PDA

View Full Version : Who Created the Universe?


KveldulfR
Saturday, January 21st, 2012, 12:26 PM
I know the Ginnungagap story. I know Odin slew Ymir and the rest of it. I know we all, including the Gods, are subject to the Norns, but did this universe just pop out of nowhere? Didn't there have to be a creator? Even the Norns must be subject to some other force.

Bernhard
Saturday, January 21st, 2012, 12:55 PM
It depends on how you define "creation". In contrast to Christian creation Germanic paganism considers the universe to be eternal. There has never been a creation out of nothing. The same can be seen in Greek philosophy and other indo-european paganisms. What is called "creation" mostly refers to bringing order to chaos and this is what the Gods did. The Gods ordered what has always been. This doesn't necessarily mean that there was a temporal ordering coinciding with some kind of temporal coming into existence of the Gods. As the pagan philosopher Sallustius explains, the Gods are eternal and so is their "creation". They never actually created but their creation exists because they exist in the same way there is light because the sun exists. In this way the myths which speak of an ordering of the chaos by the Gods rather reveal certain metaphysical truths than historic events. When the Gods created/ordered out of Ymir this is mythically depicted as something that happened within a certain timeframe. It tells us that the Gods were before the creation. What it actually means though is that the Gods are prior to creation on a metaphysical level.
As I said the ordering was done by the Gods and this is the only type of creation that is relevant from an exoteric point of view. One could ask the question what poses the actual origin of Being in Germanic mythology; this will probably lead to a lot of speculation though. We have only our myths to search for this and comparing Greek philosophy to Greek mythology shows that this alone is hardly enough to teach us about the true nature of Being. The neo-platonic idea of the One giving birth to the supreme God could have been part of our ancestors' worldview, but we can't be sure about that. The polarity of Niflheim and Muspelheim seems to hide some important metaphysical knowledge as well, with the combination of the female and material (Niflheim) and the male and immaterial (Muspelheim) leading to the eventual birth of Ymir. Frederik Sanders has even thought about the possibility of Surtr being the primordial Odin and Audhumla the primordial Frigga. The fact that Snorri (being the only one) also speaks of a creation of Niflheim doesn't make things much easier. This could as well reveal the idea of a metaphysical hierarchy of the two. The creation of life by the sparks coming into contact with the ice could thus be a symbol of the spiritual manifesting itself in the material.

Kauz R. Waldher
Saturday, January 21st, 2012, 01:06 PM
If anyone claims to know the answer to this question, they are arrogant and idiotic at the same time. I certainly believe a mysterious and unknownable force created the universe ... our stories are dumbed down versions of the truth. In ways that our puny human brains can understand.

Bearkinder
Saturday, January 21st, 2012, 01:19 PM
I seem to remember coming across a few lines that hinted that the gods actually had those above them that they revered which made the structure from which the gods wove the world.

But it was very short and no more precise than what I just said. Whether that's actual Germanic myth or something added to appease you know who, I can't say.

Bernhard
Saturday, January 21st, 2012, 01:20 PM
If anyone claims to know the answer to this question, they are arrogant and idiotic at the same time. I certainly believe a mysterious and unknownable force created the universe ... our stories are dumbed down versions of the truth. In ways that our puny human brains can understand.

In a way that is true, yet I wouldn't call them that dumbed down. They still make quite an amount of effort in discovering their hidden truths necessary, which is not something every "puny human" is capable of.

"(...) just as the Gods have made the goods of sense common to all, but those of intellect only to the wise, so the myths state the existence of Gods to all, but who and what they are only to those who can understand."

"Besides, to wish to teach the whole truth about the Gods to all produces contempt in the foolish, because they cannot understand, and lack of zeal in the good, whereas to conceal the truth by myths prevents the contempt of the foolish, and compels the good to practice philosophy."

-Sallustius-

KveldulfR
Saturday, January 21st, 2012, 01:25 PM
[QUOTE=Bernhard;1150728]It depends on how you define "creation". In contrast to Christian creation Germanic paganism considers the universe to be eternal. There has never been a creation out of nothing.


Doesn't the Big Bang do away with that idea?

KveldulfR
Saturday, January 21st, 2012, 01:27 PM
I seem to remember coming across a few lines that hinted that the gods actually had those above them that they revered which made the structure from which the gods wove the world.

But it was very short and no more precise than what I just said. Whether that's actual Germanic myth or something added to appease you know who, I can't say.

Boy I'd like to get my hands on that. Have thee any idea where you saw it?

Kauz R. Waldher
Saturday, January 21st, 2012, 01:30 PM
In a way that is true, yet I wouldn't call them that dumbed down. They still make quite an amount of effort in discovering their hidden truths necessary, which is not something every "puny human" is capable of.

"(...) just as the Gods have made the goods of sense common to all, but those of intellect only to the wise, so the myths state the existence of Gods to all, but who and what they are only to those who can understand."

"Besides, to wish to teach the whole truth about the Gods to all produces contempt in the foolish, because they cannot understand, and lack of zeal in the good, whereas to conceal the truth by myths prevents the contempt of the foolish, and compels the good to practice philosophy."

-Sallustius-

Yes, I agree. I also think that ritual can and will unlock some of these mysteries. You know, unlocking a sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth senses. THEN maybe the wisdom can be comprehended. And please understand, I do not think Germanic mythology is dumb. Not at all. It's crafted very artfully and it's "our's", I think it needed to be written in symbols.

KveldulfR
Saturday, January 21st, 2012, 01:30 PM
If anyone claims to know the answer to this question, they are arrogant and idiotic at the same time. I certainly believe a mysterious and unknownable force created the universe ... our stories are dumbed down versions of the truth. In ways that our puny human brains can understand.

I tend to agree. Although, an answer (lol..sort of) to that can be found in Christianity. This Unknowable, mysterious force reached down to mankind and made Himself known, well....as much as he wanted to make Himself known anyway.

renownedwolf
Saturday, January 21st, 2012, 01:34 PM
Doesn't the 1st law of thermodynamics state that energy can neither be created nor destroyed only change forms?

Hersir
Saturday, January 21st, 2012, 01:41 PM
Doesn't the 1st law of thermodynamics state that energy can neither be created nor destroyed only change forms?

Laws of physics also tells us that the normal laws don't apply on a micro level.

Primus
Saturday, January 21st, 2012, 02:26 PM
I'll answer this question as briefly and as honestly as I can.

I simply don't know nor care. I do believe in God but it behooves me not to spend every waking moment trying to explore the depths of time, space, matter and energy to figure out just how it happened. :)

KveldulfR
Saturday, January 21st, 2012, 02:28 PM
Doesn't the 1st law of thermodynamics state that energy can neither be created nor destroyed only change forms?

But it had to come from somewhere originally.

KveldulfR
Saturday, January 21st, 2012, 02:30 PM
I'll answer this question as briefly and as honestly as I can.

I simply don't know nor care. I do believe in God but it behooves me not to spend every waking moment trying to explore the depths of time, space, matter and energy to figure out just how it happened. :)

Well, since it might determine not only the choices you make on this earth and your destiny, possibly in eternity?, maybe you should care.

Bearkinder
Saturday, January 21st, 2012, 03:27 PM
In a way that is true, yet I wouldn't call them that dumbed down. They still make quite an amount of effort in discovering their hidden truths necessary, which is not something every "puny human" is capable of.

I think he means they were dumbed down such that even the foolish can understand that there are gods, and something else to seek, since if the truth were made known in full, no one, or nearly no one would understand. So they gave us stories that teach concepts that, on the surface, provide even the dumbest a guide to proper life and what is considered right and proper, yet hold deeper mysteries for those endowed with greater amounts of intelligence and wisdom.

But I could be wrong.

It depends on how you define "creation". In contrast to Christian creation Germanic paganism considers the universe to be eternal. There has never been a creation out of nothing.


