Problems with the Heaven Concept

[Sheshbazzar]

I'm saying that there is a definite point in the timeline, around which the emergence of current natural law centers.

There is?

The things which occurred before the emergence of natural law are still recorded, so we have a written and oral history of the previous types of events that happened, events that were not confined by the current natural laws.

Do tell, when was that "definite point in the timeline"? Year, Month, and Date please.

 

[Kharakov]

There is?

It's a statement about the idea.

The things which occurred before the emergence of natural law are still recorded, so we have a written and oral history of the previous types of events that happened, events that were not confined by the current natural laws.

Do tell, when was that "definite point in the timeline"? Year, Month, and Date please.

Tell me, in the history of the universe, what time the first sandwich was eaten. Year, Month, and Date please.

You put a lot of effort into not understanding reality, don't you?

 

[Kharakov]

You do realize of course, if 'natural laws could have emerged at any point in history and shaped the history before and after them in the timeline,' That not only the known laws of Physics and rational accountings of history would become unsustainable, but that the accounts of the Bible, and of zombie Jesus would also be subject to an equal degree of doubtfulness and undependability.

Yeah, that wasn't exactly what I was trying to describe. I thought I put it a bit clearer in the post above this one:

I was going for a more probabilistic slant on the idea in the first place, but ended up with what you quoted, chasing a strawman of my own creation.

I'm saying that there is a definite point in the timeline, around which the emergence of current natural law centers. The things which occurred before the emergence of natural law are still recorded, so we have a written and oral history of the previous types of events that happened, events that were not confined by the current natural laws.

Only at points in time in which there exists a framework that can reach back into history from the current configuration of the physical universe, can natural laws switch. At one of these points, natural laws CAN switch, or there is a branch in the history of the universe, with one branch following the old law, and one following the new (or a combination of the 2 sets of laws).

The recorded information remains the same because the new laws have to be able to exactly match the state of the universe at the time they emerge.

Our technological system could break down- the internet could be gone, yet something would go forward from that point, because the new law would have a path from the past that intersected, joined, and then crossed the path followed by our natural law.

I'm not averse to the idea of natural law that leads all the way back to the big bang. It's actually a pretty cool idea, and one that I used to argue for constantly.

 

[Sheshbazzar]

You put a lot of effort into not understanding reality, don't you?

I don't seem to be the one that is having that problem.
Reality to me encompasses the things I experience, and the facts of Physics that can be demonstrated _ not wild ass religious theories and imaginations lacking in any evidence, contrary to the sciences, and incapable of any demonstration.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

It's a statement about the idea.

The things which occurred before the emergence of natural law are still recorded, so we have a written and oral history of the previous types of events that happened, events that were not confined by the current natural laws.

Do tell, when was that "definite point in the timeline"? Year, Month, and Date please.

Tell me, in the history of the universe, what time the first sandwich was eaten. Year, Month, and Date please.

You put a lot of effort into not understanding reality, don't you?

You are assuming that there was a point at which the ultimate foundational laws emerged. But as Parmenides pointed out, nothing comes from nothing so there must have always been something. And thus the basic laws of some sort. Study of this is called nomology and science has little to say about it as we have too little data to know much beyond Paramenide's principle.

All else is not much more than speculation. Chaos theory, self organizing systems, Wolfram's cellular automatons et al is as far as its going.

 

[Sheshbazzar]

I'm saying that there is a definite point in the timeline, around which the emergence of current natural law centers. The things which avoided occurred before the emergence of natural law are still recorded, so we have a written and oral history of the previous types of events that happened, events that were not confined by the current natural laws.

Thus far you have avoided or failed to identify any such "definite point in the timeline".

That 'point' in the timeline' was some time after the death, the miraculous resurrection, magical appearing in locked rooms, and levitating up into a cloud by zombie Jesus I presume?

Only at points in time in which there exists a framework that can reach back into history from the current configuration of the physical universe, can natural laws switch. At one of these points, natural laws CAN switch, or there is a branch in the history of the universe, with one branch following the old law, and one following the new (or a combination of the 2 sets of laws).

You imply multiple 'points in time'. Can you identify or provide a date for even ONE of these alleged 'points' in time'?
And what specifically are you claiming changed about the natural laws of Physics at that "point"?

 

[jonJ]

Tell me, in the history of the universe, what time the first sandwich was eaten. Year, Month, and Date please.

Google is your friend.

The first written record of the sandwich was in 1762 and the Kent town of Sandwich, which is the earldom of the Montagu family, is celebrating the 250th anniversary of the meal.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-kent-18010424

Next question?

 

[Kharakov]

You put a lot of effort into not understanding reality, don't you?

I don't seem to be the one that is having that problem.
Reality to me encompasses the things I experience, and the facts of Physics that can be demonstrated _ not wild ass religious theories and imaginations lacking in any evidence, contrary to the sciences, and incapable of any demonstration.

