Exciting theories on the origin of the universe
Please watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ88kC2Nx8M
So after reading a lot about Hawking's "no boundary hypothesis", I realized that people are still asking what came "before time". Hawking has time going back 1/2 of a second, 1/3, 1/4 like that going to infinity but with no limit ("boundary") towards the end. It's very weird. Hawking's idea is that time get's smaller and smaller and becomes indistinguishable from space. It just goes back a distance, a fraction of that,
another fraction and onward to infinity as it shrinks, but space itself is not the limit. He keeps space and time separate. Time just becomes a haze as the equations look more and more like space with every fraction. Time and space infinitely become indistinguishable near the big bang. Hawking's imaginary time is sort of a hybrid of time and space. Keep in mind that gravity can't exist without time because it's a curve in Spacetime.
When Hawking says we can go to the South Pole thinking, at first, that we can go further, I think he realizes you would have to look up in order to go further. The sky is the no-boundary "nothing" in that analogy and the earth is the universe
I think the theory is kinda a form of eternal universe. Space is just space, but time keeps acting more and more like space and nothingness (absolutely no thing) is the boundary. It's fuzzier than just saying there has been an eternity of days in the past. People are still asking though, what is BEHIND this infinite past with nothingness as the boundary? One guy I read suggested simply that the laws of physics are most fundamental.
(Penrose and Carroll both have their theories about the start of the universe. Penrose said he disagreed with what Hawking said in his final book about this, and posits his own eternal universe which reminds me of an infinite slide with water eternally flowing down)
Finally, my guess is thatif you have two eternal principles of matter and no time, the principles eternally act on each other, outside time, and you would have the first motion of the big bang. Einstein said without motion there is no time. So I think that maybe, with a couple fundamental laws of physics in play (more fundamental even than gravity), movement and time can start and we can have a big bang. Having one eternal principle is harder to conceive as gushing out the universe, unless it's some spiritual principle. But if we stick to materialism, two essential laws of matter might be necessary.
What do you think?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ88kC2Nx8M
So after reading a lot about Hawking's "no boundary hypothesis", I realized that people are still asking what came "before time". Hawking has time going back 1/2 of a second, 1/3, 1/4 like that going to infinity but with no limit ("boundary") towards the end. It's very weird. Hawking's idea is that time get's smaller and smaller and becomes indistinguishable from space. It just goes back a distance, a fraction of that,
another fraction and onward to infinity as it shrinks, but space itself is not the limit. He keeps space and time separate. Time just becomes a haze as the equations look more and more like space with every fraction. Time and space infinitely become indistinguishable near the big bang. Hawking's imaginary time is sort of a hybrid of time and space. Keep in mind that gravity can't exist without time because it's a curve in Spacetime.
When Hawking says we can go to the South Pole thinking, at first, that we can go further, I think he realizes you would have to look up in order to go further. The sky is the no-boundary "nothing" in that analogy and the earth is the universe
I think the theory is kinda a form of eternal universe. Space is just space, but time keeps acting more and more like space and nothingness (absolutely no thing) is the boundary. It's fuzzier than just saying there has been an eternity of days in the past. People are still asking though, what is BEHIND this infinite past with nothingness as the boundary? One guy I read suggested simply that the laws of physics are most fundamental.
(Penrose and Carroll both have their theories about the start of the universe. Penrose said he disagreed with what Hawking said in his final book about this, and posits his own eternal universe which reminds me of an infinite slide with water eternally flowing down)
Finally, my guess is thatif you have two eternal principles of matter and no time, the principles eternally act on each other, outside time, and you would have the first motion of the big bang. Einstein said without motion there is no time. So I think that maybe, with a couple fundamental laws of physics in play (more fundamental even than gravity), movement and time can start and we can have a big bang. Having one eternal principle is harder to conceive as gushing out the universe, unless it's some spiritual principle. But if we stick to materialism, two essential laws of matter might be necessary.
What do you think?
Comments (78)
Rationality Rules said he was interested in a theory of the origin of the universe that finite and doesn't have nothingness as a cause. I don't know if gravity can operate this way, but I will give a try. Two historical analogies first
1) Aquinas said the reason causes or births the will, which it in turn needs to operate
2) Fitche said we create or birth objects outside us, the non-Ego. Yet we are dependent on them in order to act
So, here's my argument. Gravity causes time to start by causing motion. So we can calculate all the motions from now till we get to the first motion, and before that there was no time. So the universe wouldn't be eternal or came from nothing. It's just a contained chain of causality, started by the first attraction of gravity.