Doesn't the Big Bang do away with that idea?

The big bang theory was just that: a theory, and is very flawed and more recent discoveries have pretty much disproven it and shown the massive flaws in the theory of general relativity.

Remember theories are just theories and cna be proven or disproven, but modern man has turned it into a religion who's faith is blinder than most others. Once one becomes prominent, they hail it as the truth in spite of any lack of evidence or contrarian evidence.

Even if it were correct, it only addresses the beginnings of this universe, not where that original (supposed) blast of energy came from.

Boy I'd like to get my hands on that. Have thee any idea where you saw it?

No idea, it was like two sentences in one of the dozen or so books over the last year I read about heathenry.

Kauz R. Waldher
Saturday, January 21st, 2012, 03:34 PM
There probably WAS a "big-bang", but that doesn't prove or disprove anything. I'm sure there were many big-bangs. So what? Life doesn't just come out of nowhere, especially with all this intricate design. But to think that one jewish god is sitting up in "heaven" looking at each of our individual lives, then getting involved in each one is absurd. Truly absurd. If there is in fact a god(s), which there is, it is not one that is conscious about "good and evil". It is a "force", a force that cannot be understood or witnessed within the parameter of the average human senses. Ethereal, Astral, Spiritual ... different realms of existence must be experienced.

velvet
Saturday, January 21st, 2012, 10:53 PM
I know the Ginnungagap story. I know Odin slew Ymir and the rest of it. I know we all, including the Gods, are subject to the Norns, but did this universe just pop out of nowhere? Didn't there have to be a creator? Even the Norns must be subject to some other force.


Ginnungagab is a two fold story, and the two parts should be carefully seperated. The "creation of the universe" that also brought forth the "gods" (and at that stage they are not yet gods, they are immaterial forces) and the "creation of the world" where the gods, like Bernhard had correctly pointed out, ordered what was already there. Still, both creations dont have a creator or creators.

Personally I dont think one can understand Ginnungagab without astrophysical knowledge und understaning thereof (I will agree that this sort of stuff makes lots of headaches). The simple contrast of Ice at one point and Heat at another will set forces into motion, there does not need to be "someone" to push it. This contrast is the motor of the Big Bang (which, regardless of its detailed events, is required to explain why the universe still expands and at its outer "ends" with still accelerating speed, while we, near the center, already are ordered and stable). In contrast to common belief and since decades outdated/disproven assumptions, the Big Bang did not bring forth the universe as we know it today, with small suns, planets and galaxies. The first generation universe was inhabited only by gas giants which probably had itself the size of the galaxies. This is especially interesting when one looks at Ginnungagab and tries to reconcile the "creation of the universe" with reality, because Ginnungagab speaks of giants who are created (by forces, not gods) by heat "carving" them from ice. Obviously rather androgyne / hermaphrodite giants who procreated offspring with themselves. At some point, these first generation gas giants became supernovae, and their implosion and explosion gave birth to the galaxies we know today, with suns, planets, a black hole (the implosion part) at their center to keep everything together, and indeed the proto-god/force which did all this; Science calls this force gravity, the great orderer of everything, Ginnungagab calls the great orderer Odin. In astrophysics, evidence seems to also point to that the first generation gas giants consisted of a sort of proto-Helium (not really identical with the Helium we know today) only and that other matter only was born due to these supernovae, because they brought forth a row of chemical processes in which particles experiences physical change. Helium is still considered to be the proto-matter of all other matters. In the first generation universe only the nuklear forces played a role, in some theories it is even assumed that the other forces, most prominently gravity, did not even exist (as they require matter, but the superlight Helium didnt possess own mass and therefore also no own gravity. The only gravitional-like force was the fire of the burning gas, since heat itself (as a strong nuklear force) generates a gravity-like effect). The ordering force of gravity forbids the continued existence of these supergiant gas giants after the event of the supernovae (through their giantness, one exploding supernovae infected all others by necessity (although at the outer ends of space they may still exist and not yet be affected, or even be still in the preformation state, as the nebular fingers probably indicate)), Ginnungagap tells us that Odin slayed Ymir and formed the world from his dead body, which is merely a poetic formulation of the ex-and implosion of the gas giants and how their dead bodies gave birth to matter and more forces which formed the galaxy and our earth from the emerging chaos. Indeed in accordance with astrophysical laws that both matter and energy cannot be destroyed but only transformed.

What then comes in Ginnungagap is much harder to decipher and might not refer to the universe or galaxies at all anymore, but must be viewed in an earthly and human context. Imho the Odin of the first part of Ginnungagap is not the same as the Odin later in the story (I think to remember that also the spelling in the Edda is indeed different, one time Oðhinn and one time Oðin, but I could be wrong), but may be merely a reference to his importance as once again ordering force, but it may well be that he is, and just his "essence", his way of working is different, or even that the earthly Odin is a product of "himself", of the major force out there. Again we can see a parallel in astrophysics, the gravitational force on earth functions slightly different than that in the giant dimensions of the universe and also on the level of Quantum Mechanics, although all three grand gravitational theories are on the way to get merged without invalidating any, because their differences stem from the conditions under which they operate. We will know when the scientists solved the problem.

However, there are also other forces that were born, and who play a role for earth and humans too, but it's quite complex and I'm not yet sure about their nature. Wyrd, Orlog and the Norns are another fascinating aspect, where I think that they have been there already in the first generation universe, so of course the gods are "subject" to them, as are we and everything that exists. There are still lots of questions though...

Ocko
Sunday, January 22nd, 2012, 12:05 AM
there is a beginning only when time is thought as linear.

I would expect our ancestors thought time as cyclical, that means like a ring which has no end and no beginning.


The 'medicine wheel' of the olden germanics was the yearly cycle with 8 spokes, marking the solstices and equinoxes and the middletimes inbetween.

In the yearly cycle you have winter, the time of darkness, spring, the time of creation, summer the time of ripening and autumn the time of harvest.

those cycles repeat endlessly. That might have been in an analogue conclusion also true for cosmic events.



Whether a conscious and selfaware being was the source of it is pure speculation.

The russian Veda (staroveda) speaks about darkness and suddenly light pops up and from there on there is a struggle. the light is sourced somewhere in the cosmos (also much more multidimensional than just 3).

It slowly takes over the darkness. (Btw the Earth is on the outer edges of that light therefore we encounter dark beings and light beings on Earth and the fight between them. Our friends the Jews are the main representants of creatures of darkness, possessing no soul, therefore lacking love, compassion, mercy, conscience etc).

It is called there the day of Svarog and the night of Svarog and seems to be cyclical there as well.


At the darkest point in the year the light appears (today it is Santa Claus, the Mickey Mouse version of modern lore). That is a celebration of the original coming of light at the darkest point in time.

Kauz R. Waldher
Sunday, January 22nd, 2012, 02:35 PM
My concept of time is cyclic. I learned this from the best. I also learned that we must remove the concept of time from our conscious, that it indirectly limits our imagination and inhibits spiritual growth. Just read "The Red Book" by Jung. I can't explain anything the way he does. But all these "rationalists" and atheists are hurting our folk to a seriously damaging proportion. There is absolutely NOTHING rational about our existence. There is absolutely nothing rational about the creation of the universe. The key to unlocking these riddles and answers is part of our DNA.

Sigyn
Sunday, January 22nd, 2012, 03:16 PM
Who created the universe?

Since I don't believe in God or even in a disembodied "prime mover", I tend to think the universe appeared into existence by itself. Other than that, I neither know nor care. You could ponder these matters of space and time for years upon years, and be none the wiser. :P

I can't explain anything the way he does. But all these "rationalists" and atheists are hurting our folk to a seriously damaging proportion. There is absolutely NOTHING rational about our existence. There is absolutely nothing rational about the creation of the universe.
Well, rationalism was obviously created by humans as a way to understand their own existence better...but so was religion.

