Superstitions

[Ard-Rí]

I've debated philosophy on many a forum.

There remains one really funny fact from which all disagreement arises. If an afterlife is impossible, so is this life.
This life is the real source of disagreement, not the next.

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

Lar you hit the nail on the head, it is a crutch and only a crutch, nothing more. People more than capable if running are limping along on this limiting crutch.

Would you call a disabled person's cruch vile?

Nothing worse than religious zealots than people who won't let others be without calling their belief in Christianity vile. Live and let live, no?

The appropriate crutch to replace religion/faith in the mind would be education, counselling or medication.

Religion is akin to using an unstable crutch such as a door handle or a a shower curtain, rather than using something apporpriate like a zimmerframe.

[Fear Bun Na Sceilpe]

Up here in Derry City a few common wans would include - Saturday flit short sit - meaning don't move house on a saturday. Also if a bird especially a robin flies into the house death is on the cards.

[Syferus]

I can't fully subscribe to the Big Bang theory either.

How do you explain the Cosmic Background Radiation then?

I can't and neither can anyone else. Sure, it lends credibility to the Big Bang theory, which remains just that- a theory.
If I had to choose between creationism and naturalism, I'd opt for the latter but nothing that has been proposed so far answers my fundamental question; where did the matter/energy come from that caused the big bang?

This is a question that's always fascinated me, the idea of what was before the Big Bang. The most accepted theory is that everything, time, space, matter that makes up the universe right now was a super-dense singularity before the Big Bang.

What that means for were the energy comes from is the most debatable facet because there's ideas of the universe repeatedly expanding and collapsing back into a singularity ad infinitum (a 'closed' universe) and it simply expanding forever (an 'open' universe), in which case the reason for what caused that singularity to be there is still needed.

If you want to go down the science route for that answer you'd be looking at cosmogony, the study of those theories. Because the Big Bang itself is only a theory (but an incredibly likely and well-proven one) trying to find theories on top of it to explain an even earlier stage of the universe is speculative. There's plenty of ideas, the most well known involving thing like string theory (do not ask me to explain because I honestly amn't 50% on what that even is myself). It won't be until we can use even more advanced particle colliders than the Large Hadron Collider that something approaching a true scientific answer can be developed.

I think some people attack the Big Bang theory because of its name cache (and likewise ill-informed people on the other side gleefully shout it out as if it's a stake in the heart of God) but all it does is tell us that the universe emerged from a singularity, it doesn't profess to know what the nature or cause of that singularity was.

[Hardy]

I can't fully subscribe to the Big Bang theory either.

How do you explain the Cosmic Background Radiation then?

I can't and neither can anyone else. Sure, it lends credibility to the Big Bang theory, which remains just that- a theory.
If I had to choose between creationism and naturalism, I'd opt for the latter but nothing that has been proposed so far answers my fundamental question; where did the matter/energy come from that caused the big bang?

But the answer to that question is unknown, given the current state of knowledge, under any theory of the origin of the universe. If the Big Bang theory is incorrect, where did the material/energy that constitutes the universe come from under some other theory? If God created the universe, where did God come from? Because if things need a creator, then what creator created the creator of the universe?

I've debated philosophy on many a forum.

There remains one really funny fact from which all disagreement arises. If an afterlife is impossible, so is this life.
This life is the real source of disagreement, not the next.

But who argues that an afterlife is impossible? I think reasonable people who don't believe in an afterlife simply state that there's no evidence for it. If the existence of this life is presented as a proof of the possibility of an afterlife, then it can be presented as a proof of the possibility of everything.

I do like the theory of infinite universes, which effectively proposes something similar, but not identical – that everything that is possible must happen somewhere, sometime. (Or maybe an infinite number of times, everywhere?) So, under that theory, in some parallel universe, I'm raising the Sam Maguire Cup in the Hogan Stand at this moment.

[Jonah]

Lar you hit the nail on the head, it is a crutch and only a crutch, nothing more. People more than capable if running are limping along on this limiting crutch.

Would you call a disabled person's cruch vile?

Nothing worse than religious zealots than people who won't let others be without calling their belief in Christianity vile. Live and let live, no?

Agree 100% with this.
Why are some unable to have a conversation on topics such as this without slagging off and mocking those that do have a belief and faith.
I wouldn't be very religious at all but I respect those who do believe.
By all means disagree and fight your corner for what you do or don't believe, and I doubt anyone really cares if another does or doesn't believe but mocking someone for their faith is unacceptable in my view.
As far as I can see its a one way street when it comes to which side does the mocking too.

