to you when you die?

Awar
Tuesday, June 8th, 2004, 05:28 AM
and mabye...just mabye...there are other records of him...and you are just a blundering fool with a closed mind.

There are? How come I wasn't notified?
Are these records with country music or gospel?


What do you think will happen to you when you die?
I don't know, but neither do you. We can both guess :P
No book is going to tell you that.
If that's the only reason why you're religious, because you want to ensure a good afterlife, you might as well go for a religion that provides the best afterlife there is.
I heard that Muslims offer much better Afterlife deals ;)

jesusfreak
Tuesday, June 8th, 2004, 05:42 AM
You are right...yet you are not right. I know what will happen to me when I die. I am going to go to heaven. What heaven is like, I don't know and will have to wait until I get there. And yes, I am worried about what my afterlife will be like, but It is my duty to glorify God and to Send out the word of Jesus christ and God. And right now, that is what I am doing. I am spreading the word and trying to save as many people as I can. If you don't join me, that is you decision. If you do, I promise you that it will make more sense.

Awar
Tuesday, June 8th, 2004, 05:50 AM
I like things to make sense before I join them ;)

jesusfreak
Tuesday, June 8th, 2004, 06:06 AM
This is complicated. Mabye, that was the wrong thing to say. Ok...really, the only thing that christianity is is believing that Jesus Christ died on the cross for your sins, and that beliefe will guarentee your way to heaven. He is a bridge.That is the inportant thing. But it glorifies God by doing his will throught your actions. It will effect the way you see things.

Loki
Tuesday, June 8th, 2004, 07:11 AM
Here's a fact for you. Jesus's last prophecy was that in the near future, there would be a slaughter of Jews almost as bad as the holocaust.

1. The books of the New Testament are generally believed to have been written after 70AD, when the fall of Jerusalem occurred. So, it was easy to add in a few "prophecies" :P

2. The "Holocaust" is a myth like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

tasmanik
Tuesday, June 8th, 2004, 07:53 AM
LOL

God in the Semitic sense cannot be proven or disproven. Asking people to prove God does not exist is asking them to prove a negative. The evidence is not on the side of Christians, though. There is little or no evidence for the Christian-Jewish God.

The definition of God is however highly subjective. Are we referring to the Aristotelian prime mover? Are we talking about Leibniz and all the garbage about perfection, monadology and the best of all possible Universes? Or what? Plato's cave metaphor and Leibniz' perfectionism are misguided and irrelevant because nothing is static and furthermore perfection is an entirely subjective definition.

I respect Loki admitting that he was a Christian and came to his senses, as I did the same thing myself a few years ago. There is little or nothing of moral value in the Bible. It does however at least serve as a record, and in some cases an exposé, of Jewish behavior.

I believe there are forces that are beyond current human comprehension, and I believe in what some would call the 'occult' or 'paranormal' and I am inclined to believe in a human soul but there is no reason to believe in God(s) as a corollary. Buddhism is a good example of a complete spiritual theory without any need for God(s). I assume that you operate under the assumption that God is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good. Such a God cannot exist. There is evil and suffering in the world and always has been. God supposedly created the world. Therefore God created evil and suffering. Even if mankind "sinned" to create this, God necessarily created man knowing that man would sin, since God is omnipotent and omniscient. God willingly created a flawed man who had no control over his own nature, watched him sin, and then punished him. Furthermore, people who have done little or nothing wrong often suffer greatly while evil, corrupt and tyrannical men thrive. God allows the suffering and inequity to continue. If God were all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good, he would stop the suffering, create a perfect universe, etc. Either God (a) is all-good but not all-powerful and thus can do nothing and is not the primary force in the universe (and thus not "God" by popular definition, (b) is all-powerful but not all-good, i.e. a cruel and sick tyrant reminiscent of a Jonathan Edwards sermon, or (c) does not exist at all.
I entertain the possibility of (a) but the preponderance of evidence and cosmological probabilities suggest (c) to an open mind.

Therefore the traditional Christian God cannot exist QVOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDVM
Your reasoning is sound, but consider this. If God would have made us all good, and made all things in the world wonderful, what then? If there werent any bad people and awfull things that could happen to you, you would just walk through life with out having to think at all. If anything bad couldnt happen to you, what is the point of worrying or doing something with your life. You just live and know you'll be O.K. So, my problem isnt that he created evil, but how can he have a heart to watch us suffer?

jesusfreak
Tuesday, June 8th, 2004, 12:05 PM
how is Holoucaust a myth

Boerncian
Tuesday, June 8th, 2004, 03:40 PM
I do not adhere to the Big bang theory, there are several reasons, it has not been proven that universe is finite, dark matter has never been found, and the origional basis for was Einstein's calculations during an eclipse which may have been faulty. There are many theories that were believed to be mathematically proven until some phenomenon or observation came up that made the theory fail. Once the scientific community invests a certain amount of energy into a theory it's simply isn't going to abandon that, or even take a look at other alternatives. The issue of dark matter alone is enough to give one huge doubts, and the patchwork of theories to explain the failing in the theories really is Baroque and bizarre. Scientific community is extraordinarily close minded, funding is all that is important. If someone threatened that in any way they will be burned as a heretic.

As for Christianity it is so ilogical as to be absurd. To be a Christian unless you're a mystical Christian requires it to abandon all critical thinking and believe in the absurd. In fact an early Christian theologian Tertullian once said I believe because it is absurd.

Most of the myths of Genesis you can find in earlier writings of the Assyrians, there's absolutely no evidence of a mass slavery of Jews in Egypt much less any history of the so-called miracles Moses performed. Now tthe Egyptians record everything that happened and certainly would have recorded such events. Besides that the scholar can clearly see the evolution of Judism of from tribal gods the adonai, to a mountain God El Sahddai. The idea of a son of God born to a virgin whose death and sacrifice brought blessings to man existed in the Middle East for at least 600 years prior to Christianity. Dionysius,Apis,Osiris all fit that model. When you take into account that St. Paul had been a member of the Eleusyian mystery cults, which were based on those paradigms' you can easily see how he transformed Jesus death into a religion that both Jews and non Jews could follow. Another myth is the earthquake at Jesus' death, the Romans were the very superstitious about such things and would have recorded it with or without assigning it to the crucifixion of a Jewish rabbi heretic.

Most of the tenents of Christianity did not exist in its original form. Christology,marainism, the tripartite nature of God, the afterlife and many other major tenants of the faith, were bargained over in the back rooms of the various church councils. I have read extensively into the history of Christianity including plowing through Adolf Harnacks History of the dogma. Likewise I have read many of the church fathers early writings. Christianity conquered with the sword in almost every place it went with the notable exceptions of Armenia and Ireland. The Christians those who believe the Bible is literally true are irational beyond belief. I will give you an example ,if the entire world were covered with water(Noah) the would need to be about 20 times as much water as there is currently on earth, also the air would be so filled with water you would drown breathing it. there's also no evidence of 1000's or hundreds of thousands of people ever living in the Sinai desert, Jews or not this is a place so dry archaeologists can find the remnants of a Bedouin campfire from 2,000 years ago. You have so many schools of Christianity because a scholar can exegete many different interpretations from one piece of scripture. One person will say a scripture is an analogy, someone else will say something completely different. For instance ithe word for Virgin in Aramaic is also the word for an unmarried woman, having nothing to do with sex.

In my humble view, both monotheism and the reductionism of the big bang don't stand up to logical scrutiny. There are more than enough anomalous events to point to a reality that is greater than the mechanical reductionist model of the universe. There is in fact a substantial body of evidence that suggests the survival of human consciousness. I suggest if you're interested read the Journal for Scientific Exploration. an Ancient Zen master once said " if you wish to know the truth cease to cherish your won opinions." the great cosmos is vast and wide, the more we learn the more we know we don't know. Wisdom is not the accumulation of knowledge but the systematic process of extricating ourselves from our own ignorance. Cosmological theories are like rich chocolate cake, very tasty but if your diet subsist solely of that it will make you very ill.Ontologicaly constipated. The Buddha taught his disciples the following " you should except nothing merely because it is tradition, or that your brethren hold it to be true, but rather only if it is logical, consistent, and in holding such a view does not cause you hatred or enmity towards another human being." good clear thinking from Aryan philosopher

Telperion
Tuesday, June 8th, 2004, 05:25 PM
[Interestingly, not all reputable scientists support the 'Big Bang' theory. Some seem to feel the hypothesis that the universe is 'without beginning or end' is less inconsistent with the available evidence. That sounds rather like what the Bhuddists think, if I'm not mistaken]

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community

cosmologystatement.org

(Published in New Scientist, May 22-28 issue, 2004, p. 20)

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.

In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesise an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.

Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences.

Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt," in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific enquiry.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.

Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe.

Signed:

(Institutions for identification only)

Eric J. Lerner, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (USA)

Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin (USA) /
Earthtech.org

www.earthtech.org

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0302273

http://supernova.lbl.gov/~evlinder/linderteachin1.pdf

John L. West, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of
Technology (USA)

James F. Woodward, California State University, Fullerton (USA)

Halton Arp, Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik (Germany)

Andre Koch Torres Assis, State University of Campinas (Brazil)

Yuri Baryshev, Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University
(Russia)

Ari Brynjolfsson, Applied Radiation Industries (USA)

Hermann Bondi, Churchill College, University of Cambridge (UK)

Timothy Eastman, Plasmas International (USA)

Chuck Gallo, Superconix, Inc.(USA)

Thomas Gold, Cornell University (emeritus) (USA)

Amitabha Ghosh, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (India)

Walter J. Heikkila, University of Texas at Dallas (USA)

Thomas Jarboe, University of Washington (USA)

Jerry W. Jensen, ATK Propulsion (USA)

Menas Kafatos, George Mason University (USA)

Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics (retired) (Canada)

Paola Marziani, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Osservatorio
Astronomico di Padova (Italy)

Gregory Meholic, The Aerospace Corporation (USA)

Jacques Moret-Bailly, Université Dijon (retired) (France)

Jayant Narlikar, IUCAA(emeritus) and College de France (India, France)

Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves, State University of Maringá (Brazil)

Charles D. Orth, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA)

R. David Pace, Lyon College (USA)

Georges Paturel, Observatoire de Lyon (France)

Jean-Claude Pecker, College de France (France)

Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (USA)

Bill Peter, BAE Systems Advanced Technologies (USA)

David Roscoe, Sheffield University (UK)

Malabika Roy, George Mason University (USA)

Sisir Roy, George Mason University (USA)

Konrad Rudnicki, Jagiellonian University (Poland)

Domingos S.L. Soares, Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil)

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

Awar
Tuesday, June 8th, 2004, 05:35 PM
What about the black holes?
AFAIK, they suck in all the matter there is, even light... so, maybe they gather all the matter in the universe into just one point, and also suck in eachother into just one point...thus increasing the gravity pull they produce, and that one point gathers so much gravity and density that it becomes the only place with matter... and then it explodes, and the universe again spreads, and then, after a while the black holes appear, and then they suck all the matter into one place... and then again this one place explodes and the universe spreads... and... :D

Telperion
Tuesday, June 8th, 2004, 05:48 PM
If the Christian God does not Exist, then what God does. I would think that the World's leading religion would be more likely to exist than another. And I think that God is more logical than Something being created out of nothing. That is not possible unless it is made that way by a supreme being. It just makes more sense. btw. I am a christian if you haven't looked.
You really should read "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine (1794). Here is a link:

http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/Paine/AOR-Frame.html

His views are summed up in the introduction as follows:


I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.

I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.

But, lest it should be supposed that I believe in many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

On revelation as the basis for religious belief:



No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication- after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.

When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two tables of the commandments from the hands of God, they were not obliged to believe him, because they had no other authority for it than his telling them so; and I have no other authority for it than some historian telling me so. The commandments carry no internal evidence of divinity with them; they contain some good moral precepts, such as any man qualified to be a lawgiver, or a legislator, could produce himself, without having recourse to supernatural intervention.

When I am told that the Koran was written in Heaven and brought to Mahomet by an angel, the account comes too near the same kind of hearsay evidence and second-hand authority as the former. I did not see the angel myself, and, therefore, I have a right not to believe it.

