Define what you mean by 'theory' please.
Guesser, no one is being threatened with hell. where do you get that from? It is a moral (spiritual) consequence of not repenting of sins. Analogy: you aren't being threatened with jail, it is the social consequence of breaking the law.
"mummy, why do we have to go to church?"
"be quiet, do as you're told or you'll go to hell"
obviously that's a frivolous example, and a lot of christians would be shocked if I accused christians of threatening people with hell. but some do, some people believe that I'll go to hell if I break their silly rules, and will threaten me as such (devout catholic weirdos come to mind... and the point of this thread of course, the jehovas witnesses "be good or you will go to hell next week when the world ends")
anyway, however you look at it, people shouldn't need hell as a consequence to put them off breaking the law, as you said we have prison :-)
the question of the greatest enormity in the universe, is not "is there really a god?" it's "how has this thread managed to reach a fourth page despite being clearly in contravention of the forum rules" :-)
Any serious study of religion has to get past the simplistic symbolism that outsiders (and many lax practitioners) make of it.
I don't follow your meaning here, in relation to Death's post.
Consider free will and its importance to a sentient self-aware being (who may or may not have been created in God's image) -- how does that fit into what's written above?
We can't know for certain; if God is truly all powerful, then he could create the universe with any fundamental rules, so it's possible that he could make a universe where one plus one really does equal three, or where cause doesn't lead to effect but still makes sense to the inhabitants, where you don't need evil to emphasise good, etc. In the same way, we don't know if we truly have free will or not, quantum physics makes this point, so we can speculate that God made us either way, but we can't know.
However, even if we do have free will, it is clearly limited. And many would argue that that means it's not free will at all, as God has biased us by adding limitations. Regardless of all this, though, I do not accept that the evil commited by man is a necessary consquence of his free will. If nothing else, God could have found a way around it, or else he's not ALL powerful.
You and I and everyone have many, many beliefs and operate on them all day long. For example I do believe that treating others well will result in reciprocation and an overall better world so I try to do that in my daily life.
Yes, and in the main you're proven right in that. The point Death and others are making here is that the teachings of Religion often contradict real life observations, yet people still believe what the religions tell them to. Would you still believe that treating others led to them generally treating you well if everyone you ever treated well did their best to hurt you? Of course not.
Yet many people believe in a good, considerate, ever present God, when most of the time the events around them contradict this belief.
We also take the word of others without proof of our own; the religious accept teachings of their leaders but you may accept teachings of scientists, the rhetoric of politicians or the events of the world as relayed by your local news agency without any direct proof or direct experience of your own.
Well, I generally accept the viewpoints of scientists, but they PROVE what they say. I'm typing this message now on a PC, powered by electricity, that uses the internet protocol, etc, all of which were developed by scientists.
Yet have you ever seen even one priest summon up an angel, or make a mountain move, or call up God to speak to you? If God is all around us, then why does he never show himself? If God is all good and all powerful then why does he allow evil and suffering? If Jesus Christ was so good, then why did he cure so little suffering, merely a few people he met on his travels, instead of eradicating all disease forever?
Having said that, I don't blindly accept the words of a scientist, a politician, a doctor, etc. If I went to the doctors because I had a bad cold, and the doctor told me to take a certain brand of tablets, then I would, as I'd know nothing to the contrary, and doctors generally do more good than bad. But if the doctor told me to cut my left arm off with a chain saw as that would cure my cold, then I wouldn't do so. I'd report him to the medical authorities. But religious people come out with some utter drivel and expect it to be believed. And it often is, despite no supporting evidence, but all evidence to the contrary.
There are also many core beliefs in science, where they are called axioms and atoms. For example one belief is that the laws of nature that we observe in this little teeny-tiny insignificant spec of the universe are the same that operate throughout the entire unimaginably huge universe.
But I've seen no evidence that that is wrong, and I follow the believe, but only tentatively. Prove to me that it's wrong and I'll stop believing it.
Religous people believe in something even if all evidence is against that believe, that's the difference between us.