[Hardy]

Lar you hit the nail on the head, it is a crutch and only a crutch, nothing more. People more than capable if running are limping along on this limiting crutch.

Would you call a disabled person's cruch vile?

Nothing worse than religious zealots than people who won't let others be without calling their belief in Christianity vile. Live and let live, no?

Agree 100% with this.
Why are some unable to have a conversation on topics such as this without slagging off and mocking those that do have a belief and faith.
I wouldn't be very religious at all but I respect those who do believe.
By all means disagree and fight your corner for what you do or don't believe, and I doubt anyone really cares if another does or doesn't believe but mocking someone for their faith is unacceptable in my view.

Of course mutual respect is what you are entitled to expect when decent people debate with each other.  Respect is for people, though. I can't understand why people demand respect for an ideology or belief in or of itself. It's merely a set of ideas and it can be ridiculed without ridiculing those who subscribe to it. If religion preaches "hate the sin, not the sinner", it also must accept "respect the person, not the  ideology". I hate all ideologies that I can think of because their job is either to distort the truth or to claim exclusive ownership of it, when the only just position for the reasonable person, in my view, is that of searching for the truth.

As far as I can see its a one way street when it comes to which side does the mocking too.

Sure.

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

I can't fully subscribe to the Big Bang theory either.

How do you explain the Cosmic Background Radiation then?

I can't and neither can anyone else. Sure, it lends credibility to the Big Bang theory, which remains just that- a theory.
If I had to choose between creationism and naturalism, I'd opt for the latter but nothing that has been proposed so far answers my fundamental question; where did the matter/energy come from that caused the big bang?

But the answer to that question is unknown, given the current state of knowledge, under any theory of the origin of the universe. If the Big Bang theory is incorrect, where did the material/energy that constitutes the universe come from under some other theory? If God created the universe, where did God come from? Because if things need a creator, then what creator created the creator of the universe?

I've debated philosophy on many a forum.

There remains one really funny fact from which all disagreement arises. If an afterlife is impossible, so is this life.
This life is the real source of disagreement, not the next.

But who argues that an afterlife is impossible? I think reasonable people who don't believe in an afterlife simply state that there's no evidence for it. If the existence of this life is presented as a proof of the possibility of an afterlife, then it can be presented as a proof of the possibility of everything.

I do like the theory of infinite universes, which effectively proposes something similar, but not identical – that everything that is possible must happen somewhere, sometime. (Or maybe an infinite number of times, everywhere?) So, under that theory, in some parallel universe, I'm raising the Sam Maguire Cup in the Hogan Stand at this moment.

There was a very interesting documantary on the origins of the universe based around a research institute in Canada. I'll try find it. Anyone else see it? I wonder is there a universe where Mayo cannot lose All-Irelands.

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

If there was agreement amongst billions worldwide and millions in Ireland that based on stories handed down and huge organised brain washing sessions that we should all worship the Zebra God, other competing ideologies argue we worship the Horse God and the Donkey God. Such ideologies were part of constitutions of Republics and the justification for ruling Monarchs. Would you argue such stupidity deserved respect.

[Rossfan]

If there was agreement amongst billions worldwide and millions in Ireland that based on stories handed down and huge organised brain washing sessions that we should all worship the Zebra God, other competing ideologies argue we worship the Horse God and the Donkey God. Such ideologies were part of constitutions of Republics and the justification for ruling Monarchs. Would you argue such stupidity deserved respect.

That word negates all that follows.
If today was tomorrow would yesterday be today ? Or would yesterday not be  tomorrow then?

[Lar Naparka]

I can't fully subscribe to the Big Bang theory either.

How do you explain the Cosmic Background Radiation then?

I can't and neither can anyone else. Sure, it lends credibility to the Big Bang theory, which remains just that- a theory.
If I had to choose between creationism and naturalism, I'd opt for the latter but nothing that has been proposed so far answers my fundamental question; where did the matter/energy come from that caused the big bang?

But the answer to that question is unknown, given the current state of knowledge, under any theory of the origin of the universe. If the Big Bang theory is incorrect, where did the material/energy that constitutes the universe come from under some other theory? If God created the universe, where did God come from? Because if things need a creator, then what creator created the creator of the universe?

I've debated philosophy on many a forum.

There remains one really funny fact from which all disagreement arises. If an afterlife is impossible, so is this life.
This life is the real source of disagreement, not the next.

But who argues that an afterlife is impossible? I think reasonable people who don't believe in an afterlife simply state that there's no evidence for it. If the existence of this life is presented as a proof of the possibility of an afterlife, then it can be presented as a proof of the possibility of everything.