When also I am told that a woman called the Virgin Mary, said, or gave out, that she was with child without any cohabitation with a man, and that her betrothed husband, Joseph, said that an angel told him so, I have a right to believe them or not; such a circumstance required a much stronger evidence than their bare word for it; but we have not even this- for neither Joseph nor Mary wrote any such matter themselves; it is only reported by others that they said so- it is hearsay upon hearsay, and I do not choose to rest my belief upon such evidence.
On the career and resurrection of Jesus:



Nothing that is here said can apply, even with the most distant disrespect, to the real character of Jesus Christ. He was a virtuous and an amiable man. The morality that he preached and practised was of the most benevolent kind; and though similar systems of morality had been preached by Confucius, and by some of the Greek philosophers, many years before; by the Quakers since; and by many good men in all ages, it has not been exceeded by any.

Jesus Christ wrote no account of himself, of his birth, parentage, or any thing else; not a line of what is called the New Testament is of his own writing. The history of him is altogether the work of other people; and as to the account given of his resurrection and ascension, it was the necessary counterpart to the story of his birth. His historians having brought him into the world in a supernatural manner, were obliged to take him out again in the same manner, or the first part of the story must have fallen to the ground.

The wretched contrivance with which this latter part is told exceeds every thing that went before it. The first part, that of the miraculous conception, was not a thing that admitted of publicity; and therefore the tellers of this part of the story had this advantage, that though they might not be credited, they could not be detected. They could not be expected to prove it, because it was not one of those things that admitted of proof, and it was impossible that the person of whom it was told could prove it himself.

But the resurrection of a dead person from the grave, and his ascension through the air, is a thing very different as to the evidence it admits of, to the invisible conception of a child in the womb. The resurrection and ascension, supposing them to have taken place, admitted of public and ocular demonstration, like that of the ascension of a balloon, or the sun at noon-day, to all Jerusalem at least. A thing which everybody is required to believe, requires that the proof and evidence of it should be equal to all, and universal; and as the public visibility of this last related act was the only evidence that could give sanction to the former part, the whole of it falls to the ground, because that evidence never was given. Instead of this, a small number of persons, not more than eight or nine, are introduced as proxies for the whole world, to say they saw it, and all the rest of the world are called upon to believe it. But it appears that Thomas did not believe the resurrection, and, as they say, would not believe without having ocular and manual demonstration himself. So neither will I, and the reason is equally as good for me, and for every other person, as for Thomas.
On the Christian deification of Satan:



Putting aside everything that might excite laughter by its absurdity, or detestation by its profaneness, and confining ourselves merely to an examination of the parts, it is impossible to conceive a story more derogatory to the Almighty, more inconsistent with his wisdom, more contradictory to his power, than this story is. In order to make for it a foundation to rise upon, the inventors were under the necessity of giving to the being whom they call Satan, a power equally as great, if not greater than they attribute to the Almighty. They have not only given him the power of liberating himself from the pit, after what they call his fall, but they have made that power increase afterward to infinity. Before this fall they represent him only as an angel of limited existence, as they represent the rest. After his fall, he becomes, by their account, omnipresent. He exists everywhere, and at the same time. He occupies the whole immensity of space.

Not content with this deification of Satan, they represent him as defeating, by stratagem, in the shape of an animal of the creation, all the power and wisdom of the Almighty. They represent him as having compelled the Almighty to the direct necessity either of surrendering the whole of the creation to the government and sovereignty of this Satan, or of capitulating for its redemption by coming down upon earth, and exhibiting himself upon a cross in the shape of a man.

Had the inventors of this story told it the contrary way, that is, had they represented the Almighty as compelling Satan to exhibit himself on a cross, in the shape of a snake, as a punishment for his new transgression, the story would have been less absurd- less contradictory. But instead of this, they make the transgressor triumph, and the Almighty fall.
On the Jewish 'prophets':



There is not, throughout the whole book called the Bible, any word that describes to us what we call a poet, nor any word that describes what we call poetry. The case is, that the word prophet, to which latter times have affixed a new idea, was the Bible word for poet, and the word prophesying meant the art of making poetry. It also meant the art of playing poetry to a tune upon any instrument of music.

We read of prophesying with pipes, tabrets, and horns- of prophesying with harps, with psalteries, with cymbals, and with every other instrument of music then in fashion. Were we now to speak of prophesying with a fiddle, or with a pipe and tabor, the expression would have no meaning or would appear ridiculous, and to some people contemptuous, because we have changed the meaning of the word.

We are told of Saul being among the prophets, and also that he prophesied; but we are not told what they prophesied, nor what he prophesied. The case is, there was nothing to tell; for these prophets were a company of musicians and poets, and Saul joined in the concert, and this was called prophesying.

The account given of this affair in the book called Samuel is, that Saul met a company of prophets; a whole company of them! coming down with a psaltery, a tabret, a pipe and a harp, and that they prophesied, and that he prophesied with them. But it appears afterward, that Saul prophesied badly; that is, he performed his part badly; for it is said, that an "evil spirit from God" came upon Saul, and he prophesied.
And on the Old Testament:


Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.

We scarcely meet with anything, a few phrases excepted, but what deserves either our abhorrence or our contempt, till we come to the miscellaneous parts of the Bible. In the anonymous publications, the Psalms, and the Book of Job, more particularly in the latter, we find a great deal of elevated sentiment reverentially expressed of the power and benignity of the Almighty; but they stand on no higher rank than many other compositions on similar subjects, as well before that time as since.

The Proverbs which are said to be Solomon's, though most probably a collection (because they discover a knowledge of life which his situation excluded him from knowing), are an instructive table of ethics. They are inferior in keenness to the proverbs of the Spaniards, and not more wise and economical than those of the American Franklin.

Waarnemer
Tuesday, June 8th, 2004, 08:44 PM
If the Christian God does not Exist, then what God does. I would think that the World's leading religion would be more likely to exist than another.
Ah that is logical... :huh You know my friend, truth has nothing to do with the number of people who know it.


And I think that God is more logical than Something being created out of nothing. That is not possible unless it is made that way by a supreme being. It just makes more sense.
Indeed, the chance that there is no supernatural "spirit" or "god" is small.

Carl_Rylander
Tuesday, June 8th, 2004, 09:34 PM
I assume that you operate under the assumption that God is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good. Such a God cannot exist. There is evil and suffering in the world and always has been. God supposedly created the world. Therefore God created evil and suffering. Even if mankind "sinned" to create this, God necessarily created man knowing that man would sin, since God is omnipotent and omniscient.

What does God's foreknowledge have to do with man's free actions?

Stríbog
Tuesday, June 8th, 2004, 11:04 PM
What does God's foreknowledge have to do with man's free actions?

If man has truly free will, then God is not omnipotent. God's foreknowledge of the actions of something he created specifically is tantamount to predestination.

Phlegethon
Tuesday, June 8th, 2004, 11:16 PM
Who here believes the Big Bang Theory and Why? This is religion Related Looking at the world today I have come to believe in the Big Bong theory:


http://reblended.com/www/daveyboy/Temp/web_example/bong.jpg

Carl_Rylander
Tuesday, June 8th, 2004, 11:39 PM
If man has truly free will, then God is not omnipotent.

Demonstrate how the consequent of your conditional follows from the antecedent.


God's foreknowledge of the actions of something he created specifically is tantamount to predestination.

Are you suggesting a causal relationship between God's foreknowledge and man's actions?

pearl
Wednesday, June 9th, 2004, 12:26 AM
I don't believe in the big bang theory...I believe that the Judeo-christian God created the heavens and the earth, etc...just like the Bible says. Maybe my beliefs are relatively "small thinking" and ignorant to the declarations of Science...but, I just believe what I believe. I like thinking that there's a God up there and I'm going somewhere when I die...That's just comforting to me. If I'm wrong...well, than that's okay too...But, in general, I think organized religion is crap. Religion is nothing but the concoctions and perversions of men...:( There are so many rules and regulations, ceremonies and celebrations that men added over the years and the whole idea of "christianity" is nothing but a diluted, refuted contortion of what it first began as.

Stríbog
Wednesday, June 9th, 2004, 02:22 AM
Demonstrate how the consequent of your conditional follows from the antecedent.



Are you suggesting a causal relationship between God's foreknowledge and man's actions?

I'm not only suggesting, I'm stating it outright. An omnipotent God could theoretically recuse itself, so to speak, from a universe it had created, but would still know the fates of the beings it created, and know the specific course of action which they would take. Since it alone created them and gave them their nature, desires, drives etc. their actions were determined by it in advance, especially since God could see the outcome of all possible creations and chose this one specifically.

Carl_Rylander
Wednesday, June 9th, 2004, 07:58 PM
I'm not only suggesting, I'm stating it outright. An omnipotent God could theoretically recuse itself, so to speak, from a universe it had created, but would still know the fates of the beings it created, and know the specific course of action which they would take. Since it alone created them and gave them their nature, desires, drives etc. their actions were determined by it in advance, especially since God could see the outcome of all possible creations and chose this one specifically.

If you're going to assert that foreknowledge of someone's future action determines the action, you need to do more than just assert it, because that's really all you've done. You need to show how knowing what someone will do ahead of time necessiates determinism. For instance, if you, Stribog, had foreknowledge of my every action, would that mean I wasn't free? How would your knowledge of my future actions cause them to occur? This seems to be what you're saying about God - His foreknowledge of our actions determines them. Unless you can show how foreknowledge precludes freedom of the will, I don't see how your argument can hold water.

Stríbog
Thursday, June 10th, 2004, 12:21 AM
If you're going to assert that foreknowledge of someone's future action determines the action, you need to do more than just assert it, because that's really all you've done. You need to show how knowing what someone will do ahead of time necessiates determinism.


You are ignoring most of my argument.
An omnipotent God wouldn't be just someone who happened to foreknow things. God would have created every single thing in the universe to his own specifications with complete and total foreknowledge of the course every single one of them would take. Therefore he is responsible for their fates because every action they take is a product of that being's nature and set of circumstances, both provided by God with absolute foresight.



For instance, if you, Stribog, had foreknowledge of my every action, would that mean I wasn't free? How would your knowledge of my future actions cause them to occur? This seems to be what you're saying about God - His foreknowledge of our actions determines them. Unless you can show how foreknowledge precludes freedom of the will, I don't see how your argument can hold water.

No, once again, even if I foreknew your actions, I didn't create you, give you your essence, or put you in a particular situation. That's the difference you are leaving out.

Northern Paladin
Thursday, June 10th, 2004, 08:31 PM
Here's a fact for you. Jesus's last prophecy was that in the near future, there would be a slaughter of Jews almost as bad as the holocaust. There was. How do you explain that: The Jews followed the Old Testimate. There were 206 prophecies in it about the Messiah. Then, a guy comes along and perfectly fits the Messiah description...the jesw just don't see it...but the point is the same.

Show me these Prophicies. Where in he Bible does it Even Predict the Holocaust???

jesusfreak
Thursday, June 10th, 2004, 08:46 PM
It does not in the actually words themselves. Scattered through different letters of words evenly spaced apart.

Northern Paladin
Thursday, June 10th, 2004, 09:02 PM
It does not in the actually words themselves. Scattered through different letters of words evenly spaced apart.

And the only way to see this is when your in one of your "Spiritual States"? :D

Or LCD?

jesusfreak
Thursday, June 10th, 2004, 09:13 PM
We do have things called computers that can pic out patterns in letters or words. They do it quite quickly.

Carl_Rylander
Friday, June 11th, 2004, 07:06 PM
You are ignoring most of my argument.
An omnipotent God wouldn't be just someone who happened to foreknow things. God would have created every single thing in the universe to his own specifications with complete and total foreknowledge of the course every single one of them would take. Therefore he is responsible for their fates because every action they take is a product of that being's nature and set of circumstances, both provided by God with absolute foresight.

The God presented in Christian theology - the God whose existence I presume you are trying to disprove - endowed man with free will. Deliberation and the power to make free choices is part of man's 'nature' according to Christian theology. If God designed us to be free creatures then I don't see what the problem is. I also don't see how God's foreknowledge of our actions causes them.

Also, how does God's foresight 'provide' a set of circumstances?