Western thinking took an important turn during the renaissance in that it went from a largely philosophical train of thought to an experiential one. The experiential one is a very profitable line of reasoning as it has led (and will lead) to an ever increasing understanding of the material world. But what we've lost is any understanding of the whys.
Not this drivel again. Yes, science doesn't explain the meaning of life, but neither does religion. Science is a set of rules modelled after the observable actions of the universe, regardless of the wishes of man . Religion is based on neither provable nor logical facts, and is altered and manipulated to the will of those who create and rule the religion.
Science shows us the truth about maths, electricity, physics, chemistry, etc. Yes, we're in the very early stages, and our understanding of the scientific laws are still very simplistic on a universal scale, but we admit that and are willing to constantly learn and adapt to the truth. Religion shows us no truth, or if it does, it's incidental to those who run the religion. Science has extended the life span by two to three times in many cases, it's made life much more pleasant and safer, and has enabled us to have enough food to eat (yes, so half of the world is starving, but that is a failure of human greed and overpopulation, not the aggricultural or chemical sciences). What has religion done to extend life? When the pope is ill, does he say "No, I won't consult my doctor, for that is science, and is a poor substitute for religion. I will instead pray for better health"? No, he sees his doctor. Pope John Paul 2, who died a couple of years ago went under the surgeons knife, instead of trusting to his all-powerful, benevolent God.
And yes, it's true that science only works with the physical world, not the spiritual (as in emotional, not ghosts and vampires), but what does religion do there? Yes, religion inspires acts of self sacrifice and kindness, but it's also caused more wars than anything else in history. How many terrorists have been inspired, or at least claimed to be inspired, by religion? What about the evil of the crusades? The Spanish Inquisition? The refusal of the Vatican to allow the use of birth control, adding to the overpopulation of the world, and meaning that rape victims are forced to give birth to unwanted babies. And the Vatican is the richest country in the world (it calles itself a city, but it has it's own government and currency), yet countless millions of catholics live in poverty or even starvation.
Religion claims to give piece of mind, but it does so much evil too, far more than it does good, I think.
This line has also become so strong that people assume it is a substitute for meaning. Newton's laws are great for predicting where an apple will be at every moment when dropped but does "F=GMm/r^2" actual *explain* anything? Does it tell you what gravity is and why?
Actually, it will one day, though probably only mathematically. But does religion explain gravity, and why it exists? Well, yes, but only as something like "God invented gravity, and we shouldn't question him", which explains nothing.
Thank you. So what that article is saying that you initially have one universe, and actions taken within it cause multiple outcomes that 'exist' in others. So that means everything is derivative of the first one.
You still would not have infinite multiples (because you could not then count distinct outcomes) and so it does not disprove God's existance.
Has this mathematical thingy been accepted (i.e. peer-reviewed)? (Did I misunderstand anything?)
And yes, it's true that science only works with the physical world, not the spiritual (as in emotional, not ghosts and vampires)
I'd argue with that, I'd say psychology and related sciences are a lot more advanced than people give them credit for, more than I did anyway. Science knows a lot about the workings of the brain, and how people think. it's not perfect obviously, but I think a lot of mysteries of the 'heart' and the 'soul' have been unlocked by science
(and a priest in a confession booth and a psychiatric therapist seem pretty similar to me ;))
Guesser: Jehovah's witnesses do not believe in hell. (they believe in annihilationism)
oh? good for them then. I presume you mean they believe that everyone will die, and be dead then. I agree.
so why do they bother trying to tell people then? so that we all know to go and get pissed up and commit lots of sins cause we'll be annihilated soon so it doesn't matter?
We had a visit from them last week just as Emma was coming back from school - we had to threaten them with the police when we caught them trying to preach to her that her parents were sinners and that's why she has no legs. (This was after we told them we weren't intrested in joining for the upteenth time)
I say they're lucky you're a nice fella, if that had've been me no matter how old they were or how much they tried to justify saying something like that as the word of god, I'd have had venom dripping off my fangs. You probably would've had to drag me off the bastards, what they did there in my mind counts as absolutely disgusting behaviour.
They believe in a resurrection of the dead for believers in their system (though oddly they deny jesus a physical resurrection, He has a spiritual one for them) and destruction of the wicked instead of any form of existence for those who didn't believe. After judgment, that is, by God.