Kauz R. Waldher
Monday, January 23rd, 2012, 02:45 AM
Who created the universe?

Since I don't believe in God or even in a disembodied "prime mover", I tend to think the universe appeared into existence by itself. Other than that, I neither know nor care. You could ponder these matters of space and time for years upon years, and be none the wiser. :P


Well, rationalism was obviously created by humans as a way to understand their own existence better...but so was religion.

I'm not saying a "who" created the universe. I'm saying that people try to use "rational logic" to piece together things we think we "know" like some sort of puzzle. All i'm saying is trying to rationalize something way beyond our conscious spectrum is naive at best. Like this statement, "I know there are no gods, because if there were children would not die".
Stupid shit like that. As if these answers were based upon simple human attachment and emotion toward another physical human. To achieve a higher understanding we will want to be more or less "DE-tached" from physicality. Every braniac of their time thinks they hold a sort of key ... when if they thought about it a little better .. they'd realize that the men and women who gained knowledge in the past did it in very unconventional ways and means and mostly were considered weirdoes. Rationality is not a reality. Unless in regards to daily decision making and interaction with other humans. You don't use "common sense" when dealing in spiritual matters. It's this "know-it-all" attitude that is halting progress. As you all know, mankind is NOT evolving. Maybe technologically, but nothing beyond that.

EQ Fighter
Monday, January 23rd, 2012, 03:29 AM
Rationality is not a reality. Unless in regards to daily decision making and interaction with other humans. You don't use "common sense" when dealing in spiritual matters. It's this "know-it-all" attitude that is halting progress. As you all know, mankind is NOT evolving. Maybe technologically, but nothing beyond that.

I guess I’m missing your point here.
Rationality is NOT Reality??
Man is NOT Evolving?

LOL!
I think the opposite is true.

More evolution has happened in the last hundred years than in the last hundred thousand of human history. And if we do not destroy ourselves as a species this is only the beginning.

In the several hundred thousand years of human existence where we had some aspect of civilization, most of humanity lived in the dark.

It has been in only the last few hundred years that any real form of knowledge has had any concrete bases of understanding.

Any form of nature or aspect of the world which they did not understand was "Magic". They only problem with Magic is that it is not real, science on the other hand IS hard core reality. based on facts and numbers.

It was Science lifted humanity out of the darkness. And rationality is the key to that.

Does this discount religion in the contest that religion is a vehicle of what we will call faith?

No!

Reality is Science and religion are not one against the other, but religion is more on the poetry side of understanding. Religion is the face we put on the vastness of space and time, but in reality we are all in a growing process.

Feyn
Monday, January 23rd, 2012, 04:07 AM
Well lets have a quick look at what physics did find out so far, shall we ? Roughly 13.4-13.7 billion years ago we have suddenly time, the laws of physics formed (how exactly we donīt know) and quantum energy suddenly produced particles that could exist for longer then a few nanoseconds before they annihilate again. We can go pretty close mathematically to this first moment, but not exactly reach it (to be precise, our formulas suddenly stop making sense and errupt into total chaos).
Now try to explain this to our ancestors. The gods ordered the chaos that existed and formed all that exists from this chaos sounds like a pretty good AND TRUE explanation to me.

Ocko
Monday, January 23rd, 2012, 05:23 AM
It seems to be similar to the creation of I.

I do not remeber when it starts and how it came to pass. Out of the fog of unclear memories at one point I noticed I was I.

It seems to be that the creation of the Gods, of consciousness might have gone similar. Out of a fog (created by heat and coldness) slowly something formed until it became at some point self-conscious.

The Horned God
Monday, January 23rd, 2012, 07:10 AM
The question is flawed. When you start by asking "who created the universe?" you are severely narrowing the field of possible answers by prejudicing yourself against any explanation that doesn't involve a conscious creator.

It would be much more logically sound to start by asking "how did the Universe come into being?" rather than "who created it?" because that way you are open to examining all possible explanations and are therefor more likely to arrive at something approaching the correct conclusion.

Kauz R. Waldher
Monday, January 23rd, 2012, 08:30 AM
I guess I’m missing your point here.
Rationality is NOT Reality??
Man is NOT Evolving?

LOL!
I think the opposite is true.

More evolution has happened in the last hundred years than in the last hundred thousand of human history. And if we do not destroy ourselves as a species this is only the beginning.

In the several hundred thousand years of human existence where we had some aspect of civilization, most of humanity lived in the dark.

It has been in only the last few hundred years that any real form of knowledge has had any concrete bases of understanding.

Any form of nature or aspect of the world which they did not understand was "Magic". They only problem with Magic is that it is not real, science on the other hand IS hard core reality. based on facts and numbers.

It was Science lifted humanity out of the darkness. And rationality is the key to that.

Does this discount religion in the contest that religion is a vehicle of what we will call faith?

No!

Reality is Science and religion are not one against the other, but religion is more on the poetry side of understanding. Religion is the face we put on the vastness of space and time, but in reality we are all in a growing process.

Again, you're using technological advancement as your "measuring stick". I'm talking about "spiritually", humans are not evolving spiritually. And because of that, we are not evolving socially. Hence our civilizations being stolen and plundered before our very eyes, and we're too busy on our "I-Pads" looking at porn. Our civilizations are totally degenerate. ALL of them now. We have none that we would call the pinnacle of our peoples. We are on a serious descent spiritually. And it's been a steady one for quite sometime. Are you unaware of this?
I said it before, magick is absolutely "real" .. not for folks like you of course, but it's very real to me. I use it everyday. Science is nothing but so-called educated guesses. Are you kidding me? Every new year brings new information that disproves last years theories.

Feyn
Monday, January 23rd, 2012, 08:58 AM
Well you do have a point here, horned god. But if you take a look into physics (again), to be more specific quantum mechanics and all the theories derived from it, you make a few astonishing realizations, one of them is that the universe seems to need an observer to exist, that everything in it has to be observed to exist.
Now i know it sounds crazy, but i will try to explain it to you and everybody else. But to really do that I will need more space then a simple post has to offer, so i will start a new thread for this explanation in the Natural Sciences part of the forum. It will have the title :" the double slit experiment and its implications". If you have the patience to follow me i promise you to present you a simple experiment that has blown the mind of everyone who really understood it. It is an experiment that was performed over several generations in at least hundreds of different variations by many of the greatest minds on the planet, and yet it is so simple that a 10 year old can perform it and understand the basic implications.
But i will need some time for research to find good videos etc.

Kauz R. Waldher
Monday, January 23rd, 2012, 09:05 AM
"As the highest value and supreme dominant in the psychic hierarchy, the God-image is immediately related to, or identical with, the self, and everything that happens to the God-image has an effect on the latter. Any uncertainty about the God-image causes a profound uneasiness in the self, for which reason the question is generally ignored because of its painfulness. But that does not mean that it remains unasked in the unconscious.

What is more, it is answered by views and beliefs like materialism, atheism, and similar substitutes, which spread like epidemics. They crop up wherever and whenever one waits in vain for the legitimate answer. The ersatz product represses the real question into the unconscious and destroys the continuity of historical tradition which is the hallmark of civilization. The result is bewilderment and confusion.

Materialistic atheism with its utopian chimeras forms the religion of all those rationalistic movements which delegate the freedom of personality to the masses and thereby extinguish it. Stagnation in these matters is threatened in the long run with a lethal end."
-- C.G. Jung

The Horned God
Monday, January 23rd, 2012, 09:48 AM
Feyn, I'm familiar with the 2 slit experiment. However my understanding of it is not that "every object requires an observer in order to exist" but rather that objects (subatomic particles actually) may exist in an infinite number of locations until the action of an observer forces them to "choose" which location they actually do exist in. It is as if there is some force maintaining cause and effect in the universe.