Telperion
Friday, June 11th, 2004, 08:03 PM
Deliberation and the power to make free choices is part of man's 'nature' according to Christian theology. As I pointed out in the 'Fate' thread, not all Christian theologians have believed this. Calvin made predestination (the 'elect' will go to Heaven, all others are damned, and nothing anyone does can change whether they are 'elect' or not) an essential part of the Calvinist doctrine. The doctrine of predestination was rooted in the paradox that, if God is omniscient, then he must have known before he created the universe precisely what would happen in it, including the ultimate fate of every single individual (salvation or damnation). Since he knowingly created the universe in a way that he must have known in advance would result in particular individuals being saved, rather than others, he choose in advance to save particular individuals (the 'elect') and not others (the damned). And, God having made the universe in this way, there is nothing any human can do about it - humans do not have 'free will' in any meaningful sense, because their fate was predetermined by an omniscient God before creation. Calvin believed that one can never know if one is 'elect' or not - but, since only good (i.e. Calvinist) Christians can be 'elect' (of the covenant of grace), being a fervent Christian is a prerequisite for the possibility of being one of the 'elect'. The point, then, is that the free will of man (in the sense that Man's actions are not predetermined), and the omniscience of God as the creator, are not logically reconcilable positions.

Strangely, one hears little of the doctrine of predestination today, even though Calvinism played a major role in the history of Protestantism. Perhaps this is because predestination strikes our modern sensibilities as unfair. Calvin, however, didn't seem to have any problem with the idea. He believed that God existed, that he was omniscient as well as omnipotent, and accordingly that the fate of all individuals was pre-determined before the universe was created, and cannot be changed by anyone. He felt this was entirely reconcilable with the nature of God, particularly as described in the Old Testament ('The Lord is a jealous and avenging God' - Nahum, etc.).

An excellent summary of the Calvinist perspective on the nature of God was offered in a sermon by the 18th century American evangelist Jonathan Edwards entitled Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. Here is a link:

http://www.jonathanedwards.com/sermons/Warnings/sinners.htm

American evangelists seem to soft-peddle this sort of ‘fire and brimstone’ preaching today, probably because, unlike Jonathan Edwards in the 1740’s, they imagine that members of their 2000’s flock won’t react well to being told things like this:


The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours. You have offended him infinitely more than ever a stubborn rebel did his prince; and yet it is nothing but his hand that holds you from falling into the fire every moment. It is to be ascribed to nothing else, that you did not go to hell the last night; that you were suffered to awake again in this world, after you closed your eyes to sleep. And there is no other reason to be given, why you have not dropped into hell since you arose in the morning, but that God's hand has held you up. There is no other reason to be given why you have not gone to hell, since you have sat here in the house of God, provoking his pure eyes by your sinful wicked manner of attending his solemn worship. Yea, there is nothing else that is to be given as a reason why you do not this very moment drop down into hell.

Carl_Rylander
Friday, June 11th, 2004, 09:32 PM
As I pointed out in the 'Fate' thread, not all Christian theologians have believed this. Calvin made predestination (the 'elect' will go to Heaven, all others are damned, and nothing anyone does can change whether they are 'elect' or not) an essential part of the Calvinist doctrine.

Yes, that is correct. I wondered at first if Stribog was attacking the Calvinist conception of God, but his argument appears to be formulated differently than Calvin's.



The doctrine of predestination was rooted in the paradox that, if God is omniscient, then he must have known before he created the universe precisely what would happen in it, including the ultimate fate of every single individual (salvation or damnation). Since he knowingly created the universe in a way that he must have known in advance would result in particular individuals being saved, rather than others, he choose in advance to save particular individuals (the 'elect') and not others (the damned). And, God having made the universe in this way, there is nothing any human can do about it - humans do not have 'free will' in any meaningful sense, because their fate was predetermined by an omniscient God before creation.

Unless Calvin can demonstrate a causal relationship between God's foreknowledge and man's actions, his argument does not follow. If I know everything my neighbor will do ahead of time, does my knowledge cause his actions? For example, if I know my neighbor will paint his garage tommorrow, does my foreknowledge cause him to do that? Of course, my neighbor cannot do other than what I know, but as long as he has the unexercised ability to do otherwise on any given occasion, he acts freely. Calvin needs to explain what the relationship is between knowledge and determinism, or his argument fails.

Stríbog
Friday, June 11th, 2004, 11:26 PM
Unless Calvin can demonstrate a causal relationship between God's foreknowledge and man's actions, his argument does not follow. If I know everything my neighbor will do ahead of time, does my knowledge cause his actions? For example, if I know my neighbor will paint his garage tommorrow, does my foreknowledge cause him to do that? Of course, my neighbor cannot do other than what I know, but as long as he has the unexercised ability to do otherwise on any given occasion, he acts freely. Calvin needs to explain what the relationship is between knowledge and determinism, or his argument fails.

The difference is that you did not create your neighbor, his garage, or anything else in the cosmos, and you did not imbue them with their specific natures. The traditional Christian view of God is that he is omnipotent. Therefore, he knew what the fates and characteristics of everything he created would be before he even created them. An omnipotent and omniscient God is responsible for everything in the universe. Furthermore, even if God limited his own power irreversibly and became a finite deity after his creation (the Enlightenment view of the divine clockmaker or whatever it was) he would still be responsible for the entire universe because at the time he created it he was both omnipotent and omniscient. Changing his own abilities ex post facto does not shift responsibility back onto his creations. This would be like having a child, deciding after a while one doesn't want the responsibility or burden, putting it up for adoption or foster care or whatever, then finding out some time later that the child ran away from his foster home, stole a car, robbed a store, whatever. One could not simply declare that the child was no longer one's responsibility after getting rid of him just because he had "free will". The same is true of a God that would create flawed humanity, then sit back and watch them destroy themselves while saying "Oh it's not my fault, I gave them free will."

This brought to mind a good question for the Christians: does God have the ability to reduce his own power permanently? Or to take it one step further, would God be able to eliminate himself entirely for all eternity? Put simply, can God commit suicide? If he can't, then he is not omnipotent. ;)

Carl_Rylander
Saturday, June 12th, 2004, 12:49 AM
The difference is that you did not create your neighbor, his garage, or anything else in the cosmos, and you did not imbue them with their specific natures.

Why does any of this matter?


The traditional Christian view of God is that he is omnipotent. Therefore, he knew what the fates and characteristics of everything he created would be before he even created them.

How does this preclude man's freedom?

Rollon
Monday, February 7th, 2005, 07:28 PM
There are alternative models to the Big Bang and they come from prominent scientists. Critics of the Big Bang, like Arp, or Hoyle (who coined the term 'Big Bang' as a mean of derision) have been victims of authoritarian methods in the field of sciences.

Hoyle's theory is known as the steady-state theory. You can find more about it on Internet (I don't give a link because all those I've found are arrogant about it).

When Penzias and Simons found traces of a microwave radiation, it was immediatly interpreted as a fossil radiation from the Big Bang. Hoyle claimed it was due to interstellar dust (the 'material rubbish' of the Universe) acting as a slowdown effect and thus producing the red shift. His hypotheses were authoritatively discarded.

Still, people around Prigogine have come up with another alternative to the Big Bang. The Big Bang is passing away. I mean, it really had some weird features, the so-called 'singularities', like infinite heat at some point in time (you said tremendous heat, Demigorgona, but the model posits an infinite value). To believe that this can occur in the physical world, you've really got to be a strong believer.

I'd add that the Catholic Church has made a statement that the Big Bang was okay. So if the Church says so...

Lidvick
Tuesday, February 8th, 2005, 01:12 AM
People in creation notions always speak of our galaxy , but what of all those thousands of others like ours?:)

I do not like the big bang theory because , what was the thing that sparked creation? What sparked the power that sparked life and so on ?

I like the concept of Infinity that existence has always been.

Some sort of reality has always been.

Some would argue saying the spark of power was not Gods/God/ Divinities.

I my belief it was the hand of the Divine in all things that created life, humanity, the Gods and so on.

There is so much we don't know but if we knew everything would we be any more happier or less?:)

Siegfried
Tuesday, February 8th, 2005, 09:31 AM
This is because the Big Bang cannot explain;
1) What existed BEFORE the Big bang, and
2) Why did the Big Bang occur when it did?

The Big Bang is believed to have created our space/time dimension, so technically, there was nothing before the Big Bang (at least nothing on our plane of existence). If so, there's also no point in asking why the BB occured when it did. I'm not sure I believe in the Big Bang.



Likewise, we must ask why did life evolve when it did?

I suppose the material evolution of life can be explained in time by scientific models. We're already making good progress in that area.



How was there a point when there was no life, and then life occurred?

You're assuming one can draw a line between the living and the non-living world. In reality, this is not the case; even today, there are organic beings biologists are not sure whether to classify as living or non-living. Viruses are an example. The transition was most likely gradual; it's just as impossible to say 'this is the moment matter came alive' as it is to say 'this is the moment ape became man'.

Draco
Tuesday, February 8th, 2005, 03:11 PM
Ah, but those who claim, "Well, where did the materials and catalyst for the Big Bang come from if there was no God to make them?" Can easily be given the reply, "Well, where did God come if there was no one else to make him?".

An endless back and forth.

The issue will NEVER be settled. Would an answer either way really change that many peoples daily lives anyway? I care alot more about the next 15 years than I do the last 15 billion.

Rhydderch
Thursday, February 10th, 2005, 04:38 AM
Ah, but those who claim, "Well, where did the materials and catalyst for the Big Bang come from if there was no God to make them?" Can easily be given the reply, "Well, where did God come if there was no one else to make him?".But everything natural must have a beginning. Since God is supernatural, we therefore cannot apply the same rules to him which we apply to nature.

Draco
Thursday, February 10th, 2005, 03:03 PM
But everything natural must have a beginning. Since God is supernatural, we therefore cannot apply the same rules to him which we apply to nature.

How can anything exist outside of nature? ;)

The "God does so and so by virtue of being God" always struck me as a non-answer.

Like I said, I don't take sides, because I truly just don't care, but it's claims like that the "religous" side make that tend to bother me a little. I also don't care for when the "science" faction advertises theory as fact.

Both sides are guilty of alot of assuming.

And when you assume, you make an ass out of u and me because everyone loses. :D

Tommy Vercetti
Friday, February 11th, 2005, 12:27 AM
It bothers me very much when science is butting in to matters of faith

Agrippa
Friday, February 11th, 2005, 02:54 AM
In my opinion there will be always "a place for god", even if we will never know if a god(s) exist, we just can't falsified.

I mean, if the physical world, the physical rules can explain the material world and life, this doesnt say anything about if there is a god(s) or not.

Because the rules might be made by one (or more) in a deist sense. Maybe now there is no influence, but the rules were made by an higher intelligence.

I dont say its like that, but its at least a possibility and we will never be able to rule it out for certain.

And because we cant really understand anything beyond the material world, such question will be always open and the terrain of transcendental speculations.

Rhydderch
Friday, February 11th, 2005, 11:00 AM
How can anything exist outside of nature? ;)

The "God does so and so by virtue of being God" always struck me as a non-answer.

Like I said, I don't take sides, because I truly just don't care, but it's claims like that the "religous" side make that tend to bother me a little. I also don't care for when the "science" faction advertises theory as fact.

Both sides are guilty of alot of assuming.

And when you assume, you make an ass out of u and me because everyone loses. :DAlthough I definitely believe in God, I was talking more in theoretical terms.

I mean that those who believe in God believe he is supernatural, and so natural rules do not apply.

Since atheists believe everything is natural, and yet everything natural has a beginning, then that is a big problem for them.

Rollon
Tuesday, March 8th, 2005, 12:32 AM
Some more alternatives to the Big Bang :

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/bigbang_alternative_010413-1.html

It's about the universe being a four-dimensional membrane (brane) that collided with another one. The model gets rid of the Big Bang singularities, like infinite density, infinite heat... One of the guys involved in the model is Paul Reinhardt, who has otherwise designed a cyclical model of repeating bangs, also aimed at avoiding the singularities.