Whoa there buddy. Making crazy claims without justification, or even a complete understanding of what you are saying is pretty out there. You don't know that this idea is incapable of any demonstration. I'll outline a scenario below:

Say, at some point in time, a new natural law emerges, or there is a shift in the current natural laws that bind us. Let's say that the magnitude of the shift in natural law is not so great that it eliminates our recorded history, and/or our knowledge of the past. Perhaps it will happen gradually over a period of time (you know, sort of like how this idea has emerged over a period of time).

The shift in laws will cause specific changes in various measurements made, which will differ from the recorded measurements from the past. This time, however, we have much greater accuracy of measurements recorded, so when a shift in natural law occurs, we won't be able to sweep it under the rug with claims of "measurements were faulty in the past" or "the theories were not exact descriptions, which is why they weren't accurate".

Of course, assuming that the new laws resolidify for a period of a few 100 years, I'm pretty sure we will have a vocal portion of the populace that claims that natural laws were always the same.

 

[Kharakov]

You are assuming that there was a point at which the ultimate foundational laws emerged. But as Parmenides pointed out, nothing comes from nothing so there must have always been something.

Love the reference, but you missed the point entirely. I'm not saying that the currently observed natural laws are the "ultimate foundational laws" by which all things are governed (if there is even an absolute set), or that they emerged as such. I'm saying that we don't know that the current natural laws have always existed in the exact form they do now.

All else is not much more than speculation. Chaos theory, self organizing systems, Wolfram's cellular automatons et al is as far as its going.

It's speculation until change in natural law is detected. Eventually, instead of saying "that theory or measuring apparatus was not accurate", we will get to the point when we will be able to say "we have detected changes in natural laws that govern what we observe, and the fact that these changes mostly preserved our way of life indicates that A) we are very fucking unbelievably lucky (chance that natural laws of the observed universe switch to another life supporting configuration from the current form without destroying all life being very fricken small) or B) we are very fucking lucky, and do have help."

Of course, there will be pseudoscientific theories about the switch in natural law, but at that point, those who have kept on supporting the scientific method will have little choice but to accept reality as it is. Not like you won't be justified in waiting for a switch in natural law.... or your belief in the scientific method.

 

[Kharakov]

Tell me, in the history of the universe, what time the first sandwich was eaten. Year, Month, and Date please.

The first written record of the sandwich was in 1762 and the Kent town of Sandwich, which is the earldom of the Montagu family, is celebrating the 250th anniversary of the meal.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-kent-18010424

Wow, so that's where and when the first Sandwich was eaten (down to the exact Day!!!)? Wow, I suppose all of the different stories about the origination of Memorial day are true as well (well, possibly in the MWI of QM).

 

[Ramaraksha]

Responding to the original post - I find it amazing that thru all these years - we are talking thousands - few have raised any questions as to exactly what any of the followers will be doing in heaven all day. Will they be floating around drugged out of their brains all day? Will they be chanting and praising the big guy? because he will be providing them free food, sex, drink and board for eternity? You better or else? How is this any different from a prostitute finding a rich Sugar Daddy?

I fear too much brain-washing has been done by these religions or people have willingly allowed themselves to be brain-washed. Is Death that fearful that we stop asking questions?

 

[dockeen]

Responding to the original post - I find it amazing that thru all these years - we are talking thousands - few have raised any questions as to exactly what any of the followers will be doing in heaven all day. Will they be floating around drugged out of their brains all day? Will they be chanting and praising the big guy? because he will be providing them free food, sex, drink and board for eternity? You better or else? How is this any different from a prostitute finding a rich Sugar Daddy?

I fear too much brain-washing has been done by these religions or people have willingly allowed themselves to be brain-washed. Is Death that fearful that we stop asking questions?

And the flip side of this is people never seriously ponder how it reflects on their god that he wants these "praise singers" singing his praises FOR AN ETERNITY.
Creation is a tiny sliver of time, setting up the rest of eternity for a love fest.

 

[Kharakov]

And the flip side of this is people never seriously ponder how it reflects on their god that he wants these "praise singers" singing his praises FOR AN ETERNITY.
Creation is a tiny sliver of time, setting up the rest of eternity for a love fest.

Well, if God is a dude, that's puts a limit on how much some of us can love God. That's definitely a deal breaker, at least in regards to my personal preferences.

Anyways, I think the point is that if you constantly say "so and so sucks", dig yourself into a hole, create reasons why this person sucks, and you can't let them go, this is one perspective you can have of God. You know- create within yourself the perspective that God is an evil dickhead who uses people to achieve God's own ends (like a rich asshole uses slave labor to create a nice palace for themselves).

The other perspective is- you cannot help but praising God if you approach God (well, I can, but I'm better than you or God), because God is that awesome and love inspiring. The act of not praising God, or thinking "I'm better than God", results in a distancing of one's self from the true form of God, which inspires real,true praise and love in those who truly and honestly approach.