However, while it is true that we don't yet understand why the two slit experiment works the way it does it would still be quite a leap to therefor conclude that there must be conscious force controlling the universe. You still have all your work ahead of you if you want to prove the existence of god from the two slit experiment.

velvet
Monday, January 23rd, 2012, 01:02 PM
Well you do have a point here, horned god. But if you take a look into physics (again), to be more specific quantum mechanics and all the theories derived from it, you make a few astonishing realizations, one of them is that the universe seems to need an observer to exist, that everything in it has to be observed to exist.

All this experiment, and similar like Schrödinger's Cat, does prove is that we need to observe something in order to "know" (or believe) that it exists.

Now, the problem with "we" in this context is that we are very limited. We must rely on technology to observe the Quantum Mechanic level f.e., and our technology is not yet in the position to observe that level really. But we develop always new technology. In the meantime we've developed technology that makes Dark Matter "visible" (weak gravitational lensing), something that we were convinced that it must be there, and now we can observe it (even if only indirectly, since dark matter, as the name already implies, does not reflect light and is therefore invisible for all technology that relies on viewability by reflecting of light, ie cameras; the distance disallows any other form of investigation for the time being until we invented space ships). However, our current technology doesnt allow us to state with 100% certainty this or that is true or not true, and this is especially true for Quantum Mechanics, because we just start scratching on the surface of this.

Btw, most theories that are derived from the theory of Quantum Mechanics are really big big BS and one should be careful with believing them just because "scientists" made them. In addition, many of these theories employ assumptions and axioms from the String-Theory complex, which is, apart from the M-Theory (which now is a standalone theory and threw most of its old, string-theoretic assumptions/axioms over board), meanwhile proven by and large wrong. As such, most of the Quantum-Mechanic derivation theories have become nothing but mental masturbation of "scientists" who cannot let go their believes, despite them lacking any scientifically proven base meanwhile.

Just some thoughts on this :)

Bearkinder
Monday, January 23rd, 2012, 02:16 PM
The problem with the two-slit experiment and other quantum experiments is the assumptions made by the "scientists". When I went through my modern physics courses in university, I found modern science (dealing with quantum mechanics, string theory, etc) to be the blindest of religions because the scientists set themselves up as god, and once done, they cannot bear to admit they were wrong.

I brought forth the question on these quantum experiments "Why do we think that observation of a quantum event dictates the outcome, rather than the apparatus used to give us data changes the outcome? We cannot measure both the true position and energy state of particles at the same time (because measuring one affects the other), so rather than thinking our passive observation of the two-slit experiment determines the outcome, why not consider that the apparatus used to measure which slit a particle goes through actually changes the quantum state of the particle to yield a dispersal pattern, rather than an interference pattern?"

Going through many minutes of evasive and vague answers, it boiled down to: "I said so." Because they wanted to be god, and could not accept that things were not as they hypothesized. From the tone of it, it was not that they couldn't admit that their measuring was affecting the outcome, nor even that their theories were wrong, but that their observation was not enough to change the outcome. They so desperately want to be god that they set up experiments and findings with false premises, and if they have to, lie about it.

We could also go into the body of evidence for evolutionary mutations leading from primates to humans being fake. Everything from turkey bones and primate skulls, to entire skulls and other bones being manufactured out of plaster-of-paris to propagate a lie.

No, science is truly one of those things where you must believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see.

OneWolf
Monday, January 23rd, 2012, 02:47 PM
I really don't know to much about physics or astronomy for that matter but
to me the universe is a living organism just as the planet earth is.

In outer space it seems that energy is being consumed like for example when
stars get sucked into black holes or a star consumes all it's fuel and becomes
a white dwarf.

As to who or what created the universe,your guess is as good as mine!


mcBV-cXVWFw

Feyn
Monday, January 23rd, 2012, 07:28 PM
@ bearkinder : of course we do get the one or other scientists every now and then who fakes results. But usually they are found pretty quick through peer review, you should know this ! As for what really changes the outcome, read my thread on the 2 slit experiment i promised : http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=1151314#post1151314

I believe that one of the variations i present answers these questions quite definitly. In a few words : the simple fact that we use a particle detector does not change it (proven experimentally, not because someone said so), only once we know the result it is really changed.
As for evolution, please ! Are you seriously trying to say evolution is just a conspiracy, and all those libraries full of evidence, those mountains of fossils etc are ALL FAKES ? Sorry but the arrogant one here is you, not science. It seems you donīt like evolution, so you try to construct a giant conspiracy, involving millions of people all over the world (evolution has evidence from almost every field of science). Answer me one simple question : the theory of evolution has made many precise predictions(one of which is DNA for example, what it does, how it works etc in much detail). How could it have done that if it is false ? Let me guess, all part of the conspiracy, right ? I really need to stop here, or i might get really mean. Just one more thing : you enjoy the perks of science EVERY SINGLE DAY of your life. You drive cars, use computers, have modern medicine, all the modern technology (which obviously works just fine, yet another impressive prove of the knowledge & insight science has given us) yet instead of being thankful , and give science the respect it so rightfully deserves, you kick it full force in the nuts, with a run-up ! You really think thats ok ? I DON`T !!! You donīt like science ? Fine by me, but then be so honest to stop using it, instead of being a hypocrite and use all the perks all the time, but claiming to hate it.
I mean i am sorry of you had a jerk as a science teacher, who isnīt able to answer this(actually not this complicated) question how we know this. There are versions of the double slit experiment which answer that question. But that is hardly a reason to claim that a whole profession, that consist of many of our greatest minds, would all be such losers. Sorry for my rude tone, but you started this ;)




@ horned god :

again you do have a point here, but if you look at all the variations of this experiment (of which i named just a few) you will see it shows what a central role a sentient observer plays here. It looks like the collapse of the wave function is caused by the sentient observer. If the wave function is not collapsed, it is smudged across space (all of it, literally). I can not see how under these circumstances bigger objects can form, let alone whole galaxies. Everything is everywhere so to speak, and that all at once,
I believe when the eddas speak about odin ordering the chaos that is really literally. With him as a sentient observer this chaos started to collapse, get ordered, and form matter. I know i cannot actually prove this using quantummechanics, but i can prove it is a logical possibility, that would explain a lot of the oddities of quantum mechanics. Ymir is in this picture the singularity of the big bang. Everything is formed from his body, literally again quite true. Also many other things in this myth do have their part in what science has found out so far. You need to take into account that the myth has changed quite a bit over the centuries, but all the core parts do fit what we know about the universe
I see the myths about the gods as simplificated stories that explain us humans what actually happened, but in a way that the people at the time could comprehend and understand. I believe that we are now a bit closer to understanding it, though still far far away. I find it quite fascinating that the eddas make so much sense in the light of modern science, but i guess you need to be a heathen to be able to comprehend that ;)



@ velvet: you would be astonished what our modern technology can do by now. If you are truly interested i can send you a few fascinating articles. For example a new photographic technique can actually photograph an atom, we can observe chemical reactions while they happen !!!




Now i donīt remember who that was, but someone mentioned the possibility that the universe itself could be sentient. I happen to believe that is the case. We are currently developing quantum computers. Basically those are computer chips that consist of elementary particles. Due to some oddities of QM it does not matter how far these particles are apart, they can directly "communicate" and thus do computations. Now with a normal computer you need double the amount of bits to double the computing power. With a quantum computer however each qubit (the bits of a quantum computer) doubles the computing power. Now imagine that the whole universe is one big ass quantum computer (the rules of QM not only allow that, depending on your interpretation they even suggest that). Wouldnt such a big computer develop a conciousness ? I think so ! The eddas mention that the gods are not all powerful, and that there is a power beyond them (the power that forms the wyrd, the norns may weave it, but they are also its slaves). I believe this power is the universe itself. But i also believe this is so way beyond us, that i am not even sure it cares we exist. But we do have the gods to look after us !