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/blacklight_power_000522.html

Randell Mills' ideas are interesting. Not only does he call the Big Bang "an academic fiction", he also comes up with an alternative atom model for the probabilistic quantum one. He sees the universe as endlessly oscillating between matter and energy. His theory correclty predicted in the early 1990's the 1998 observation of accelerating universal expansion.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Tuesday, March 8th, 2005, 06:33 AM
As you guys are probably tired of hearing, I believe in the Black Sun theory of creation or maybe restated as the Big Suck theory. Big Suck accounts for dark matter, dark energy, energy, matter, the interchange of energy and matter and the destruction and reforming of the Universe. As far as theology is concerned, the Black Sun is the One Eyed God, so religious types can take it from there.

Rollon
Friday, March 18th, 2005, 08:34 PM
As you guys are probably tired of hearing, I believe in the Black Sun theory of creation or maybe restated as the Big Suck theory. Big Suck accounts for dark matter, dark energy, energy, matter, the interchange of energy and matter and the destruction and reforming of the Universe. As far as theology is concerned, the Black Sun is the One Eyed God, so religious types can take it from there.
The Big Suck is my faith, yes. Unfortunately, my girlfriend is Christian. I always tell her : 'Why don't you practice the Big Suck ?' :|

Concretely, Herr Doktor, how does this theory describe the future of our universe ?

Jehan
Sunday, March 20th, 2005, 04:37 AM
Ah, but those who claim, "Well, where did the materials and catalyst for the Big Bang come from if there was no God to make them?" Can easily be given the reply, "Well, where did God come if there was no one else to make him?".

Of course, you can easily reply this. However, it is not correct. God is, by definition, absolute, meaning he exists by himself. Universe, on the other hand, is limited; it has boundaries, even though it is constantly expanding. It also has a starting point. It is thus limited in space and time. Not quite the same thing.

About the calculations of probabilities about the beginning of the universe. I assume they used some kind of complex physics laws, but were these laws in application before the universe "big banged"? If so, they must have been created by something, for they constitute a system, and a system cannot exist by itself, since its parts are dependent on each other. If not, then why apply them to something prior to the universe? Science can only explain how things work, not why. Especially when speaking about the origins of the universe.

Last little thing: Since time is discontinuous (according to quantum mechanics), there is a non-divisible "quantum" of time, which is something like 10^-47 seconds, if I remember correctly. So in theory, when we can say the Universe has begun, it has already done so. We can say it exist, but we can't really prove that it started at some point. So the theory of the "beginning" of the universe is a bit vague about this....ok, I don't know if that's clear, but whatever:|

Hohenheim
Sunday, September 24th, 2006, 05:45 PM
Here are some questions, maybe some of you know the answer :), or maybe it will just be inetresting to talk about this things. I don't know.

What was before the Big Bang?
Why did it occur?
What is beyond our universe or is it infinite?
Are there more dimensions than the 3 we see plus time?
Are there parallel universes?
Is our universe but a speck of dust in another much bigger universe and so on?
How was matter and energy created or where did it come from?
When did time start?
Was it an infinite time ago - it never started and has always been 'ticking'?

Airmanareiks
Tuesday, January 30th, 2007, 01:02 AM
How can anything exist outside of nature? ;)

The "God does so and so by virtue of being God" always struck me as a non-answer.

Is this an empty man fallacy or a begging the question fallacy?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question



God created the universe because he is God means nothing until you define what God is.

God created the cosmos by virtue of being God.
Jesuits took on Plato's (Augustine) and Aristotle's (Aquinas) ontology. Without them, you have to rely on the Jews genesis of creation. So Jesuits took on aryan thought.

God is eternal, good, perfect.
What is Good?
What is Perfect?
What is Eternal?

Eternal is that which never ceases. But is eternal life or eternal death. Non existence must be eternal for it never had life. God is perfect Being. God does not change, therefore, there is no movement, thus, no space and time, for space and time is the expansion of the cosmos which is the cooling down of heat.



God is absolute, infinite in space and time, thus being infinite of space and time, all is WITHIN God. How do you know the cosmos is not ALSO infinite. Thus, God and the Cosmos being one and the same. No one can prove that the cosmos is not infinite AND absolute, thus God and the Cosmos being one and the same.

But this does not tell us what God IS!
This tells you his spatial dimensions. It is just an idea. The idea being Infinity. God is infinity. But what is infinity? Is their any meaning to that notion of God and if so, is that notion true?




That Black Sun theory correlates to Black Holes. I view the cosmos as evolution from being (fire/energy/mind) and expansion of the cosmos creating space and time where this fire/will COOLS and becomes matter. Matter is gravity and eventially, will condense and create black holes. This is the world of pure matter or Jotuns. In Aryanism, it is the world of Muspellheim, the abode of Gas, this is the world of Jotuns. The world arose and continually arises from Fire and expands, creating space and time through thought and will. This is the abode of Muspelli which is Irminsul, the pillar of Being which is the cosmic fire, but also the Primordial Man, Ymir which worlds are growing, evolving, where they will gradually cool and become pure matter, collapsing into the black hole. But within this evolution of fire/ice- the mind or God resides from pure fire down the change of being to zero kelvin (black hole). But this eternal, for there will always be energy/fire in the cosmos. God is thus eternal.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Tuesday, January 30th, 2007, 05:22 AM
Is this an empty man fallacy or a begging the question fallacy?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question



God created the universe because he is God means nothing until you define what God is.

God created the cosmos by virtue of being God.
Jesuits took on Plato's (Augustine) and Aristotle's (Aquinas) ontology. Without them, you have to rely on the Jews genesis of creation. So Jesuits took on aryan thought.

God is eternal, good, perfect.
What is Good?
What is Perfect?
What is Eternal?

Eternal is that which never ceases. But is eternal life or eternal death. Non existence must be eternal for it never had life. God is perfect Being. God does not change, therefore, there is no movement, thus, no space and time, for space and time is the expansion of the cosmos which is the cooling down of heat.



God is absolute, infinite in space and time, thus being infinite of space and time, all is WITHIN God. How do you know the cosmos is not ALSO infinite. Thus, God and the Cosmos being one and the same. No one can prove that the cosmos is not infinite AND absolute, thus God and the Cosmos being one and the same.

But this does not tell us what God IS!
This tells you his spatial dimensions. It is just an idea. The idea being Infinity. God is infinity. But what is infinity? Is their any meaning to that notion of God and if so, is that notion true?




That Black Sun theory correlates to Black Holes. I view the cosmos as evolution from being (fire/energy/mind) and expansion of the cosmos creating space and time where this fire/will COOLS and becomes matter. Matter is gravity and eventially, will condense and create black holes. This is the world of pure matter or Jotuns. In Aryanism, it is the world of Muspellheim, the abode of Gas, this is the world of Jotuns. The world arose and continually arises from Fire and expands, creating space and time through thought and will. This is the abode of Muspelli which is Irminsul, the pillar of Being which is the cosmic fire, but also the Primordial Man, Ymir which worlds are growing, evolving, where they will gradually cool and become pure matter, collapsing into the black hole. But within this evolution of fire/ice- the mind or God resides from pure fire down the change of being to zero kelvin (black hole). But this eternal, for there will always be energy/fire in the cosmos. God is thus eternal.

Some say that Black Holes also generate aether energy which is absorbed by matter and turned into known energies. It can also be converted into more matter. Since matter absorbes aether and aether surrounds everything as if it were underwater, aether pushes matter together into clumps. These clumps further shield aether and so this "pushing" becomes stronger as the clumps grow. This pressure is what we call gravity. Thus, planets, stars and so on are formed. A super-strong, burnt out star collapses, implodes, based on its mass and forms a black hole. The black hole begins absorbing both matter and energy and pulsing energy, magnetism and aether back out. But anything under this kind of pressure must be organized tightly right down past the atomic level. Anything that organized cannot be hot which is a force of disorganization. So, a black hole, or a Black Sun is cold--deep cold. You could look upon heat as enthropy--disorganization and cold as negative enthropy--organization. We think that human intellect is a kind of organization in which electrical impulses are routed within our brains to form intelligence. Just think of what must go in inside the Black Sun where not cells are organized but sub-atomic particles. Think of how well electrical impulses must work at a temperature of absolute zero. If there is any god or intellect superior to ours, this must be it.

Some people do believe that this Black Sun is a god. This belief has an advantage in that it incorporates evolutionary ideas into its beliefs and so dovetails nicely with Odinism. In this aspect, a Black Sun is seen as Odin's one eye, a sign of knowledge and power. Aether energy is sometimes called Vril energy. Infusion of Vril energy raises the quality of life for an individual. My suspicion is that the persuit of Vril energy was seen by some individuals within the esoteric community of the 3rd Reich as coming as close as they could to developing themselves into the New Man.

Aupmanyav
Tuesday, January 30th, 2007, 04:28 PM
Before big bang, why: Singularity. Beyond universe: universe being a closed curve, there is no beyond. More dimensions: not yet. Parellel universes: not yet. Speck of dust: not yet. Matter/energy: Question 1. Time: with big bang. Infinite time: could be. What do you think, Kotromanic?

Airmanareiks
Tuesday, January 30th, 2007, 09:19 PM
Anything that organized cannot be hot which is a force of disorganization. So, a black hole, or a Black Sun is cold--deep cold. You could look upon heat as enthropy--disorganization and cold as negative enthropy--organization. We think that human intellect is a kind of organization in which electrical impulses are routed within our brains to form intelligence.

Some people do believe that this Black Sun is a god. In this aspect, a Black Sun is seen as Odin's one eye, a sign of knowledge and power. Aether energy is sometimes called Vril energy. Infusion of Vril energy raises the quality of life for an individual. .


Isn't aether but the back ground heat in the cosmos. Basically leftover heat from the big bang? Electrical impulses, the mind, could not operate at 0 kelvin being electricity is energy. Electricity would be expelled.



Well here is my view.

The cosmos is love (female) and hate(male) [empodocles] Ying/Yang interactions.

The cosmos is a perpetual cycle of expansion and contraction. But energy always remains the same.

Fire/Light - Hate - Expansion (Space/Time) God/Irminsul/Asgard...etc........

God is the Fire which is Hate. Hate is aversion, moving away, this is cosmic expansion. Thus from the point of singularity was the highest point of tempurature and the universe is cooling down, and expanding. This is the cosmos. The expansion is the cause of space/time. The Mind is in the Fire and the God is an everliving Fire. The mind is electrical impulses (Thorn) which moves across galaxies. God's thought/the SuperMind is Logos, or logic which is natural/scientific law. This is also Magic or Rune Magn(power). In fact, God's Ideas are Runes. Thus Rune Magic is about conecting to God(Wotan-the cosmic Mind) and gaining Rune Power. Fire is also change, because expansion is movement. Thus, God is only living in the universe where thought can only live. Thought is movement. Typeing is movement as are ideas. Without movement, there is no thought, no being. But this is all a result of cosmological expansion which is Hate, strife, or Fire. But Fire cools and becomes material eventually collapsing into a black hole through Love, UNITY.

Black Hole and Love - Contraction (into stasis, no time/energy) Jotun/Hel/.......

Pure matter has no energy, thus no electricity, thus no mind, thus no Gods. This is where the other duality of the cosmos is - Love or Matter. The Female principle. The Black hole universal Love which is about contraction or of plurality to unity. There is no Gods there, no mind, no electricity. It is Nifelhel. Love sucks all energy, will, fire, mind, soul from beings. This contraction happens until there is so much matter that space runs out, to a point of SINGULARITY and an explosion occurs because there is a breaking point , thus restarting the whole process over again.Thus, live is an eternal process of expansion (God/Fire/Mind) and contraction( Jotun/Ice/Matter).

Dr. Solar Wolff
Wednesday, January 31st, 2007, 05:33 AM
Isn't aether but the back ground heat in the cosmos. Basically leftover heat from the big bang? Electrical impulses, the mind, could not operate at 0 kelvin being electricity is energy. Electricity would be expelled.



Aether is not heat. Heat is the agitation of matter. Aether is not matter. Beyond this, aether is not what we commonly think of as energy. Aether is primary physics, according to Karl Schappeller, the physics that be know is a secondary reaction to primary physics.