Thank you. So what that article is saying that you initially have one universe, and actions taken within it cause multiple outcomes that 'exist' in others. So that means everything is derivative of the first one.
You still would not have infinite multiples (because you could not then count distinct outcomes) and so it does not disprove God's existance.
Has this mathematical thingy been accepted (i.e. peer-reviewed)? (Did I misunderstand anything?)
for the record, I haven't read that particular article.
if it's the theory that I have read about it would be infinite, because there are an infinite number of things happening all the time, each one spawning another alternate universe. so there'd be on for each possible path that the speck of dust I brush from my keyboard falls to the ground, and as the dust particle can take any one of an infinite number of positions between here and the ground there are an infinite number of possible directions it could take
They believe in a resurrection of the dead for believers in their system (though oddly they deny jesus a physical resurrection, He has a spiritual one for them) and destruction of the wicked instead of any form of existence for those who didn't believe. After judgment, that is, by God.
So sinning is still out of the question :)
but the world will be destroyed right? where will the resurrected people live? mars colony? :-D
but the world will be destroyed right? where will the resurrected people live? mars colony? :-D
Ha ha. Actually, the Jehovah's do not believe the earth will be destroyed (or, if they do it will be remade -I forget which they hold to, but they do believe in everlasting life on earth instead of heaven generally, except for 144,000)
Ha ha. Actually, the Jehovah's do not believe the earth will be destroyed (or, if they do it will be remade -I forget which they hold to, but they do believe in everlasting life on earth instead of heaven generally, except for 144,000)
maybe that's what ghosts are then
the everlasting life of Jehovah's witnesses on earth :-)
christians go to heaven, JW's hang around in old houses saying 'wooo'
maybe that's what ghosts are then
the everlasting life of Jehovah's witnesses on earth :-)
christians go to heaven, JW's hang around in old houses saying 'wooo'
Might be the reason they call one of their magazines 'Awake'....
What really annoys me about the Jehova's Witnesses is that they take all the lousy things that are going on as proof of the coming judgement and then sit back and do nothing about them. You won't find them trying to make a difference to the environment, or help tsunami victims or anything like that.
They are like the borg.......they just want to assimilate you so you can then go and assimilate more.
if it's the theory that I have read about it would be infinite, because there are an infinite number of things happening all the time, each one spawning another alternate universe. so there'd be on for each possible path that the speck of dust I brush from my keyboard falls to the ground, and as the dust particle can take any one of an infinite number of positions between here and the ground there are an infinite number of possible directions it could take
A variation of that theory takes the view that only "observed" events will cause alternative universes to spawn. Which means that if an "intelligent" being is required to make the observation, then multiple universes only started appearing when the human race emerged...
Sorry still not busted :) All-knowing does not have to mean knowing the entire course of the universe and its contents for all time. It does have to mean knowing what has already occurred though.
That's ridiculous. "All knowing" means knowing the future, the past, everything. Anything less makes the phrase "all knowing" innacurate. And Jesus is supposed to have known the future anyway; he predicted that Judas would betray him "he who lifts his cup when I lift mine will betray me", when Jesus was arrested, St. Peter (or St. Paul, was it?) told Jesus that he'd never stop following or serving Jesus, to which Jesus replied "Before the cock crows, three times will you have denied knowing me", and this came to pass. And when Judas kissed Jesus, as a sign to the guards that Jesus was the one they wanted, didn't Jesus see, in a single instant, every sin that would ever be committed?
If you do believe in God, then I don't see that it's a stretch to also believe that he can see the future, or even every possible future, if time works like that.
Define what you mean by 'theory' please.
Guesser, no one is being threatened with hell. where do you get that from? It is a moral (spiritual) consequence of not repenting of sins. Analogy: you aren't being threatened with jail, it is the social consequence of breaking the law.
Er, about the most central believe of Christianity is sinning leads to Hell. Are you disputing this?