Scario
Monday, January 23rd, 2012, 07:42 PM
On evolution. It is a theory, not fact. There is still a missing link between us and the mountains of evidence, like Lucy. We still search for this missing link to merge creatures like Lucy, which to me looks like a chimp, to us. Where is this missing link. All these older bones out there of Lucy and such, and no in-between fossils of what was in between. So until Evolution becomes fact and not a theory, people shouldn't be pushing it as a fact.

Feyn
Monday, January 23rd, 2012, 08:33 PM
QUOTE:"On evolution. It is a theory, not fact."

I have the feeling every time i hear this argument a few of my braincells commit suicide to be put out of their misery ^^ First of all : evolution is both, a theory and a fact. How can i bet explain this ? Let us take the THEORY of gravity, which describes the fact of gravity. A theory in science is not what you think it is, or how a lay men understands the term. In science once we have collected enough evidence, that a majority of the scientific community supports it, we call it a theory. But no matter how much evidence we collect, we can never be 100% certain a theory will always be with us without change. With the development of new technologies we get new data, that might show us the theory was close to reality, but we have evidence that shows it is not close enough. So we develop a new theory, that is even closer to reality etc.etc. That goes also for the theory of evolution, which describes the fact of evolution. Just like we can observe gravity directly, we can observe evolution directly. For example think about bacteria developing resistance against antibiotica. We can also observe directly the splitting of a species into 2 species, that cant procreate any longer between the 2 groups. Since evolution is a process of gradual change the barriers here are not fixed points but gradual process via outbreeding depression.
Now about the famous missing link. First of all we have quite many links by now, especially between lucy and use there exists evidence for many forms in between. But even if those would not exist, we do have them for many other creatures. So unless we are so arrogant to think we are something special and did not evolve like the rest of life, we do have more then enough evidence for the evolution of men simply by showing us how the other creatures evolved.
We have also much other evidence through DNA. Have a look at this video here, to give you an impressive example :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk


I would really advise evolution doubters to have a look at the science that supports it. Fact is that 99.9% of the experts support evolution. They have studied the evidence in depth, and thatīs what they support. Especially impressive i do find the many extremely precise predictions this theory was able to make, that all came true. Now you can discuss about evidence all you want, but explain those exact predictions to me ! A theory, that makes this many impressive predictions has to have a lot of insight into nature. I do believe that through knowledge the ToE will undergo further changes, further and further refining our knowledge of it and nature, but it will always be a theory of evolution ,just as the theory of gravity will always be a theory of gravity.




@ moderators : if we do get more discussion about evolution in here, could you separate the debate into a second thread ? We are getting a "little" offtopic otherwise ;)

Scario
Monday, January 23rd, 2012, 09:12 PM
We have also much other evidence through DNA.

We have evidence that our DNA is 25% similar to Daffodils, does that make us flowers? No. We are similar to Chimps, but that doesn't mean we came from Chimps. Same as the Daffodils, similar, but not the same. There are no fossils that show a evolution from Lucy to us. There is Lucy, which is similar to a chimp, which to me means her species evolved to other primates, like monkeys. There are zero fossils out there that show Lucy, then a variation to something closer, to another variation, to another variation, etc, to us.

On the experience and believabilty of scientists and trust I have of their findings. A scientist is getting paid to prove his point, he doesn't prove it or get peers to accept it, his theory is worthless. We've had scientists over the years tell me that eggs were good for me, then bad, then good. Same on multiple foods and other things in life. I believe in evolution to an extent, but to link me to Lucy, who is a chimp, shares some of my DNA (So doesn't the Daffodil), doesn't mean I evolved from her or from other apes.

velvet
Monday, January 23rd, 2012, 09:45 PM
On evolution. It is a theory, not fact. There is still a missing link between us and the mountains of evidence, like Lucy. We still search for this missing link to merge creatures like Lucy, which to me looks like a chimp, to us. Where is this missing link. All these older bones out there of Lucy and such, and no in-between fossils of what was in between. So until Evolution becomes fact and not a theory, people shouldn't be pushing it as a fact.


First: humans did not develop from apes, human and apes share a common ancestor, which is quite something very very different.

Then there are two possibilities how a species emerges from another. Either by spontanuous mutation, then there is simply no missing link, because it is spontanous. Or by a sort of chain reaction caused by a change in one genelocus that enforces change in others. This change or "gradual evolution" (not taking into account the ongoing refinement) happens likewise very fast, within a few generations and stabilises very quickly. Since not everything that dies fossiles, it is fairly unlikely to find a fossile of the inbetween state, since they are few. And chances become ever lower the longer the time period in question is back in time, because earth changes all the time too. Where today is land, some million years ago was ocean or vice versa, which would destroy any fossiles. Also some regions of earth produce more fossiles (due to climate and ground conditions) than others. There's also a third option, two already seperate species mixing and producing something fairly new instantly through a new combination. Then there is also no "missing link", only the common ancestors and the new product. Such happened when Homo Sapiens mixed with Neanderthals, two human species seperated for thousands of years, with ongoing in-species evolution (or refinement) who then produce something new (a new species, to not make mistakes here) on interbreeding.

Species splitting does not automatically result in the inability to interbreed. We would still be able to interbreed with all other human species that ever walked earth. Also interbreeding with other great apes did occure among Blacks until very recently (~30,000 years), so since we are still able to interbreed with Blacks, it should also be possible (yet not advisable) to interbreed with Gorillas or Chimps.

Other species splitting leads sooner to the inability to interbreed, as is the case with Horse and Donkey (although they can produce offspring, this offspring is infertile), or great cats such as Tiger and Lion, where chances are 50:50 that the offspring is infertile. Their splitting from a common ancestor is not as far back in time as ours from the ancestor that we share with other great apes. It always depends on which genes and alleles are affected from "radical" change.



When you want to observe evolution, as in one species becoming another, look at the Russian Fox experiment. The selection for tameness (no other creterion) brought forth something very different from the fox the experiment started with. Within just a few generations. Unfortunately, the experiment was ended, but the results are still quite impressive. Youtube is full of videos about it. It's maybe more comprehensible than bacterias developing immunity, which is in-species evolution (such as we developed the ability to digest milk or became immune to pestilence), but is not necessarily indentical with species splitting (although for bacterias this can be the same due to the simplicity of the organism). Maybe to see with your own eyes the inbetween states away from the fox to something else will make you rethink your judgement on evolution. :)

Olavssønn
Monday, January 23rd, 2012, 10:08 PM
It depends on how you define "creation". In contrast to Christian creation Germanic paganism considers the universe to be eternal. There has never been a creation out of nothing.


Doesn't the Big Bang do away with that idea?

Well, I can't see why it should. I'm sure the so-called Big Bang was only the start of a new cycle, and not a total, first beginning without anything having existed 'before'. That sort of pure linear thinking doesn't quite make sense to me in this context. So, even though it might look like a first beginning to the narrow perspective of human scientists (being a little and unimportant part of the cosmos who will probably never come near to grasping the entire picture), that doesn't mean it is true. I think there is layers and functions of the World (or Universe) that we can't understand by scientific investigation, from that angle. I think the universe and existence is far more complicated and unbelievable than most humans have ever been able to understand, but what could be expected?

Whatever. To reply to the original question of the thread:
I'm convinced that the universe was never "created" (or constructed/designed) by any outside force.
I believe it is a being in its own right, having existed and evolved for all time, without beginning nor end, although its form is not static.
What we call gods (etc) are our interpretation and visualization of certain expressions of this complicated being which we perceive through both external and internal sources.

Feyn
Monday, January 23rd, 2012, 11:59 PM
We have evidence that our DNA is 25% similar to Daffodils, does that make us flowers? No. We are similar to Chimps, but that doesn't mean we came from Chimps. Same as the Daffodils, similar, but not the same. There are no fossils that show a evolution from Lucy to us. There is Lucy, which is similar to a chimp, which to me means her species evolved to other primates, like monkeys. There are zero fossils out there that show Lucy, then a variation to something closer, to another variation, to another variation, etc, to us.