Electrical impulses at absolute zero, go on forever. An electrical circuit held at absolute zero, for instance, will suffer no losses through resistance. Interstellar "cold" is a huge repository for electrical energy. Cold must be measured and it can only be measured by measuring matter. In a vaccum state, there is no matter to measure but if there was, it would be at or near absolute zero. In a black hole, compression heating would be conducted away instantly, matter reorganized, and in doing that cooled. A black hole would function to cool everything down instantly. Any organization, electrical, aether, or conscience would function at peak performance under those conditons.

Airmanareiks
Thursday, February 1st, 2007, 08:29 PM
Aether was considered the instellar medium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

What is the intersellar medium? Cosmic Radiation Background which is the intersellar medium left after the big bang.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Background_Radiation


Heat is agitation of matter? I stated Energy/Fire is Hate. This is movement. Love is pure Matter/Ice or non Movement.

If there was not Hate/Aversion/Movement away,
there would be no Heat/Energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

You say Aether is primary physics. What is that?

You are using Schappeller's definition.

Schappeller claimed to have discovered a thermodynamic cycle which runs opposite to the conventional 2nd law of thermodynamics. In other words it is a cycle, which reduces the entropy of a system, whereas the normal 2nd law of thermodynamics leads to an increase of entropy. Incidentally, Schrodinger(8), the father of quantum mechanics, noted in his book “What is Life” that the in the life process is associated with negative entropy. This of course means that life process is producing order out of chaos. The earth out of which living things grow is thermodynamically in a state of relatively high entropy or disorder. Life converts this disorder to order. Schappeller was saying that the life process was the manifestation of a real physical thermodynamic cycle or law, and the result of a real physical force.

Schappellar also said that nature uses this reverse thermodynamic cycle all the time and this activity IS the life process. This is the reason he attached the words bio- to energy processes involved in the reverse thermodynamics.

The negative entropic force seems similar to a charge; rather in the manner that matter can carry an electric charge so can it carry another form of charge, the vital charge. But it can also loose this charge and when it does it is dead inert manner that falls under the second law of thermodynamics.

When matter carries the vital charge it enters into an oscillatory condition which Schappeller called the entropic spiral or oscillation, which in natural world usually took a spiral form. The two ends of the oscillatory process are order and disorder or a positive and negative entropic (thermodynamic) process.

To get this to happen Schappeller proposed producing an electromagnetic field which besides the electric charge also carried the vital charge referred to above. This life charged electromagnet is Schappeller's "dynomagnet" or stator. The oscillating electromagnetic field will not die down through losses as with an ordinary tuned circuit but is maintained in oscillation by the negative entropic action of the vital charge.

Schappeller's magnet was simply a coil of tubing containing a special material "the sublimate" carrying the required vital charge. So the energy in the electromagnetic field is built up by the vital charge and dissipated in the usual manner in a load or motor of some sort. What happened is the establishment of an "electromagnetic-vital mass" which Davson called glowing magnetism. This state is impossible without the presence of the vital charge. Davson thought that Schappeller had done this basic experiment with Wetzel and Gfoellner early on and that it worked in principle, but whether it had stability or other problems is not known.

The isolation of the vital charge is the key to the whole of the Schappeller concept, in that respect it is totally different to any other proposed energy machine. Of course, no one has any idea of what the vital charge is and how to get it, here however is a clue from Wetzel and Gfoener's Raumkraft(6):-

"Schappeller studied the essence, the operation of the electric circuit in all its features, starting from the simple zinc-carbon cell as an electric source. He found that electricity is latent in any subject as a magnetostatic force and by the production of a suitable circuit it becomes activated. As is well known any metal pair such (iron, copper, etc.)and carbon [an electrolyte] and a proper circuit transfers the less cohesive force of zinc to the more firmly bound carbon....The most important result of his research was the winning of electricity from stone, from which vital electric force is produced in contrast to the dead electricity made when metals are used. This is because stone, due to its early origins contains remanents of the vital force of the organisms that built it when the crust of the earth was formed."


Schappeller's H and O; what does this mean ?
This is one of the most difficult part of Schappeller's theory. The best place to start is In Wetzel and Gfoellner's Raumkraft(6):

Here is a direct quote: (Please excuse the quality of the translation!)

(Note:- "Urkraft" means fundamental force, origin force or space force, also vacuum force)

"Here it is necessary to return back to the study of Schappeller’s year long occupation with the method of operation of the "Urkraft" (which he had recognized as magnetostatic force). This lead him to the urgent study of electricity. He recognized electricity as a concentrically operating gas, consisting of hydrogen and oxygen bonded by the force of the vacuum (Urkraft). In each electron this vacuum force is present; because each electron is divided into north and south poles and thus is a tiny magnetostatic force space. However, as already presented, any magnetostatic force area [volume] because it is a space force encloses the Urkraft, it is consequently accessible to any stimulation and can, with an appropriate impulse be charged. This discovery of Schappeller, experimentally tested, has the most tremendous consequence".

According to Davson the state of the hydrogen and oxygen mentioned in the above extract is not that of the common chemical substances known to physics but is another state which he termed the "energy condition". The space force or Urkraft, a magnestostatic force, binds H and O both in the energy condition together. H and O in the energy state are therefore in mutual repulsion. The H and O energies are fundamental polarities from which all matter and forces are made. It incidental that they are most easily accessible through water and also electromagnetism. Schappeller believed that the attraction force exerted by the vacuum of space on the mutually repulsive H and O energies is magnetic, so that H and O in the energy state become two opposite unipolar magnetic charges, but note there are three forces two provided by H and o energies and the third by the action of space itself. A common magnetic field has all three forces acting along the whole of the field direction and so forms closed circuits. The magnetic charge itself has been searched for by conventional physics but so far has remained undiscovered. Ref. magnetic Monopole. These charges do not exist in a bar magnet, because the field there is in the form of closed loops, the poles are only apparent not real. Schappeller termed the magnetic field found in a common bar magnet and also the magnetic around an electric current "impolar". The magnetic field from a magnetic monopole starts from or terminates on a magnetic charge exactly analogous to an electric charge. Felix Ehrenhaft claimed to have detected magnetiic charges as does, more recently V. F. Mikhailov(7)

The peculiar use of H and O labels for magnetic charges seems to arise from a curious idea/discovery that the two magnetic charges do not just slam together and neutralise as might be expected but are mutually repulsive, with space acting as a sort of spring holding the two polarities together. The apparent result is the building of a sort of quasi-matter which Schappeller called fluidum. He told Davson that fluidum itself condenses into water, with the release of a huge amount of energy in the form of electricity. This happens in the thundercloud and is the cause of lightning, but also water as condensed out of the fundamental magnetic H and O energies can be though of conversely as fluid magnetism(!). This is an extension of his discovery that magnetic charges exist in a self neutralising (impolar) form as common magnetism in the field from a bar magnet. For my own part, asking Davson the question: "can you get magnetic charge back from water", apparently not easily, since electric charge always results but the life process can and does. The vital charge mentioned previously appears to be the result of the mutually repulsive monopolar magnetic charge. From what was said earlier, the magnetic charge and binding force offered by space against their mutual repulsion is the source of an order building negative entropic field and this is the reason why water as a condensate out of magnetism is the place from which life originates and in which it exists. Schappeller termed the process of condensation of magnetic charges into matter "sublimation" analogous to chemical sublimation. It seems that the H and O magnetic charges are only detectable under negative entropy conditions, so conventional instrumentation only sees the positive entropic condition of electricity, that is to say the magnetic charges disintegrate into electric charge. A simple illustration of this fact is seen when a physicist attempts to measure chinese acupuncture points on the human body, the electronic instrument probe merely sees points of changed electrical potential, the vital H and O magnetic current of the negative entropic vital force is decomposed or collapses into electric charge due to the physical instrumentation. However dowsers and the like can detect the magnetic current directly due to its effect upon the living organism of the dowser.


Schappeller's Ether the power of the Vacuum and Magnetism
Schappellar believed in an all pervading ether. From what has alredy been said it will be no surprise to learn that the ether is bipolar magnetic in nature with the two poles "equalised out". He seemed to think that the ether was a sort of elastic magnetic gas and could be displaced to some extent even by ordinary matter, but at the same time could also support tension as when it holds together mutually repulsive magnetic charges. If the air were pumped out of a glass sphere the ether would fill the space previously occupied by air. The ether seems to be similar to the fluidum mentioned above. It is only one step to regarding matter as held together by ether pressure but this is not explicitly stated. Curiously the ether remaining inside the evacuated sphere is deemed to exert a pull or attraction or suction on the walls of the container causing the material of the walls to vapourise into the etheric condition and fill the container. This etheric vacuum force is deemed to be the only force capable of separating the magnetic monopoles (The ether holds the mutually repulsive magnetic charges together, but in an intense ambient etheric field the magnetic H and O charges can act independently. It appears to operate in an analogous manner to the way salt dissolves in waterwith a separation of the sodium and chloride ions).

Magnetic charges exert a direct action on the ether and operate through it. Also the magnetic charges besides being mutually repulsive tend one pole to expand and the other to contract. This effect if intense enough cause a polarisation of the ether into its magnetic components which are also considered to have opposite tendencies one of expansion and the other of contraction while at the same time exerting a mutual attraction on the ether. This results in "egg and yolk" configuration with a tension between; the sun and stars and planets have this configuration. The interpolar exchange of the two magnetic charges builds the negative entropic force mentioned earlier. These three caused by H-space-O fields oscillate in a process of energy exchange. The energy is built by the negative entropic processes but originates in the more disordered magnetic charges. The earth itself contains an H charge which is condensed in its core and an O field in the atmosphere repelling the H core and attempting to expand outwards. The vacuum force of space penetrating right through matter couples the two together forming a tension field like a spring between two opposing forces, this was termed a stressfield. Schappeller believed that life itself exists as a result of this tension or stressfield and is the vital force.

A magnetic field or electric charge is devitalised or dead if it will not react to the vacuum of space. The reason is that such fields are internally self contained. The magnetic charges and vacuum of space are imprisoned in closed loops or terminate on other charges in the case of electric charge. The common magnetic field loops would have to be opened out and linked into space as also with the electric charge. This does not appear to be possible without Schappeller's stator or Prime mover.

Clearly then a magnetic material has to be found which does not devitalise the magnetism absorbed from the vacuum of space, this is the function of Schappeller's special magnet or sublimate. The field produced has negative entropic characteristics.
The Prime Mover or Power Sphere
The well known image of the "Prime Mover" with its spherical shape and coils of tubing wound spirally on the periphery was in fact drawn by a marine engineer by the name of Cooper. This design was made under Schappeller's direction probably in response to the British Admiralty's request for a drawing. In reference(2) page 251 and 252 there are the well known drawings of the Prime Mover which consists of a hollow airtight sphere surrounded on the periphery with a coil of tubing. The tubing contains a material which Schappeller's called his sublimate. The sublimate is analogous to the electrostatic electret except that it is magnetically charged not electrically charged. From what has been said it is clear that it is some substrate charged with unipolar static magnetic charge which he believed he could produce. The idea is to produce a field inside the sphere which is self sustaining due to its negative entropic characteristic. For this reason Davson named it a biomagnetic field.


The Prime Mover is not a free energy machine
The Prime mover "burns electricity" by splitting it into unipolar magnetic charge. From what has been said previously, it can be seen that ordinary magnetism as from a bar magnet could only be split into its monopolar magnetic charges if it could be opened out from its incestuous state. The result would be the release of a hitherto dormant negative entropic potential, So it must be assumed that to Schappeller, electricity and magnetism internally and in particular water are not in their lowest energy state. The operation through the space force is used by the life process and the other state is towards more order, so there is negative entropy energy associated with this process.

Schappeller's method of producing the magnetic charge initially is unknown. Joseph Schappeller died in 1960. I was told by someone who talked to Joseph Schappeller's housekeeper that she was instructed to burn all the Schappeller papers. She related that there were many technical drawing etc.



http://www.rexresearch.com/schapp/schapp.htm

Aupmanyav
Friday, February 2nd, 2007, 08:24 AM
Draco, 'God does so and so by virtue of being God' is certainly a non-answer, at least the science people accept that they do not know. Rhydderch, accepting that we do not know causes less problems that saying falsely that we know.