Incidentally, since Jesus Christ said "I am the way, the truth, the light. Only through me shall you find Heaven", then that means that all non-Christians, be they Muslim, Jewish, atheist, agnostic, etc, will also go to Hell with the sinners. Bible followers will deny that, trying to twist the words, but Jesus Christ is God, so his words are surely perfect and literal.
Well he meant proving that (some sort of a) god doesn't exist somewhere in the entire universe is impossible. To prove that, you would have to examine every point in the universe and observe that there's no god there. You would have to do that at once for the entire universe just in case god happens to move around while you're looking. It's clearly impossible to do that.
Proving that a god isn't present within a tube of smarties, on the other hand, is quite possible; as long as you have your god-viewing glasses on at the time, of course.
My point is that it is sometimes possible to prove a negative, that's all. An empty smarties tube clearly contains no smarties, unless you want to belive in invisible smarties that you can't even touch.
I'd argue with that, I'd say psychology and related sciences are a lot more advanced than people give them credit for, more than I did anyway. Science knows a lot about the workings of the brain, and how people think. it's not perfect obviously, but I think a lot of mysteries of the 'heart' and the 'soul' have been unlocked by science
Oh, I'm certainly not denying that if our understanding of science advances enough then it will explain all spiritual and emotional states, after all the human brain, where all the thought processess and emotions are (unless you believe in the soul, for which I've seen not one speck of evidence) housed, is simply a bio-chemical mass which produces controlled electro-chemical energy, and the brain and it's ingredients will be subject to the same laws as every other particle or mass of particles in the universe.
However, at the moment, our understanding of the brain is very, very, little, and though one day we may be able to understand the entire workings of the brain, and alter any part to eradicate any evil or antiscocial tendancies, to cure maladies and enhance serenity and intelligence, at the moment we can do almost nothing. So for the time being, science is largely usless regarding the brain, at least when compared to other branches of science. We can send men to the moon, create computers than can beat any human at chess, broadcast TV or telephone signals to any point on the planet, and other technical marvels, but the brain is so much more complicated than the mechanisms needed for a spacecraft, or a Chess computer, or satellite signals, that at present it's way out of our reach.
(and a priest in a confession booth and a psychiatric therapist seem pretty similar to me ;))
Actually, a psychiatrist can proscribe drugs, which are only a vague, general help, but still better than nothing in many cases. And psychiatry is such a young science anyway, and so limited yet in experience and time, but imagine when we can understand the entire workings of the brains pathways, and can alter it physically to cure ailments!
Which means that if an "intelligent" being is required to make the observation, then multiple universes only started appearing when the human race emerged...
Well your assuming that only Humans are in the universe now and no other intelligent being (no mention of dolphins).
Do i really need to refer you to Cornishpasties alien seeding of the earth conspiracy thread?
A variation of that theory takes the view that only "observed" events will cause alternative universes to spawn. Which means that if an "intelligent" being is required to make the observation, then multiple universes only started appearing when the human race emerged...
I'm not saying I believe that one, though.
that is, as usual, a big headed perception my humans that they are somehow different and more important than every other living, and inanimate object in the universe(s)
My point is that it is sometimes possible to prove a negative, that's all. An empty smarties tube clearly contains no smarties, unless you want to belive in invisible smarties that you can't even touch.
yes! but that's the very problem isn't it. It's impossible to prove that it does not contain smarties that are invisible and impossible to touch. like gods
Er, about the most central believe of Christianity is sinning leads to Hell. Are you disputing this?
No. I'm disputing it as a threat.
Incidentally, since Jesus Christ said "I am the way, the truth, the light. Only through me shall you find Heaven", then that means that all non-Christians, be they Muslim, Jewish, atheist, agnostic, etc, will also go to Hell with the sinners.
How is this a threat? Preachers may have presented it like that in the past, but I don't think it's a correct view. It's like 'falling to your death' is a consequence of 'jumping off a cliff will kill you'. Am I threatening you with death in saying that?