On the experience and believabilty of scientists and trust I have of their findings. A scientist is getting paid to prove his point, he doesn't prove it or get peers to accept it, his theory is worthless. We've had scientists over the years tell me that eggs were good for me, then bad, then good. Same on multiple foods and other things in life. I believe in evolution to an extent, but to link me to Lucy, who is a chimp, shares some of my DNA (So doesn't the Daffodil), doesn't mean I evolved from her or from other apes.


I was really patient so far with you, and tried to explain things. But if you keep insisting on such nonsense, this discussion is getting absurd. Lucy was an australopithecus, here an article on them :

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

They where a pretty early form of hominids (protohumans). I bet i can name at least 5 species between lucy and us when i am drunk as a skunk. So do some research, instead of stubbornly insisting on nonsense i have already corrected. If someone tells you are wrong, the least you could do is check if you are really wrong or right. Had you done that, had you realized how many different humanoids we have skeletons of that lie between lucy and us :

Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis

To name just a few. So would you please stop acting as if you had actual knowledge of the subject and do some research into this ? I mean is it this much to ask to check at least wikipedia or something when you have been told to be wrong ?
Donīt even let me get started on genetics, we share over 99% DNA with the chimp. Are you trying to tell me thatīs a coincidence ? To compare that with the daffodil makes at least a little sense, since it shows clearly we are nearer to the chimp then to a flower ^^ How about you watch the video I specifically posted for you ? How do explain that, if not with a very near relationship ?
Are you even aware that the chimp is genetically closer to us then to any other of the great apes ? You are of course entitled to your own opinion , but it says nowhere you are entitled to your own facts ! So donīt act like a know it all, when your knowledge on the subject fits on a piece of paper. Do some research before you try to lecture others, i do that too, although i do know my science.

As for how believable science is, peer review sees to it that they take really great care to mess it up. You see an expert needs his word to count, so he simply cannot afford to fuck it up. If you publish something your peers, especially the young ones, who need to prove something, pick it apart like vultures, trying to find a mistake. That is a vicious system that simply does not forgive mistakes. If you make yourself a name in such a harsh environment, then what you publish is way more trustworthy then anything else we humans produce.
The example about food you name is a quite bad one. The human organism is extremely complex. To fully understand how something influences it is very difficult to research. I mean you cant just take 1000 humans, put them in cages where everything is exactly the same for each human, and then feed half of them with eggs the rest not, to see the difference. Instead you have to compare extremely complex individuals in highly complex environments and find out how the eggs influence them. The problem is that there are also hundreds of other factors. So its a small wonder they find out anything at all.


@ velvet : thanks for helping to explain him a few things on evolution, my patience is running a bit low today ;)

Kauz R. Waldher
Tuesday, January 24th, 2012, 12:36 AM
"I think there is layers and functions of the World (or Universe) that we can't understand by scientific investigation, from that angle. I think the universe and existence is far more complicated and unbelievable than most humans have ever been able to understand, but what could be expected? "

This has been my exact point since minute one! Nosense is speaking "matter of factly". The video above shows how small we are. No human can comprehend 150 billion light years. It's inconceivable. Period.

Guinevere
Tuesday, January 24th, 2012, 12:58 AM
When you think about it.. Such an answer is more then likely far beyond our comprehension..

Bearkinder
Tuesday, January 24th, 2012, 04:43 AM
Feyn, sounds more like I kicked a sacred cow than anything, seeing as how you completely missed the point. Completely.

I said modern physics, and listed example of what I was talking about is more blind religion than anything, and I stand by it. There is simply so little actual data on the macro and micro scale for people to dig in their heels and insist they their way is the way, even when holes are shot in the theory, they still cling to it. You know it's true. People take things as fact because some famous guy proposes it, and the very few pieces of data seem to support it. When data is found that does not support it, they try to make up work-arounds within the theory, rather than form a new hypothesis. The very much lauded peer review process is partly to blame, since if a new person comes up with a new hypothesis that fit the old data and the new, they are brow-beaten by the old guard, and essentially have to fight the very people who should be the most help in advancing the science, but are too busy defending territory. Too much politicking, not enough actual science. And you damn well know it.

Evolution? Do I hate" it? No. There's just not enough evidence for macro evolution to support it. Most of the latest articles I've read argue strongly for intelligent design and guidance of any such process, making it not a natural process, but a manufacture of sorts. Still not enough evidence. Dig in your heels if you want.

If you want to discuss science, great. If you want to make more ad hominem attacks, stuff it.

Kauz R. Waldher
Tuesday, January 24th, 2012, 08:32 AM
I don't think humans are evolving at all. Not in good ways anyway. We are such "junk" compared to the ancients (and I don't mean 1,000 years ago). That is why I try my best to think like one. They were so in touch and in tune with the world and the sky.
If we keep this up, eventually we'll EVOLVE into something no one who lives now could ever foresee. It will not be something of honour, because honour will have been long gone and forgotten at this point. We need to get as radically folkish as we can, in the Heathen way. All the answers we'll ever require on this plane of existence (and beyond?) is within us. And it has been within us since the beginning.

Bearkinder
Tuesday, January 24th, 2012, 01:51 PM
Kauz, I don't think we'll physically evolve into anything else. If nothing else, even if it does pan out to be a viable idea, technologically, and sociologically, we've come to the point that there is no longer an impetus to change.

Now, in our thinking, again as you are saying, in our relationship to the universe, is definitely devolving. The main problem I see is the poison, the Drano poured down the throat of the soul, so to speak, is the lie that all races are equal, and everybody is the same.

Until this multicultural, race-mixing, everyone-must-govern-themselves-like-a-small-groiup-says-they-should nonsense comes to an end, evolution of thought will remain essentially slammed to a halt.

Kauz R. Waldher
Wednesday, January 25th, 2012, 03:05 AM
I mean that humanity will evolve into something of soulless machines. When the plague of Darwinism locks it's grip on the masses. It will happen. Not "if", but WHEN. Yet we still sit idle, knowing it's coming.
I don't understand why our folk constantly insists on a "non-violent solution".

Ocko
Wednesday, January 25th, 2012, 03:53 AM
Most people will become sheeple few will gain new abilities, spirituel as well as intellectual.

When you take the heathen path you will evolve. When you take the path of modernity and cultural marxism you will degenerate. Many are waking up now and they will have to carve a future and a new civilization out of what is left of the old knowledge and with the help of the Gods.

It is better to work with the willing than with the masses. Masses slow you down.

ulfrik
Wednesday, January 25th, 2012, 04:31 AM
In norse legend perhaps it is All-father.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/tml/tml06.htm


In the vedas they describe an unknown godlike being that "came before the gods".
http://library.flawlesslogic.com/creation.htm


The prevailing scientific theory.
http://www.patrickgrant.com/BBTL.htm

Kauz R. Waldher
Thursday, January 26th, 2012, 09:02 AM
Yet, no one will REALLY ever know. Because with using "rationality" you have to SEE something to believe it. So all of these scientists will offer all these ridiculous scientific theories and each generation will have their own "theory" but no belief will ever be firm forever. Because simply, there is no rational answer. It is absolutely, positively IRRATIONAL that we are here at all.

GroeneWolf
Thursday, January 26th, 2012, 01:04 PM
Yet, no one will REALLY ever know. Because with using "rationality" you have to SEE something to believe it.

Rationality means using reason and not observation (believe) to come to conclusions (seeing for example). To take you example of having to see something to believe it, an extreme rationalist would dismiss anything that does not fit the theory as hallucinations. The approach of seeing something to believe it is more in line with empiricism.

Bearkinder
Thursday, January 26th, 2012, 03:51 PM
Yet, no one will REALLY ever know. Because with using "rationality" you have to SEE something to believe it. So all of these scientists will offer all these ridiculous scientific theories and each generation will have their own "theory" but no belief will ever be firm forever. Because simply, there is no rational answer. It is absolutely, positively IRRATIONAL that we are here at all.