So now, earth is not the center of the universe, big bang is OK, next step (as it should be) evolution is OK. The Catholic church seems to be moving with times. What next, no God OK, Jesus was not the Son, versions of Gospel are fiction by Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John? Why then wars and evangelism? Why did they jail Galelio or burn people on stakes?

Tommy Vercetti, believe in something and upto something that is proven. You will be stronger because of that. Agrippa, rules are made by society.

Siegfried
Friday, February 2nd, 2007, 08:37 AM
So now, earth is not the center of the universe, big bang is OK, next step (as it should be) evolution is OK. The Catholic church seems to be moving with times.

The Catholic Church has already taken that last step, and stated evolution need not be in conflict with Catholic Christianity.

Aupmanyav
Friday, February 2nd, 2007, 09:46 AM
Good, do they stop with that?

Erzherzog_Bernd
Friday, February 2nd, 2007, 10:25 AM
Unfortunately, the theory you expound does not touch the God-hypothesis.
This is because the Big Bang cannot explain;
1) What existed BEFORE the Big bang, and
2) Why did the Big Bang occur when it did?

There was a documentary some time ago where they came up with another "theory" about the big bang. This time around they went all out covering their butts on almost every angle.

Now they say parallel universes... The Big Bang happened when 2 other Universes collided against each other. How did the other two come into being? Probably 4 more collided 2 against 2, making the other 2 and inevitably making our universe. But how did those 4 come into being? So you can see that it can go on into infinity, in the end however where did the first universe come from, how did it come into being with NOTHING to start with.

It is a good subject if you want to bang your head against a wall as a means to show the world how smart you really are(Figuring this sort of stuff out). In the end however, science itself is becoming a mythology.

So there is both points you asked in one answer. Before our Universe there were other universes, the Big Bang occurred when they collided.

Of course these universes ironically enough also has a completely different laws of physics and other fun stuff.


Likewise, we must ask why did life evolve when it did?
How was there a point when there was no life, and then life occurred?

Chance, another favorite word of the scientists. Then they accuse the religious people of being "hocus pocus" when they believe God created the Universe and ALL of its earthly bodies and fleshy inhabitants. All this while they expect us to believe "Chance" as an indisputable scientific "fact".

The odds of it happening is one out of too much to count in one life time. They answer then "It already happened, it doesn't have to happen again". Of course if they make an endless space with trillions upon trillions of universes they also cover their butts. Somewhere out there there has to be live, Chance would have secured it for them too, if you go by the odds. The more the merrier.


Ultimately, the Big Bang theory is just a secular version of Creationism and has been easily absorbed by Christian/Islamic Theology, for example.

I actually think it was meant to stand against it. The scientists today however take it so far that their theories are beginning to border on insanity. People will be more sane believing some "hocus pocus" God created the universe.

Some scientists even warned against this, in the end they're running themselves into a corner with their theories and it's not looking good.

Chance is their divine being...

Aupmanyav
Friday, February 2nd, 2007, 01:57 PM
Good, the theists cover their butts with just one line, 'God did it'. See page ... of ... . Q.E.D. Smart, no? It is another matter if it is not covered fully.

Airmanareiks
Friday, February 2nd, 2007, 09:48 PM
The Big Bang happened when 2 other Universes collided against each other. How did the other two come into being? Probably 4 more collided 2 against 2, making the other 2 and inevitably making our universe. But how did those 4 come into being? ...

Below is a real photograph of 2 galaxies colliding.


Life is Energy Transference (big bang/fire/mind/hate/Columb Force to big crunch/ice/matter/love/Gravity, to Explosion again to Big Bang........A Cosmic Cycle) but the amount of total energy remains the same. Thus, the cosmos is eternal.

Gravity=Love=Collapse=Black Hole




vs



Columb Force = Hate=Expansion=Fire


http://physnet.org/home/modules/pdf_modules/m114.pdf

Here are come articles concerning this thread which may further the discussion.


Now they say parallel universes... The Big Bang happened when 2 other Universes collided against each other. How did the other two come into being? Probably 4 more collided 2 against 2, making the other 2 and inevitably making our universe. ...


Instead of one fire ball expanding, creating space/time which is entropic(choatic), I believe you are refering to Fractual Theory which believe that their are multiple creations in the cosmos which is not entropic but . You may view them as Quasars exploding from an a collapse of a black hole. This is an eternal process that we can observe around us. The expansion/contraction processes is what creates worlds/dimensions/different time, thus relativity.

Fractals and Cosmology
Recent versions of the inflationary cosmos theory assert that instead of being an expanding ball of fire the universe is a huge growing fractal. It consists of many inflating balls that produce new balls, which in turn produce more balls, ad infinitum. This scenario similarly describes the universe as a self-generating fractal that sprouts other inflationary universes.

http://members.aol.com/SpinChaos/PageCos.html

Dr. Solar Wolff
Sunday, February 4th, 2007, 08:30 AM
You have got this all absolutely correct. I know this sounds a little confusing. Actually, Schappeller's aether thermodynamics should be called Reverse Thermodynamics since they reverse the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. "Life" is a great example and I thank you for Schroedinger's thoughts on this. The hydogen and oxygen thing are Schappeller's analogies. They are not realy hydrogen and oxygen, but only two opposite things. You might say dark matter and dark energy. Or, as two German engineers have said, they are electrons and protons. According to these two engineers, the Schappeller device inducted both, through positive and negative poles, into the center of the device where they were FUSED, as in FUSION, into hydrogen (one electron plus one proton). There was, I guess, a release of energy as the electron settled into a lower, more stable orbit. Schappeller's electret was a fluid which carred magnetism. So, in the Schappeller device, magnetism moved and electricity was static. The electret had a magnetic strength 1000 times stronger than anything known up until then.

In terms of negative enthropy and life-aether force, an apple, hanging on the tree should be substitued for the Schappeller device for purposes of study. Does an apple get all its nutrition, sugar, life-force from photosynthesis, or the stem conducting sap into the apple or does fruit, the greatest container of Prana according to Indian tradition, absorb aether energy directly from the air? Like the Schappeller device, it is grounded through the stem.

Life is a force of negative enthropy--in other words an organizing force. Life is a small chemical process here on earth which can only muster limited aether energy for its purposes. Think of the Black Sun which is the most powerful single entity in the universe and all of its energy is negatively enthropic. This level of organization makes life look crude.



Aether was considered the instellar medium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

What is the intersellar medium? Cosmic Radiation Background which is the intersellar medium left after the big bang.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Background_Radiation


Heat is agitation of matter? I stated Energy/Fire is Hate. This is movement. Love is pure Matter/Ice or non Movement.

If there was not Hate/Aversion/Movement away,
there would be no Heat/Energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

You say Aether is primary physics. What is that?

You are using Schappeller's definition.

Schappeller claimed to have discovered a thermodynamic cycle which runs opposite to the conventional 2nd law of thermodynamics. In other words it is a cycle, which reduces the entropy of a system, whereas the normal 2nd law of thermodynamics leads to an increase of entropy. Incidentally, Schrodinger(8), the father of quantum mechanics, noted in his book “What is Life” that the in the life process is associated with negative entropy. This of course means that life process is producing order out of chaos. The earth out of which living things grow is thermodynamically in a state of relatively high entropy or disorder. Life converts this disorder to order. Schappeller was saying that the life process was the manifestation of a real physical thermodynamic cycle or law, and the result of a real physical force.

Schappellar also said that nature uses this reverse thermodynamic cycle all the time and this activity IS the life process. This is the reason he attached the words bio- to energy processes involved in the reverse thermodynamics.

The negative entropic force seems similar to a charge; rather in the manner that matter can carry an electric charge so can it carry another form of charge, the vital charge. But it can also loose this charge and when it does it is dead inert manner that falls under the second law of thermodynamics.

When matter carries the vital charge it enters into an oscillatory condition which Schappeller called the entropic spiral or oscillation, which in natural world usually took a spiral form. The two ends of the oscillatory process are order and disorder or a positive and negative entropic (thermodynamic) process.

To get this to happen Schappeller proposed producing an electromagnetic field which besides the electric charge also carried the vital charge referred to above. This life charged electromagnet is Schappeller's "dynomagnet" or stator. The oscillating electromagnetic field will not die down through losses as with an ordinary tuned circuit but is maintained in oscillation by the negative entropic action of the vital charge.

Schappeller's magnet was simply a coil of tubing containing a special material "the sublimate" carrying the required vital charge. So the energy in the electromagnetic field is built up by the vital charge and dissipated in the usual manner in a load or motor of some sort. What happened is the establishment of an "electromagnetic-vital mass" which Davson called glowing magnetism. This state is impossible without the presence of the vital charge. Davson thought that Schappeller had done this basic experiment with Wetzel and Gfoellner early on and that it worked in principle, but whether it had stability or other problems is not known.

The isolation of the vital charge is the key to the whole of the Schappeller concept, in that respect it is totally different to any other proposed energy machine. Of course, no one has any idea of what the vital charge is and how to get it, here however is a clue from Wetzel and Gfoener's Raumkraft(6):-

"Schappeller studied the essence, the operation of the electric circuit in all its features, starting from the simple zinc-carbon cell as an electric source. He found that electricity is latent in any subject as a magnetostatic force and by the production of a suitable circuit it becomes activated. As is well known any metal pair such (iron, copper, etc.)and carbon [an electrolyte] and a proper circuit transfers the less cohesive force of zinc to the more firmly bound carbon....The most important result of his research was the winning of electricity from stone, from which vital electric force is produced in contrast to the dead electricity made when metals are used. This is because stone, due to its early origins contains remanents of the vital force of the organisms that built it when the crust of the earth was formed."


Schappeller's H and O; what does this mean ?
This is one of the most difficult part of Schappeller's theory. The best place to start is In Wetzel and Gfoellner's Raumkraft(6):

Here is a direct quote: (Please excuse the quality of the translation!)

(Note:- "Urkraft" means fundamental force, origin force or space force, also vacuum force)

"Here it is necessary to return back to the study of Schappeller’s year long occupation with the method of operation of the "Urkraft" (which he had recognized as magnetostatic force). This lead him to the urgent study of electricity. He recognized electricity as a concentrically operating gas, consisting of hydrogen and oxygen bonded by the force of the vacuum (Urkraft). In each electron this vacuum force is present; because each electron is divided into north and south poles and thus is a tiny magnetostatic force space. However, as already presented, any magnetostatic force area [volume] because it is a space force encloses the Urkraft, it is consequently accessible to any stimulation and can, with an appropriate impulse be charged. This discovery of Schappeller, experimentally tested, has the most tremendous consequence".

According to Davson the state of the hydrogen and oxygen mentioned in the above extract is not that of the common chemical substances known to physics but is another state which he termed the "energy condition". The space force or Urkraft, a magnestostatic force, binds H and O both in the energy condition together. H and O in the energy state are therefore in mutual repulsion. The H and O energies are fundamental polarities from which all matter and forces are made. It incidental that they are most easily accessible through water and also electromagnetism. Schappeller believed that the attraction force exerted by the vacuum of space on the mutually repulsive H and O energies is magnetic, so that H and O in the energy state become two opposite unipolar magnetic charges, but note there are three forces two provided by H and o energies and the third by the action of space itself. A common magnetic field has all three forces acting along the whole of the field direction and so forms closed circuits. The magnetic charge itself has been searched for by conventional physics but so far has remained undiscovered. Ref. magnetic Monopole. These charges do not exist in a bar magnet, because the field there is in the form of closed loops, the poles are only apparent not real. Schappeller termed the magnetic field found in a common bar magnet and also the magnetic around an electric current "impolar". The magnetic field from a magnetic monopole starts from or terminates on a magnetic charge exactly analogous to an electric charge. Felix Ehrenhaft claimed to have detected magnetiic charges as does, more recently V. F. Mikhailov(7)

The peculiar use of H and O labels for magnetic charges seems to arise from a curious idea/discovery that the two magnetic charges do not just slam together and neutralise as might be expected but are mutually repulsive, with space acting as a sort of spring holding the two polarities together. The apparent result is the building of a sort of quasi-matter which Schappeller called fluidum. He told Davson that fluidum itself condenses into water, with the release of a huge amount of energy in the form of electricity. This happens in the thundercloud and is the cause of lightning, but also water as condensed out of the fundamental magnetic H and O energies can be though of conversely as fluid magnetism(!). This is an extension of his discovery that magnetic charges exist in a self neutralising (impolar) form as common magnetism in the field from a bar magnet. For my own part, asking Davson the question: "can you get magnetic charge back from water", apparently not easily, since electric charge always results but the life process can and does. The vital charge mentioned previously appears to be the result of the mutually repulsive monopolar magnetic charge. From what was said earlier, the magnetic charge and binding force offered by space against their mutual repulsion is the source of an order building negative entropic field and this is the reason why water as a condensate out of magnetism is the place from which life originates and in which it exists. Schappeller termed the process of condensation of magnetic charges into matter "sublimation" analogous to chemical sublimation. It seems that the H and O magnetic charges are only detectable under negative entropy conditions, so conventional instrumentation only sees the positive entropic condition of electricity, that is to say the magnetic charges disintegrate into electric charge. A simple illustration of this fact is seen when a physicist attempts to measure chinese acupuncture points on the human body, the electronic instrument probe merely sees points of changed electrical potential, the vital H and O magnetic current of the negative entropic vital force is decomposed or collapses into electric charge due to the physical instrumentation. However dowsers and the like can detect the magnetic current directly due to its effect upon the living organism of the dowser.