However, at the moment, our understanding of the brain is very, very, little, and though one day we may be able to understand the entire workings of the brain, and alter any part to eradicate any evil or antiscocial tendancies, to cure maladies and enhance serenity and intelligence, at the moment we can do almost nothing. So for the time being, science is largely usless regarding the brain, at least when compared to other branches of science. We can send men to the moon, create computers than can beat any human at chess, broadcast TV or telephone signals to any point on the planet, and other technical marvels, but the brain is so much more complicated than the mechanisms needed for a spacecraft, or a Chess computer, or satellite signals, that at present it's way out of our reach.
Actually, a psychiatrist can proscribe drugs, which are only a vague, general help, but still better than nothing in many cases. And psychiatry is such a young science anyway, and so limited yet in experience and time, but imagine when we can understand the entire workings of the brains pathways, and can alter it physically to cure ailments!
that's what I thought, but science does have a very good understanding of the brain, I'm certainly not an expert at all, but as someone being treated for depression, I know that there is an awful lot that is known about the workings of the brain, and science can be used to change thought patterns etc.
we don't know a lot about anything really. we don't know much about the moon, or what it's made of, there's a lot about the effects of propagation on broadcasting radio signals that we don't fully understand. and the depths of the oceans hold many many mysteries. as you say we'll learn it all eventually, all I'm saying is, science understands the brain pretty well actually. erm. so ner ;):D
Comments
"be quiet, do as you're told or you'll go to hell"
obviously that's a frivolous example, and a lot of christians would be shocked if I accused christians of threatening people with hell. but some do, some people believe that I'll go to hell if I break their silly rules, and will threaten me as such (devout catholic weirdos come to mind... and the point of this thread of course, the jehovas witnesses "be good or you will go to hell next week when the world ends")
anyway, however you look at it, people shouldn't need hell as a consequence to put them off breaking the law, as you said we have prison :-)
I don't follow your meaning here, in relation to Death's post.
We can't know for certain; if God is truly all powerful, then he could create the universe with any fundamental rules, so it's possible that he could make a universe where one plus one really does equal three, or where cause doesn't lead to effect but still makes sense to the inhabitants, where you don't need evil to emphasise good, etc. In the same way, we don't know if we truly have free will or not, quantum physics makes this point, so we can speculate that God made us either way, but we can't know.
However, even if we do have free will, it is clearly limited. And many would argue that that means it's not free will at all, as God has biased us by adding limitations. Regardless of all this, though, I do not accept that the evil commited by man is a necessary consquence of his free will. If nothing else, God could have found a way around it, or else he's not ALL powerful.
Yes, and in the main you're proven right in that. The point Death and others are making here is that the teachings of Religion often contradict real life observations, yet people still believe what the religions tell them to. Would you still believe that treating others led to them generally treating you well if everyone you ever treated well did their best to hurt you? Of course not.
Yet many people believe in a good, considerate, ever present God, when most of the time the events around them contradict this belief.
Well, I generally accept the viewpoints of scientists, but they PROVE what they say. I'm typing this message now on a PC, powered by electricity, that uses the internet protocol, etc, all of which were developed by scientists.
Yet have you ever seen even one priest summon up an angel, or make a mountain move, or call up God to speak to you? If God is all around us, then why does he never show himself? If God is all good and all powerful then why does he allow evil and suffering? If Jesus Christ was so good, then why did he cure so little suffering, merely a few people he met on his travels, instead of eradicating all disease forever?
Having said that, I don't blindly accept the words of a scientist, a politician, a doctor, etc. If I went to the doctors because I had a bad cold, and the doctor told me to take a certain brand of tablets, then I would, as I'd know nothing to the contrary, and doctors generally do more good than bad. But if the doctor told me to cut my left arm off with a chain saw as that would cure my cold, then I wouldn't do so. I'd report him to the medical authorities. But religious people come out with some utter drivel and expect it to be believed. And it often is, despite no supporting evidence, but all evidence to the contrary.
But I've seen no evidence that that is wrong, and I follow the believe, but only tentatively. Prove to me that it's wrong and I'll stop believing it.
Religous people believe in something even if all evidence is against that believe, that's the difference between us.
Not this drivel again. Yes, science doesn't explain the meaning of life, but neither does religion. Science is a set of rules modelled after the observable actions of the universe, regardless of the wishes of man . Religion is based on neither provable nor logical facts, and is altered and manipulated to the will of those who create and rule the religion.