When it comes down to it, whatever you want to call what created the universe, we might as well accept that it happened outside of the boundaries and physical laws that govern this universe, so ANY possibility is as good as another. All we can do is observe, form hypotheses, then theories and keep observing to figure out how it all works now.

Ocko
Thursday, January 26th, 2012, 05:20 PM
The tracking back from the observable to the source is difficult but not impossible. R. Steiner used the intellectual method, meaning he soaked the terms he coined with experience. The experience of the term he put together with another term (equally soaked with experience) then something new appeared in his mind. He simply observed his mind how the two terms showed the interconnection and relations between the two.

It is not the way scientist think today, as it is mostly theoretical and not soaked in personal experience.

Also Steiner (as well as others) offer a path to come to deeper insights through increasing abilities which also include the ability of perceiving higher worlds (meaning worlds which are invisible to us now). Through an increase of your abilities you can find new terms and get a bigger worldview as you can relate them to the terms you know already.

It is a path of the intellectual mind. there are also other paths leaning more on the emotional or moving/instinctive mind.

Brain studies show that the newest brain, the frontlobes are responsible for those insights. Brain studies also show that the brain is much more moldable than thought before. It means, one can 'grow' one's brain through exercises and special supplements, Nrf2, DHA and others.

I agree that from our current point of view it is more or less futile to think about it.

Our heathen Path is the path of wisdom, that means through the acquiring of new insights and knowledge we develope (which is in line with the new brain science of the plasticity of the brain). The runes offer doors to wisdoms which few have used in modern times.

The russian veda knows thousands of runes, claiming that it has been the intergallactic lingua franca. They claim that our far ancestors used to communicate with runes, meaning they did not use many words as one Rune, soaked with the expirence and wisdom communicated so much. Compare that to the today's world of informatic, where many words mean nothing it will tell you that the terms of today have almost nothing in them.

To come to the knowledge of the origin of the cosmos, one has to start as where one is and then slowly work one's way back.

Kauz R. Waldher
Thursday, January 26th, 2012, 07:28 PM
"Also Steiner (as well as others) offer a path to come to deeper insights through increasing abilities which also include the ability of perceiving higher worlds (meaning worlds which are invisible to us now). Through an increase of your abilities you can find new terms and get a bigger worldview as you can relate them to the terms you know already."

My point EXACTLY. I firmly believe this, without a shadow of a doubt. For me this is not a "theory". I have come to this on my own and have discovered that others have as well (not to my knowledge until recently). I am a "gnostic" through and through. I believe that ritual opens doors to these "realms" or "otherworlds". I have been able to foresee the future years before it occured. That is not a coicidence. I do not believe in coicidences ... so if there are no coincidences, then that means there are other forces at work. Current "common sense" is at a very extremely low level, look at the world around you. Common sense is good for daily living and working. There is absolutely nothing common about dreaming future events years before they occur. It could become common though through excercise of the consciousness. The "Initiation Process".

Ocko
Thursday, January 26th, 2012, 09:44 PM
The old assumptions of classical physics:

Reality: The assumption that the physical world is “objectively real…that it exists independently of
whether anyone is observing it…”

Locality: The assumption that objects occupy a fixed position in space, and “can [only] be influenced
through direct contact.”

Causality: The assumption that the “arrow of time points only in one direction…that cause and effect
sequences occur only in that order.”

Continuity: The assumption that “space and time are smooth…” with no gaps or jumps occurring.



Have been replaced with the quantuum physics assumptions:

Reality: The idea that “things” exist in a concrete way, independent of conscious awareness, can no
longer be assumed. We now know that the nature of matter can change when observed.

Locality: The idea that objects have a fixed position in space, and can only be affected by direct contact,
gave way to the understanding of non‐locality, which says that “objects that are apparently separate are actually
connected instantaneously through space‐time.”

Causality: The idea that time exists as a linear dimension is now known to be a misunderstanding, and
that we could more accurately say “sequences of events [or the lack of…] depend on the perspectives (technically
called the frame of reference) of the observers.”

Continuity: The idea that space and time are predictable and simply defined is no longer viable; we now know that
“reality” is not the stable construct we once assumed it was, and that “space and time are neither smooth nor continuous.”



The old thinking based on causality has no merit in the universe of the quantuums. Physics does not only need a new science but also a different way of thinking.

Before they found that way and established it there is no way to explain something as complex as the universe.


The question: Who created the universe is an old question based on causality, with God as the source of the causality

Ocko
Thursday, January 26th, 2012, 09:54 PM
It seems to me that the old shamanic practice of 'dreaming the world into being' has some backup in quantum physics.

given that, there are many creaters of the universe and it depends of the power the entities have to create.

For humans it is also possible to dream the world into being according to their power. So it works it just finds it's limits in the believing of the people. Jews use this power through the media and create a world they want, though that is slowly falling apart as many cocreaters start to emerge who dream different things.

Ocko
Thursday, January 26th, 2012, 09:55 PM
Throw in the Gods of light and the Gods of darkness you know what you can do depending which side you choose.

Kauz R. Waldher
Thursday, January 26th, 2012, 11:15 PM
"For humans it is also possible to dream the world into being according to their power. So it works it just finds it's limits in the believing of the people. Jews use this power through the media and create a world they want, though that is slowly falling apart as many cocreaters start to emerge who dream different things."

We have this power. We are wasting our potential by being slaves to materialism and through years of christian indoctrination. We must "delete" all we have come to know. All that is unpure that is. We need clarity, preserverance, self-reliance, courage, valor, honour, integrity, bravery, patience, loyalty (dedication to a cause greater than self) and truth ... all of which can be attained through an esoteric practice of Germanic Heathenry. We are all Heathen by birth. People say that Heathendom is not good enough to replace christianity. That we "need something different". That is because they think that we have to do what the christians did to us .. that is replace jesus/yahweh with Odhinn/Wotan. We DO NOT "worship" like that! How can we make this clear?

Ocko
Thursday, January 26th, 2012, 11:20 PM
Jesus reduces you to be a slave, on your knees worshipping your master.

Odin elevates you to his level, to become a warrior for his cause.

I don't have a slave mentality............

Feyn
Friday, January 27th, 2012, 09:29 PM
Since quantum mechanics is mentioned so often, and some people doubted that quantum mechanics is really correct, i wanted to make a few remarks on the accuracy of quantum mechanics. If you predict the outcome of experiments with the formulas of quantum mechanics you get a phantastic accuracy. Here a few quotes about it :

QUOTE:"Quantum mechanics is the most successful and the strangest theory in the history of physics. It is the theory that allows us to build postage stamp size computers that do billions of calculations in a second and to build nuclear weapons. It is strange because, unlike all previous fundamental physical theories, it does not model what happens physically. It only models how probabilities change over time. Yet no previous theory has come remotely close to the accuracy that quantum mechanics is at times capable of."


QUOTE:" Quantum mechanics predicts the outcome of experiments with a discrepancy of only 1 part in 100 billion. Thatīs like measuring the circumference of the USA with a discrepancy smaller then the width of a human hair. No other formulas in science come even close to that, its several orders of magnitude better then any other formulas in any field of science"

QUOTE:" if quantum mechanics is indeed wrong its so damn good wrong that its better then most right formulas"


Quantum mechanics and the theories it spawned are no doubt some of the strangest theories in all of science. They are totally absurd, yet it looks like nature itself is really that absurd on quantum level. As feynman put it :" You cannot understand quantum mechanics, you can only learn to live with it"

Nordlander
Friday, January 27th, 2012, 11:29 PM
I DONT KNOW (and neither does anyone else)

KveldulfR
Saturday, January 28th, 2012, 02:37 PM
It seems to me that the old shamanic practice of 'dreaming the world into being' has some backup in quantum physics.

given that, there are many creaters of the universe and it depends of the power the entities have to create.