And really- the onus is on u to prove that God is not that awesome, and by winning this fool's battle, and "proving" (in your imagination) that God is less than perfect, you have simply placed perfection out of your reach for "eternity", for you have wandered away from the true form of God, to a false form in your own imagination.

Once you've strayed... you can only rely on the help of the one or those you attacked and created falsehoods about to bring you back into the fold. But screw those fuckers. They're assholes anyway.

 

[dockeen]

And the flip side of this is people never seriously ponder how it reflects on their god that he wants these "praise singers" singing his praises FOR AN ETERNITY.
Creation is a tiny sliver of time, setting up the rest of eternity for a love fest.

Well, if God is a dude, that's puts a limit on how much some of us can love God. That's definitely a deal breaker, at least in regards to my personal preferences.

Anyways, I think the point is that if you constantly say "so and so sucks", dig yourself into a hole, create reasons why this person sucks, and you can't let them go, this is one perspective you can have of God. You know- create within yourself the perspective that God is an evil dickhead who uses people to achieve God's own ends (like a rich asshole uses slave labor to create a nice palace for themselves).

The other perspective is- you cannot help but praising God if you approach God (well, I can, but I'm better than you or God), because God is that awesome and love inspiring. The act of not praising God, or thinking "I'm better than God", results in a distancing of one's self from the true form of God, which inspires real,true praise and love in those who truly and honestly approach.

And really- the onus is on u to prove that God is not that awesome, and by winning this fool's battle, and "proving" (in your imagination) that God is less than perfect, you have simply placed perfection out of your reach for "eternity", for you have wandered away from the true form of God, to a false form in your own imagination.

Once you've strayed... you can only rely on the help of the one or those you attacked and created falsehoods about to bring you back into the fold. But screw those fuckers. They're assholes anyway.

A god who demands worship, under pain of eternal torture is not awesome. Powerful perhaps, not awesome.

 

[Kharakov]

A god who demands worship, under pain of eternal torture is not awesome. Powerful perhaps, not awesome.

I don't know about the not being awesome. If God said "worship me or I'll kick your ass" I'd probably laugh. I mean, it's pretty fucking funny if you think about it. So, really, God should not be able to joke, because everything God does has to be COMPLETELY serious- it's the law mothuhfuckuh! There should be some divine line that isn't crossed, in which only subordinate beings can tell jokes, and God has to sit there quietly, in the .. well, everywhere, and be a wallflower, or wall tit, or... umm... just stay in the background and don't bug us while we talk about you. Bad God!

 

[dockeen]

A god who demands worship, under pain of eternal torture is not awesome. Powerful perhaps, not awesome.

I don't know about the not being awesome. If God said "worship me or I'll kick your ass" I'd probably laugh. I mean, it's pretty fucking funny if you think about it. So, really, God should not be able to joke, because everything God does has to be COMPLETELY serious- it's the law mothuhfuckuh! There should be some divine line that isn't crossed, in which only subordinate beings can tell jokes, and God has to sit there quietly, in the .. well, everywhere, and be a wallflower, or wall tit, or... umm... just stay in the background and don't bug us while we talk about you. Bad God!

So would you have a problem that a god that demanded to be worshiped, under pain of eternal torture, yes or no?

And then, also yes, or no, would you have a problem with a god that created lesser beings (with the associated cost of earthy and eternal after earthly suffering) for the sole purpose of having beings around to tell him how great he is for all eternity?

 

[Kharakov]

So would you have a problem that a god that demanded to be worshiped, under pain of eternal torture, yes or no?

Is it some kind of really hot S & M stuff? Might be interesting at some point, but I'm not super into that type of thing. I'd rather have a hot tub, awesome drugs, etc...

And then, also yes, or no, would you have a problem with a god that created lesser beings (with the associated cost of earthy and eternal after earthly suffering) for the sole purpose of having beings around to tell him how great he is for all eternity?

Ehh... well, I'm not into dudes, so I'd probably be like "ok, so you made this cool stuff that I like, especially drugs, hot women, and orgasms, but I'm realllllly not into guys, so, ya know, umm, I'll go over here where it's a bit warmer."

And really, if a being is that powerful they should be able to tell how I feel about what they do, so that kind of stuff should go without saying- am I supposed to say this stuff so that you see me saying it or something?

Like some weird Christian praise porn or something? That seems a little... adult for my tastes. I'd rather relax. Maybe get into that praise porn stuff in the future- I've... other things I'm more comfortable with.

Really, I don't know if I could do it- because in the end, you can't be anything but honest about how you feel, soooo.....

 

[dockeen]

Evasion duly noted.

 

[Kharakov]

Worship isn't something that should be gained through threats (AFAICT). It's something earned. And a God that gained false worship through threats would ultimately have a very low opinion of themselves when they figured out exactly what they had earned.