Science shows us the truth about maths, electricity, physics, chemistry, etc. Yes, we're in the very early stages, and our understanding of the scientific laws are still very simplistic on a universal scale, but we admit that and are willing to constantly learn and adapt to the truth. Religion shows us no truth, or if it does, it's incidental to those who run the religion. Science has extended the life span by two to three times in many cases, it's made life much more pleasant and safer, and has enabled us to have enough food to eat (yes, so half of the world is starving, but that is a failure of human greed and overpopulation, not the aggricultural or chemical sciences). What has religion done to extend life? When the pope is ill, does he say "No, I won't consult my doctor, for that is science, and is a poor substitute for religion. I will instead pray for better health"? No, he sees his doctor. Pope John Paul 2, who died a couple of years ago went under the surgeons knife, instead of trusting to his all-powerful, benevolent God.
And yes, it's true that science only works with the physical world, not the spiritual (as in emotional, not ghosts and vampires), but what does religion do there? Yes, religion inspires acts of self sacrifice and kindness, but it's also caused more wars than anything else in history. How many terrorists have been inspired, or at least claimed to be inspired, by religion? What about the evil of the crusades? The Spanish Inquisition? The refusal of the Vatican to allow the use of birth control, adding to the overpopulation of the world, and meaning that rape victims are forced to give birth to unwanted babies. And the Vatican is the richest country in the world (it calles itself a city, but it has it's own government and currency), yet countless millions of catholics live in poverty or even starvation.
Religion claims to give piece of mind, but it does so much evil too, far more than it does good, I think.
Actually, it will one day, though probably only mathematically. But does religion explain gravity, and why it exists? Well, yes, but only as something like "God invented gravity, and we shouldn't question him", which explains nothing.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=paUniverse_sun14_parallel_universes&show_article=1&cat=0
No, because some actions may be regarded as immoral even if they're quite legal. Ferret abuse being one...
Thank you. So what that article is saying that you initially have one universe, and actions taken within it cause multiple outcomes that 'exist' in others. So that means everything is derivative of the first one.
You still would not have infinite multiples (because you could not then count distinct outcomes) and so it does not disprove God's existance.
Has this mathematical thingy been accepted (i.e. peer-reviewed)? (Did I misunderstand anything?)
I'd argue with that, I'd say psychology and related sciences are a lot more advanced than people give them credit for, more than I did anyway. Science knows a lot about the workings of the brain, and how people think. it's not perfect obviously, but I think a lot of mysteries of the 'heart' and the 'soul' have been unlocked by science
(and a priest in a confession booth and a psychiatric therapist seem pretty similar to me ;))
priests don't generally blame your mother for everything.
oh? good for them then. I presume you mean they believe that everyone will die, and be dead then. I agree.
so why do they bother trying to tell people then? so that we all know to go and get pissed up and commit lots of sins cause we'll be annihilated soon so it doesn't matter?
I say they're lucky you're a nice fella, if that had've been me no matter how old they were or how much they tried to justify saying something like that as the word of god, I'd have had venom dripping off my fangs. You probably would've had to drag me off the bastards, what they did there in my mind counts as absolutely disgusting behaviour.
So sinning is still out of the question :)
for the record, I haven't read that particular article.
if it's the theory that I have read about it would be infinite, because there are an infinite number of things happening all the time, each one spawning another alternate universe. so there'd be on for each possible path that the speck of dust I brush from my keyboard falls to the ground, and as the dust particle can take any one of an infinite number of positions between here and the ground there are an infinite number of possible directions it could take
but the world will be destroyed right? where will the resurrected people live? mars colony? :-D
rofl.
or insist that you must be gay like freud would :-)
Ha ha. Actually, the Jehovah's do not believe the earth will be destroyed (or, if they do it will be remade -I forget which they hold to, but they do believe in everlasting life on earth instead of heaven generally, except for 144,000)
the everlasting life of Jehovah's witnesses on earth :-)
christians go to heaven, JW's hang around in old houses saying 'wooo'
Might be the reason they call one of their magazines 'Awake'....