For humans it is also possible to dream the world into being according to their power. So it works it just finds it's limits in the believing of the people. Jews use this power through the media and create a world they want, though that is slowly falling apart as many cocreaters start to emerge who dream different things.

For humans to dream the world into being predisposes there being humans. Where did they come from?

Feyn
Monday, January 30th, 2012, 01:38 PM
@ bearkinder QUOTE:"The very much lauded peer review process is partly to blame, since if a new person comes up with a new hypothesis that fit the old data and the new, they are brow-beaten by the old guard, and essentially have to fight the very people who should be the most help in advancing the science, but are too busy defending territory."
QUOTE:"I said modern physics, and listed example of what I was talking about is more blind religion than anything, and I stand by it"


This is exactly how this process should work, and how it always has worked ! Just look how the old guard attacked einstein and his theory of relativity. Then look how, when einstein was part of the old guard, they attacked quantum mechanics etc.etc.
This makes a lot of sense. If they wouldnt defend the old theories with every logical argument they can think of, attack it with every "weapon" available, science would constantly run along wrong alleys, since it has accepted new theories before they where really matured and ready to be accepted. This infighting within science leads to a harsh selection, through which only the best theories come through. Less resistance leads to lesser theories so to speak.With these attacks we discover the weak points in these new theories. Of course this leads sometimes to old theories surviving too long, but better a few old and trusted theories survive too long, then a few new theories getting accepted too quick.
We are currently at a very interesting time in physics, since we have a lot of phenomenons we canīt really explain (i just mention dark matter, dark energy, dark flow for astrophysics and partialy particle physics). Both the standard theory of particle physics and the standard theory of cosmology are starting to fall apart. That always leads to a lot of chaos, infighting between the generations and within each generation etc. But all this is a necessity to gain new knowledge. Yes this also leads to a lot of "workarounds" to tackle the current phenomenons with the old theories. Of course most of them are pure bullshit, but the scientific community is well aware of that. The point is that it is necessary bullshit, needed to really research those phenomenons. We somehow have to look at those phenomenons, research them. How can you do that, if you do not have the theories to do it ? By implementing those workarounds we begin to understand why the old theories are not able to tackle them, why they fail here. With this knowledge we can start building new hypothesis. We are currently at the stage where the first new hypothesis are implemented and researched : MOND, causal dynamic triangulation, Twister theory, M theory etc.etc.



QUOTE:"Evolution? Do I hate" it? No. There's just not enough evidence for macro evolution to support it. Most of the latest articles I've read argue strongly for intelligent design and guidance of any such process, making it not a natural process, but a manufacture of sorts."

First of all define macro evolution, it is a completely unscientific term. There is only ONE evolution, not 2. Those terms where invented by creationists, since they realized they had to admit that evolution is really happening. So they did what people like that always do, they moved the goal and invented the term macro evolution, instead of doing the intellectually honest thing and accept evolution. Ironically this is the very thing you accused science of doing ^^
Now for what the latest articleīs you read support : that shows that you deliberatly choose to read papers that support your position. Within the part of the scientific community, that deals with evolution, the support for creationism is below 0.1%
As for being insulting : you started the insulting. If you donīt like it that people get pissed if you are insulting, and sometimes insult right back, you should not insult in the first place.
You called science/scientists:"the blindest of religions" "unable to admit they are wrong" claimed they would give "evasive and vague answers" that essentiaslly boiled down to "because i said so"
you even had the audacity to claim that most of them are not worthy to be called scientists by setting the word scientist in ""

All our modern life we owe to science : technology, medicine, communication etc.etc. For all these achievements science does not ask that much in return. So the least science has earned is our respect. You also use every day all the perks we owe to science, but act spitefully and aggressive towards it. To me thatīs pure hypocrisy ! So you really have no grounds whatsoever to complain i attacked you in this way. I simply gave you a bit of your own medicine, to show you how bitter it tastes.

If you want a discussion on evolution/creation I am happy to have that, and i am happy to have it in a civil manner, if you act accordingly. But since that leads us too far off topic i would say we do it via mails. How would you like to start with the age of the earth ? Or would you prefer to start somewhere else ? Just send me your argument ;)

Jamey Martin
Tuesday, June 19th, 2012, 06:17 PM
I know the Ginnungagap story. I know Odin slew Ymir and the rest of it. I know we all, including the Gods, are subject to the Norns, but did this universe just pop out of nowhere? Didn't there have to be a creator? Even the Norns must be subject to some other force.

Not necessarily.

One view of Ginnungagap is that it is filled with "the All" ... everything that has happened, is happening and could conceivably happen is ALL going on in Ginnungagap all at once. Hence why the senses can't make head or tales of it, or are "deluded" by it.

So in Ginnungagap we have infinite variables all firing off and slamming into each other all of the time. "Forms" are constantly arising out of and falling back into the Gap. In such a circumstance it is inevitable that, ultimately, a form will not only stick, but then also begin to snowball or layer ... as we see expressed in the Eddic tale.

It IS all as the Scientists say. All of the phyiscal universe just "kinda happened".

CREATION on the otherhand is not about snapping one's fingers and everything appearing out of nothing. This is mistaking religion for science; which always has nasty outcomes as mystery is at the heart of any religion, while certitude is more the dominion of science. Creation is a product of consciousness. And consciousness observes implicit order (in the physical universe) and then expresses it in various cultural forms, eg. that way is east, that way west, this hot, that cold, etc. The resulting cultural understanding of the nature and functioning of all existence is identical to Creation.

As for the gods being subject to Wyrd ... Cattle die, kinsmen die, and so shall you yourself, but I know one thing that never dies, the goodly name of each man dead. The Tivar are forever.

Cheers!

Jens
Tuesday, June 19th, 2012, 07:25 PM
Are you ready? Here it is. Nobody actually knows. Totally beyond our capacity to know or figure out. You're welcome.

tigerlily
Tuesday, June 19th, 2012, 07:51 PM
Are you ready? Here it is. Nobody actually knows. Totally beyond our capacity to know or figure out. You're welcome.

Short and sweet. :) This is the way I figure it too. It can be fascinating to ponder the possibilities, but nobody can ever know the truth in this lifetime, no matter what intellectual knots we tie ourselves up in. It's one of those debates which goes nowhere in the end, but drags everybody the long and painful way to that destination. :P

Bearkinder
Wednesday, June 20th, 2012, 04:37 AM
If you want to stay withing Germanic Heathenry, the answer is simple: the flows from Muspelheim and Niflheim met in Ginnungagap, and formed Ymir, and off we went.

The real question becomes: What or who created Ginnungagap, Muspelheim and Niflheim?

;)

Primus
Wednesday, June 20th, 2012, 01:46 PM
There's always going to be debate on this topic. As humanity's knowledge of the universe increases, so does our distance of naive views that have been held by past generations of humans. I've been wrestling with the idea/ideal of a creator for some time now, and have steadily progressed from a believing Christian to a skeptical Christian to something of a deist... I think that people hold to ideas of a divine creator(s) largely out of nostalgia and a fear of the unknown (and for lack of anything else to believe).

Bearkinder
Wednesday, June 20th, 2012, 02:51 PM
For a serious answer, I'd say that whatever created the beginning (back before Muspelheim or Niflheim, long before the Jotun or the gods), exists outside of the nine worlds (by definition), and outside of any other world-systems (If the nine worlds are described as the tree Yggdrasil, then the analogy follows that there's likely other trees in the forest). As such that creator is unknowable by anyone within the creation.

Perhaps once we've advanced enough to move forward from our incarnations here, we will find out more.

But I have this feeling that, just as our universe is a fractal design, showing similar structure as small or large as we can detect, that the "superverse" is much the same, and we will always be progressing and finding new answers and new questions at each stage.