Schappeller's Ether the power of the Vacuum and Magnetism
Schappellar believed in an all pervading ether. From what has alredy been said it will be no surprise to learn that the ether is bipolar magnetic in nature with the two poles "equalised out". He seemed to think that the ether was a sort of elastic magnetic gas and could be displaced to some extent even by ordinary matter, but at the same time could also support tension as when it holds together mutually repulsive magnetic charges. If the air were pumped out of a glass sphere the ether would fill the space previously occupied by air. The ether seems to be similar to the fluidum mentioned above. It is only one step to regarding matter as held together by ether pressure but this is not explicitly stated. Curiously the ether remaining inside the evacuated sphere is deemed to exert a pull or attraction or suction on the walls of the container causing the material of the walls to vapourise into the etheric condition and fill the container. This etheric vacuum force is deemed to be the only force capable of separating the magnetic monopoles (The ether holds the mutually repulsive magnetic charges together, but in an intense ambient etheric field the magnetic H and O charges can act independently. It appears to operate in an analogous manner to the way salt dissolves in waterwith a separation of the sodium and chloride ions).

Magnetic charges exert a direct action on the ether and operate through it. Also the magnetic charges besides being mutually repulsive tend one pole to expand and the other to contract. This effect if intense enough cause a polarisation of the ether into its magnetic components which are also considered to have opposite tendencies one of expansion and the other of contraction while at the same time exerting a mutual attraction on the ether. This results in "egg and yolk" configuration with a tension between; the sun and stars and planets have this configuration. The interpolar exchange of the two magnetic charges builds the negative entropic force mentioned earlier. These three caused by H-space-O fields oscillate in a process of energy exchange. The energy is built by the negative entropic processes but originates in the more disordered magnetic charges. The earth itself contains an H charge which is condensed in its core and an O field in the atmosphere repelling the H core and attempting to expand outwards. The vacuum force of space penetrating right through matter couples the two together forming a tension field like a spring between two opposing forces, this was termed a stressfield. Schappeller believed that life itself exists as a result of this tension or stressfield and is the vital force.

A magnetic field or electric charge is devitalised or dead if it will not react to the vacuum of space. The reason is that such fields are internally self contained. The magnetic charges and vacuum of space are imprisoned in closed loops or terminate on other charges in the case of electric charge. The common magnetic field loops would have to be opened out and linked into space as also with the electric charge. This does not appear to be possible without Schappeller's stator or Prime mover.

Clearly then a magnetic material has to be found which does not devitalise the magnetism absorbed from the vacuum of space, this is the function of Schappeller's special magnet or sublimate. The field produced has negative entropic characteristics.
The Prime Mover or Power Sphere
The well known image of the "Prime Mover" with its spherical shape and coils of tubing wound spirally on the periphery was in fact drawn by a marine engineer by the name of Cooper. This design was made under Schappeller's direction probably in response to the British Admiralty's request for a drawing. In reference(2) page 251 and 252 there are the well known drawings of the Prime Mover which consists of a hollow airtight sphere surrounded on the periphery with a coil of tubing. The tubing contains a material which Schappeller's called his sublimate. The sublimate is analogous to the electrostatic electret except that it is magnetically charged not electrically charged. From what has been said it is clear that it is some substrate charged with unipolar static magnetic charge which he believed he could produce. The idea is to produce a field inside the sphere which is self sustaining due to its negative entropic characteristic. For this reason Davson named it a biomagnetic field.


The Prime Mover is not a free energy machine
The Prime mover "burns electricity" by splitting it into unipolar magnetic charge. From what has been said previously, it can be seen that ordinary magnetism as from a bar magnet could only be split into its monopolar magnetic charges if it could be opened out from its incestuous state. The result would be the release of a hitherto dormant negative entropic potential, So it must be assumed that to Schappeller, electricity and magnetism internally and in particular water are not in their lowest energy state. The operation through the space force is used by the life process and the other state is towards more order, so there is negative entropy energy associated with this process.

Schappeller's method of producing the magnetic charge initially is unknown. Joseph Schappeller died in 1960. I was told by someone who talked to Joseph Schappeller's housekeeper that she was instructed to burn all the Schappeller papers. She related that there were many technical drawing etc.



http://www.rexresearch.com/schapp/schapp.htm

Airmanareiks
Sunday, February 4th, 2007, 10:58 PM
In terms of negative enthropy and life-aether force, an apple, hanging on the tree should be substitued for the Schappeller device for purposes of study. Does an apple get all its nutrition, sugar, life-force from photosynthesis, or the stem conducting sap into the apple or does fruit, the greatest container of Prana according to Indian tradition, absorb aether energy directly from the air? Like the Schappeller device, it is grounded through the stem.

Life is a force of negative enthropy--in other words an organizing force. Life is a small chemical process here on earth which can only muster limited aether energy for its purposes. Think of the Black Sun which is the most powerful single entity in the universe and all of its energy is negatively enthropic. This level of organization makes life look crude.

I would say life is entropy. Life is movement, but mentality is derived from entropy and negative entropy, not pure chaos nor pure order/statsis. But statis in movement which you define as species and species EVOLVE being nothing remains constant as long as there is life/flux/time/space. Taking your apple analogy, an apple is composed of carbon, sugar, starch. These are a form of energy. A carbohydrate is a measure of energy which is based on how long it will BURN as in a fire. So ultimately, an apple is derived from entropy/energy/fire, but an apple is not pure will/energy/entropy which at its peak would be the tempature at the big bang, nor is it at the temperature of the big crunch/0 kelvin or a blac hole, but being the energy is in between pure entropy and negative entropy, it solidified in the form that it is. Further, being Man is more entropic then the more negative entropic apple, we BURN the apple's energy because we are cosumers of energy as a furnace needs to burn fuel. Energy goes from entropic to less entropic but in this case the entropic man needs energy to fuel its machinations (It is a higher powered species. We do not have enough energy from the sun, which the apple is dependent on life for, but need external entropy to be self sustained.)

Between pure entropy (Fire/Big Bang) and pure negative entropy (Ice/Gravity/Black Hole) is the Aesir. Life arose between Muspil(fire) and Nifel(Ice). Not pure Will/Thorn nor pure Jotun/Ice is mentality:

Organized Entropy which is epitomized by myself, yourself and other higher beings. Those mental inferior are generally either more entropic (primates/children) and negative entropic (the elderly/death).

Thus superiority (cosmically ) is the ability to organize entropy to the more dense condition, thus being cosmic in mentality (cosmic consciousness if you will).

Dr. Solar Wolff
Monday, February 5th, 2007, 07:47 AM
I would say life is entropy. Life is movement, but mentality is derived from entropy and negative entropy, not pure chaos nor pure order/statsis. But statis in movement which you define as species and species EVOLVE being nothing remains constant as long as there is life/flux/time/space. Taking your apple analogy, an apple is composed of carbon, sugar, starch. These are a form of energy. A carbohydrate is a measure of energy which is based on how long it will BURN as in a fire. So ultimately, an apple is derived from entropy/energy/fire, but an apple is not pure will/energy/entropy which at its peak would be the tempature at the big bang, nor is it at the temperature of the big crunch/0 kelvin or a blac hole, but being the energy is in between pure entropy and negative entropy, it solidified in the form that it is. Further, being Man is more entropic then the more negative entropic apple, we BURN the apple's energy because we are cosumers of energy as a furnace needs to burn fuel. Energy goes from entropic to less entropic but in this case the entropic man needs energy to fuel its machinations (It is a higher powered species. We do not have enough energy from the sun, which the apple is dependent on life for, but need external entropy to be self sustained.)

Between pure entropy (Fire/Big Bang) and pure negative entropy (Ice/Gravity/Black Hole) is the Aesir. Life arose between Muspil(fire) and Nifel(Ice). Not pure Will/Thorn nor pure Jotun/Ice is mentality:

Organized Entropy which is epitomized by myself, yourself and other higher beings. Those mental inferior are generally either more entropic (primates/children) and negative entropic (the elderly/death).

Thus superiority (cosmically ) is the ability to organize entropy to the more dense condition, thus being cosmic in mentality (cosmic consciousness if you will).

Life in general is negatively entropic. This is simply becaue life is an organizational force. Carbon, hydrogen and oxygen plus trace elements are organized in such a way that the sum is more than the parts. Evolution is also negatively entropic. Look at it in terms of thermodynamics. Life changes (evolves) when it makes use of new energy sources. A new species often moves into and unexploited niche, for instance. Of course individual lives also follow a Schaubergian spiral. First we are born and grow to maturity (negatively entropic), then we mature and age and finally die (entropic). This follows the Schaubergian spiral in that the growth cycle could be called implosive or centripital and the aging and dying is the explosive or centrifugal.

In the universe, matter and energy become more complex (higher on Periodic Scale and for energy more complex) as we follow the negative entropic/implosive spiral in. "In" might mean into a star or into a black hole. Once in, the matter and energy are re-radiated in the form of a nova or as an energy discharge from that sun or black hole. Even the earth follows this pattern, energy/matter stream into the polar regions and energy is re-radiated at the equator. This is the reason the fastest motion of the earth, roughly 1000 miles per hour, is at the equator. Planets, stars and black holes do not rotate at the poles. Rotation is only one expression of the energy release for these bodies.

Returning to the apple, yes, sugar and so on are the values we ascribe to that fruit but in the Indian tradition of Prana, fruit are the most dense
source of that life energy. Just as the Schappeller sphere absorbed aether might not an apple or other fruit absorb aether, Prana or Vril energy directly from the surrounding space itself? Hans Coler, in trying to explain his free enrgy device to the British after the war, claimed the energy was "Raum Energie", space energy. Absorbing as much of this aether/Vril might be one of the goals of runic exercise (at least in my mind) and so a path to self-improvement. I think all these names for aether are describing the same thing and I think that aether energy is the fundamental energy which can be transformed into electric energy or life force and other types of energy down stream (so to speak).

Airmanareiks
Monday, February 5th, 2007, 09:15 PM
In the universe, matter and energy become more complex (higher on Periodic Scale and for energy more complex) as we follow the negative entropic/implosive spiral in.
Even the earth follows this pattern, energy/matter stream into the polar regions and energy is re-radiated at the equator.


You mean like FerroElectric Ice?

Lyfing
Friday, February 9th, 2007, 10:11 PM
Mankind has throughout history atemtped to set themselves, and thus thier societies in accord with the "laws" of the universe as they are percieved. To create, in some way, an harmonious interpretation/application of ideas experienced for the proper functioning of the individual in it's society. The Blackfoot thought the animals were all willing sacrifices and only needed a good ole' buffalo dance, "funeral", to keep jumping off the cliff and coming back alive. The Ainu had it that a feast of thier (bear's) own flesh and gifts to show how well they were treated here on earth would bring visits in the future. The planters whose vegetables of whatever kind just so happened to be the dismembered parts of "somebody special" sown as seed were celebrated in rituals such as those of the Aztecs who fasted for a while as a girl danced around town dressed up as corn later to have her head cut off and a room of corn bathed in her blood while being skinned so a "priest" could dance around town in her skin and celebrate the/her harvest. The Einherjar battle alongside Odin at Ragnarok, the Fenris wolf kills Odin and Vidar kills the Fenris wolf, "life feeds on life", wyrd renews it all and Balder takes his place. The black hole sucks us up and spits us out. The cannibal ogress is going to eat us and spit us out after we are as "Bright as Balder"..and then we will be eaters and spitters ourselves..especially if we have undergone certain primitive mutilations..such as being killed by Hodur.