Quality not quantity please! (says me).
They are like the borg.......they just want to assimilate you so you can then go and assimilate more.
In god we trust...its right here in my wallet.
A variation of that theory takes the view that only "observed" events will cause alternative universes to spawn. Which means that if an "intelligent" being is required to make the observation, then multiple universes only started appearing when the human race emerged...
I'm not saying I believe that one, though.
That's ridiculous. "All knowing" means knowing the future, the past, everything. Anything less makes the phrase "all knowing" innacurate. And Jesus is supposed to have known the future anyway; he predicted that Judas would betray him "he who lifts his cup when I lift mine will betray me", when Jesus was arrested, St. Peter (or St. Paul, was it?) told Jesus that he'd never stop following or serving Jesus, to which Jesus replied "Before the cock crows, three times will you have denied knowing me", and this came to pass. And when Judas kissed Jesus, as a sign to the guards that Jesus was the one they wanted, didn't Jesus see, in a single instant, every sin that would ever be committed?
If you do believe in God, then I don't see that it's a stretch to also believe that he can see the future, or even every possible future, if time works like that.
Er, about the most central believe of Christianity is sinning leads to Hell. Are you disputing this?
Incidentally, since Jesus Christ said "I am the way, the truth, the light. Only through me shall you find Heaven", then that means that all non-Christians, be they Muslim, Jewish, atheist, agnostic, etc, will also go to Hell with the sinners. Bible followers will deny that, trying to twist the words, but Jesus Christ is God, so his words are surely perfect and literal.
My point is that it is sometimes possible to prove a negative, that's all. An empty smarties tube clearly contains no smarties, unless you want to belive in invisible smarties that you can't even touch.
Oh, I'm certainly not denying that if our understanding of science advances enough then it will explain all spiritual and emotional states, after all the human brain, where all the thought processess and emotions are (unless you believe in the soul, for which I've seen not one speck of evidence) housed, is simply a bio-chemical mass which produces controlled electro-chemical energy, and the brain and it's ingredients will be subject to the same laws as every other particle or mass of particles in the universe.
However, at the moment, our understanding of the brain is very, very, little, and though one day we may be able to understand the entire workings of the brain, and alter any part to eradicate any evil or antiscocial tendancies, to cure maladies and enhance serenity and intelligence, at the moment we can do almost nothing. So for the time being, science is largely usless regarding the brain, at least when compared to other branches of science. We can send men to the moon, create computers than can beat any human at chess, broadcast TV or telephone signals to any point on the planet, and other technical marvels, but the brain is so much more complicated than the mechanisms needed for a spacecraft, or a Chess computer, or satellite signals, that at present it's way out of our reach.
Actually, a psychiatrist can proscribe drugs, which are only a vague, general help, but still better than nothing in many cases. And psychiatry is such a young science anyway, and so limited yet in experience and time, but imagine when we can understand the entire workings of the brains pathways, and can alter it physically to cure ailments!
Well your assuming that only Humans are in the universe now and no other intelligent being (no mention of dolphins).
Do i really need to refer you to Cornishpasties alien seeding of the earth conspiracy thread?
yes but resistance isn't futile is it, if you ring the police, or crush their ankles in the door they go away :-)
that is, as usual, a big headed perception my humans that they are somehow different and more important than every other living, and inanimate object in the universe(s)
No. I'm disputing it as a threat.
How is this a threat? Preachers may have presented it like that in the past, but I don't think it's a correct view. It's like 'falling to your death' is a consequence of 'jumping off a cliff will kill you'. Am I threatening you with death in saying that?
that's what I thought, but science does have a very good understanding of the brain, I'm certainly not an expert at all, but as someone being treated for depression, I know that there is an awful lot that is known about the workings of the brain, and science can be used to change thought patterns etc.
we don't know a lot about anything really. we don't know much about the moon, or what it's made of, there's a lot about the effects of propagation on broadcasting radio signals that we don't fully understand. and the depths of the oceans hold many many mysteries. as you say we'll learn it all eventually, all I'm saying is, science understands the brain pretty well actually. erm. so ner ;):D