I do like the theory of infinite universes, which effectively proposes something similar, but not identical – that everything that is possible must happen somewhere, sometime. (Or maybe an infinite number of times, everywhere?) So, under that theory, in some parallel universe, I'm raising the Sam Maguire Cup in the Hogan Stand at this moment.

Good man Hardy, that's a stellar reply!
You have neatly summed up the points I have been trying to make both here and in previous threads.
No theory has yet come close to explaining where the matter/energy came from to generate the Big Bang or, on the other hand, to lead us to assume that there was and will always be an all-powerful, omniscient God.
The theist vs atheist debate may well go on to the end of time as we know it. More than likely, in mortal terms anyway, the answer will not have been discovered by then.
Of course there well may be an afterlife and an infinite number of parallel universes also.
I see no reason to conclude there is, which is a long way short of proclaiming that there isn't.
Some entity, somewhere and sometime, had to kickstart  the process of creation and in order to do so, this entity had to exist before matter/energy came into being.
Logic, as we presently understand it, cannot come up with an answer to that conundrum.

[Lar Naparka]

If there was agreement amongst billions worldwide and millions in Ireland that based on stories handed down and huge organised brain washing sessions that we should all worship the Zebra God, other competing ideologies argue we worship the Horse God and the Donkey God. Such ideologies were part of constitutions of Republics and the justification for ruling Monarchs. Would you argue such stupidity deserved respect.

That word negates all that follows.
If today was tomorrow would yesterday be today ? Or would yesterday not be  tomorrow then?

+1.
"If" is a very big word!
Let it never be said that I couldn't agree with you on something or other.

[ONeill]

In a parallel universe Tyrone are Meath's bogey team ever since they did a hatchet job on Graham Geraghty 17 years ago.

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

If there was agreement amongst billions worldwide and millions in Ireland that based on stories handed down and huge organised brain washing sessions that we should all worship the Zebra God, other competing ideologies argue we worship the Horse God and the Donkey God. Such ideologies were part of constitutions of Republics and the justification for ruling Monarchs. Would you argue such stupidity deserved respect.

That word negates all that follows.
If today was tomorrow would yesterday be today ? Or would yesterday not be  tomorrow then?

Misdirection and avoidance the classic approach of the theist.

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

I can't fully subscribe to the Big Bang theory either.

How do you explain the Cosmic Background Radiation then?

I can't and neither can anyone else. Sure, it lends credibility to the Big Bang theory, which remains just that- a theory.
If I had to choose between creationism and naturalism, I'd opt for the latter but nothing that has been proposed so far answers my fundamental question; where did the matter/energy come from that caused the big bang?

But the answer to that question is unknown, given the current state of knowledge, under any theory of the origin of the universe. If the Big Bang theory is incorrect, where did the material/energy that constitutes the universe come from under some other theory? If God created the universe, where did God come from? Because if things need a creator, then what creator created the creator of the universe?

I've debated philosophy on many a forum.

There remains one really funny fact from which all disagreement arises. If an afterlife is impossible, so is this life.
This life is the real source of disagreement, not the next.

But who argues that an afterlife is impossible? I think reasonable people who don't believe in an afterlife simply state that there's no evidence for it. If the existence of this life is presented as a proof of the possibility of an afterlife, then it can be presented as a proof of the possibility of everything.

I do like the theory of infinite universes, which effectively proposes something similar, but not identical – that everything that is possible must happen somewhere, sometime. (Or maybe an infinite number of times, everywhere?) So, under that theory, in some parallel universe, I'm raising the Sam Maguire Cup in the Hogan Stand at this moment.

Good man Hardy, that's a stellar reply!
You have neatly summed up the points I have been trying to make both here and in previous threads.
No theory has yet come close to explaining where the matter/energy came from to generate the Big Bang or, on the other hand, to lead us to assume that there was and will always be an all-powerful, omniscient God.
The theist vs atheist debate may well go on to the end of time as we know it. More than likely, in mortal terms anyway, the answer will not have been discovered by then.
Of course there well may be an afterlife and an infinite number of parallel universes also.
I see no reason to conclude there is, which is a long way short of proclaiming that there isn't.
Some entity, somewhere and sometime, had to kickstart  the process of creation and in order to do so, this entity had to exist before matter/energy came into being.
Logic, as we presently understand it, cannot come up with an answer to that conundrum.

Time only exists because of the arrival of the universe, there does not need to be a before, because without time there was no before.