-Lyfing

Airmanareiks
Friday, February 9th, 2007, 10:35 PM
The Ra material is talking with an cosmic being. While I do not agree with it 100 percent, I believe the viewpoint is generally correct (Existence is Higher levels of mentality/Mind - Rigsthula/estates)

RA:
In general, the archetypical mind is a representation of facets of the One Infinite Creation. The (ODIN ALL) Father archetype corresponds to the male or positive aspect of electromagnetic energy and is active, creative, and radiant as is our local sun. The (JORD/ERD)Mother archetype corresponds to the female or negative aspect of electromagnetic energy and is receptive or magnetic as is our Earth as it receives the sun’s rays and brings forth life via third-density fertility. (Thus, Mannus is born from Erd/Zio Fader as a man is procreating with a women). (A mean of 6th and 1st density, pure mind and pure matter, relatively speaking).

Each archetype presents an aspect of the One Infinite Creation to teach the individual mind/body/spirit complex according to the calling or the electromagnetic configuration of mind of the entity. Teaching is done via the intuition. With the proper seeking or mind configuration, the power of will uses the spirit as a shuttle
to contact the appropriate archetypical aspect necessary for the teach/learning. In the same way each of the other informers of intuition are contacted. They are hierarchical and proceed from the entity’s own subconscious mind to race or planetary mind, to guides, to Higher Self, to archetypical mind, to cosmic mind or intelligent infinity. Each is contacted by the spirit serving as shuttle according to the harmonized electromagnetic configuration of the seeker’s mind and the information sought.

_____________

This correlates to the world as Fire/Electricity/Hate vs Ice/Gravity/Love. God is Odin who is Mind (Hugr and Munnin) which is electrical waves (flux/becoming) in space and time existing in black holes and throughout space time. Those having the most powerful minds (Odinists) as the cosmo creators and rulers of worlds.



The black hole sucks us up and spits us out. The cannibal ogress is going to eat us and spit us out after we are as "Bright as Balder"..and then we will be eaters and spitters ourselves..especially if we have undergone certain primitive mutilations..such as being killed by Hodur.-Lyfing


The black hole is where NON ARYANS go (esp Jesus Lovers). The black hole is death, it is almost pure matter, it is pure gravity, a suction (give your life to Jesus), thus there is no mind/life there.

Aryans tru, in line with rede/irminsul/God/Mind, live IN the ETERNAL cosmic fire, between pure fire/ice. This is where asgard, valhall is. Aryans have eternal life and are the rulers of worlds IF they follow Aryanism. They judge and sent ALL souls to their abodes, wheither Nifelhel (black hole) for sinners (Lokeans) to their proper abode for other races (reincarnation).

The Black Sun/Hole is not Odin or Asgard but Hela.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Tuesday, February 13th, 2007, 06:34 AM
The black hole is where NON ARYANS go (esp Jesus Lovers). The black hole is death, it is almost pure matter, it is pure gravity, a suction (give your life to Jesus), thus there is no mind/life there.

Aryans tru, in line with rede/irminsul/God/Mind, live IN the ETERNAL cosmic fire, between pure fire/ice. This is where asgard, valhall is. Aryans have eternal life and are the rulers of worlds IF they follow Aryanism. They judge and sent ALL souls to their abodes, wheither Nifelhel (black hole) for sinners (Lokeans) to their proper abode for other races (reincarnation).

The Black Sun/Hole is not Odin or Asgard but Hela.

I am of exactly the reverse opinion for reasons I have stated. If there is a conscience higher than that of man, it is found in the Black Sun since this is the most negatively enthropic entity in the gallaxy. It also gives order to all the stars in the gallaxy and touches them all using "gravity", whatever that is. Without a black hole, there is no gallaxy. It is the creator of everything we can see and measure.

Was there a concept of Sin in the Germanic order of things? To me this concept is all Christian-Jewish.

Airmanareiks
Tuesday, February 13th, 2007, 09:44 PM
What is consciousness?

Without defining what it is and then proving its validity (location in space/time) it is just an assertion.

The black hole is the end of creation, the end of identity of a being, where all life is destroyed, lit. crushed into non existence. Souls/identity is within the logos/andas/ases, living eternally IN the cosmos.

karolvs
Wednesday, February 14th, 2007, 07:05 AM
Demigorgona, I think I love you because that was a brilliant display of thought and logic, however, I have to ask, where the heat came from, from nothing came something and that is highly improbable. The fact is we just don't know, and never will, so, while some choose to ignore it, some choose to worship it, and some even choose to give it a face and features, we just cannot ever know until death. (If we even find out then)

Aupmanyav
Wednesday, February 14th, 2007, 05:52 PM
Some people say (and I concur with them) that there is nothing like soul, so what we can know is only in this life time and not later.

Lyfing
Friday, February 16th, 2007, 08:20 PM
If there is such a thing as a black hole it could be associated most definetly with Hela, the Fenris wolf, the Midgard serpent, and you name it.( Even the Fimbulvinter). With joining Odin during Ragnarok as Einherjar one "defeats/dances with wyrd" this "black hole" ( Hela's house ) and rises anew as "bright as" Balder. Or even goes into space and fights off the incoming "giants" and saves the world. And as far as the similarity with "the Jesus story" goes..that is obvious. I doubt it's psychological impact in whichever way one dresses it up can be questioned..in regard to the "adventures of the heroes".

But that brings up the question just who is that "hero" , or better yet what led to us associating ourselves with such and why? (..and can you believe how it ended up sometimes.?.) Some have suggested it's Mars climbing up the axix mundi and mating with Venus among other things during some time when the planets where aligned differently ultimately resulting in cataclismic conditions in which it would seem a "new world" was created. Thus providing an actual scientific observation for the mythological motiffs from all over the place and if one was really out there they might could say ."What if during a time when the worlds were aligned differently the same astrological forces which mess with us today did so in a much closer way, when the gods walked amonst us, fashioning the very psychological forces of Father, Mother, and Son (..Saturn, Venus, and Mars..)(..sounds like Freud) even before the dawn of our very conciousness when we got along with the animals pretty well as in paradise..because we were one( sounds like Jung )..and the subsequent cataclisms to follow created Man with all his messed up notions all seeking to get back in harmony with the universe ..and here we are..the heroes of the day..ordering the universe and keeping the sky from falling...".

-Lyfing

Airmanareiks
Friday, February 16th, 2007, 10:37 PM
If there is such a thing as a black hole it could be associated most definetly with Hela, the Fenris wolf, the Midgard serpent, and you name it.( Even the Fimbulvinter). With joining Odin during Ragnarok as Einherjar one "defeats/dances with wyrd" this "black hole" ( Hela's house ) and rises anew as "bright as" Balder. Or even goes into space and fights off the incoming "giants" and saves the world.
-Lyfing

I agree.
I identify the blackhole with Nifelheim. Or Mistheim which literally is "Gas Chamber". The abode of Death of Hela/Loki, gravity, darkness and Fimbulwinter/Frost giants verses the Sun/big bang which is Fire jotuns. In between is spirits/tivar/asgard.

I like your analogy of Einherjar (Solitary warriors of God/Odin) who like Wotan, ride Irminsul, ride cosmos for eternity (thus eternal life having pleasure with war and women (valkeries)) who dance around this Black hole while apostates get sucked into Hel and die. :thumbup

Be tru and have eternal pleasure, be untru, fail the test of life and die (as the wyrd sisters (past memory/Skuld/Debt) will record your life, and Odin judges it in Urd. You do not have to convert anyone, you have to be tru and better yet, connected to the Ases. Once connected, you go to the ases after death. The strongest Godman has more power. Heirarchy of power in the cosmos. So gain your Godpower, then have control over your destiny. Those who are atheists, foreigners, "evil doers" get judged and reincarnate, exterminated or tortured.

From a self interest standpoint, it is best to be the highest aryan godman, building your mind/body/soul. This puts you in your place in the cosmos. People w/o a soul, or those that give their soul away (giving it to "Jesus" or a state) are slaves when they die.

Lyfing
Saturday, February 17th, 2007, 03:58 PM
"Three roots of the tree uphold it and stand exceeding broad: one is among the Æsír; another among the Rime-Giants, in that place where aforetime was the Yawning Void; the third stands over Niflheim, and under that root is Hvergelmir, and Nídhöggr gnaws the root from below. But under that root which turns toward the Rime-Giants is Mímir's Well, wherein wisdom and understanding are stored; and he is called Mímir, who keeps the well. He is full of ancient lore, since he drinks of the well from the Gjallar-Horn....The third root of the Ash stands in heaven; and under that root is the well which is very holy, that is called the Well of Urdr; there the gods hold their tribunal.." -Prose Edda, Brodeur trans.

If we look at the life of Yggdrasil as the life of the world then the roots of life are "fed" by ( divine ) consciousness from Asgard, ( the experience of ) matter from Mimir's well, and ( the apparent harmonius ) forms consciousness takes in matter, which of course sprang from Hvergelmir.

"In Eldhrimnir Andhrimnir cooks
Sæhrimnir’s seething flesh,-
The best of food, but few men know
On what fare the warriors feast."

"Eldhrimnir - 'Sooty with Fire', kettle of Valhall, Andhrimnir - 'Sooty-Faced', the cook who prepares the boar Saehrimnir - 'The Blackened'." -Grimnismol 18, Bellows trans.

Sooty with Fire is Hverlgelmir " the seething cauldron" where Sooty-Faced, the conscious cook boils The Blackened. From Hvergelmir Audhumbla "licked" Buri. From Ymir the Sons of the Son of Buri fashioned the world. Odin sacrificed his eye to join a giant in experience. "Thither came Allfather and craved one drink of the well; but he got it not until he had laid his eye in pledge. So says Voluspa:

All know I, Odin, where the eye thou hiddest,
In the wide-renowned well of Mímir;
Mímir drinks mead every morning
From Valfather's wage. Wit ye yet, or what?" -Prose Edda, Brodeur trans.

The story of Hermod going to see Rossthiof "horse thief" on Sleipnir to bind him and make him talk about the death of Balder and the vengence of Vali seems to be the same idea as Odin drinking from Mimir's well. As are the stories where a god takes on a giant in a competion of wits to learn thier experience..( or Bor marries Bestla ) only to kill them and fasion a new world ( as if ).

-Lyfing

Airmanareiks
Saturday, February 17th, 2007, 09:23 PM
I view Irminsul as Consciousness or God (tivar). From Urd, which is being, or the present, Odin is. Existence is the expression of Runes, or rede/rita ideas (rune syllables).

Mimir's well is the past or Skuld (fate). Mimir means memory and Mimir is Munin, the eagle which remembers the past. The present if Hugr (Thought/Urd) which is the raven Hugin. Odin's wolves represent time. They are the devours of being. Devours of energy for life takes energy consumption (food) to live.

Aryans or Guthiuda (godpeople) are born from Rig son of Odin (Being/Mind) and become Gods by following the godway/godvegr/ariowegaz, which is what Odin did when he incarnates. He sacrificed himself TO himself. Hung on Irminsul to gain wisdom (mimer's well, well of the past), thus Odin became a full god. Every aryan/odinist, must do the same to gain full godhood and sit at the highest abode after death. Remember, that there are different abodes which coincides with race, which is a beings physico/sprito/mental substance. Like goes with like. Thus, estates, and hierarchy of estates (Rigsthula).

Like you, I see the black hole as Nifelheim/Hvergelmir /Jotunheim/Matter/Darkness, the white hole as Muspelheim/Mimir/Fire/Pure Will/Energy and inbetween as Urd/Odin/Logos/logi/asgard/Irminsu/Tyr/Frey/Ing/Mannus.


Being or God/Mind is from Urd/Urminsul.