I think this is far less fuzzy then Hawkings Zeno-like time. Hegel said infinity and finite reacted into causing the universe. I wanted a more physical definition. Theists will still say "you need a God to make sense out of this brute fact". Well people in India think there are monkey gods in the clouds and snakes in our spines. To them nothing makes sense unless these are true. Physics does not deal with psychology lol
That said, I feel strongly that we (non-physicists) ought not to embrace any specific hypothesis. None are established physics, and probably none are actually true. They are possible, but there's unknowns in physics that need to be filled before any cosmological hypothesis can become accepted physics. It's fun to extrapolate from them, but we shouldn't get so overconfident that we think we've got it all figured out.
Quoting GregoryEither that guy is a physicist doing a bad job of metaphysics, or that statement is incomplete. Laws of physics are typically described as equations, but it doesn't make sense to consider equations (alone) as the fundamental basis of the universe. The equations are not abstractions that exercise control over reality; rather they describe how material things behave.
Because we're adding disparate things. But when cosmologists calculate the so-called age of the universe, they refer to cosmological time, which is the time that appears to us to have passed if we go back in time, using the equations of general relativity theory. Meaning cosmological time = apparent/phenomenal time ? real time.
And the universe they refer to, is not the real universe, but the observable or again we can say the phenomenal, what appears to us to be the universe. The internet is full of articles that do not make this distinction, there is no difference between the observable/phenomenal and the real universe, so laymen think they are the same.
On one hand, the columnists are right, because you can't talk about the real universe, so they would have nothing to say, on the other, they don't make the distinction, maybe because they themselves don't know, or because they think the public already knows about it, or maybe for other reasons - to have a job and something to say - I don't know, however not for sensible reasons, but rather for psychological ones. And so there is this global misunderstanding. I imagine that as long as it is limited to the immature public, it does not matter, but if the misunderstanding grows into the scientific community, then there is most probably a problem.
And again, the Big Bang, then, is the "reason" that appears to us to have been the beginning of the observable universe, if, from its apparent current expansion, you run back in time, contracting it, finding that all this was limited to a very small area of ??low density. Cosmologists, however, do not say that the Big Bang started spontaneously, basically they say nothing about its original state, but catch it shortly after it "bursts". But whatever it is, the Big Bang theory refers to the observable/phenomenal universe and not to the real one, for which noone can speak.
The real universe is just like god, no one can talk about them, do not be confused that religions talk about god all the time, purely psychological their reasons are, or maybe poetical, however not logical.
In all, appearances can be deceiving, especially from behind.
[hide]
(For the philosophical literate, viz Wittgenstein - the tractatus)
The problem with the Hawking proposal is that it defines time in relation to spatial existence, as derived from Einsteinian relativity. So, when looking backward at spatial expansion, which has been revealed as a fundamental feature of the universe, we see a time when spatial existence becomes unintelligible. The size of the universe was infinitesimally small at that time. Because the Einsteinian conception of time is dependent on spatial existence, time before this point is completely unintelligible. But that's just a flaw in the Einsteinian conception of time. If we conceive of time as independent from spatial existence, this allows for time prior to spatial existence.
Refusal to allow for time prior to spatial existence is a manifestation of modern scientism. Monist materialism denies the possibility of anything real, independent of material existence. However, dualist principles support a world of immaterial Forms independent from material existence, which act as the cause of material existence. Can you see how this allows for time prior to material existence?
Hopefully you can comprehend that it is only a scientism based metaphysics which supports the Hawking-Hartle no-boundary proposal. With disciplined philosophy we see this world view as insufficient, and unable to account for the immaterial aspects of reality. Therefore such proposals are rejected as inadequate.
Some people refer to them as "the laws of nature". They determine material existence by restricting the behaviour of physical things. There is an inclination in some modern metaphysics to describe physical existence in terms of behaviour. This is based in our conception of "energy". In this perspective, all physical existence is simply activity. But since the laws of physics are very applicable, something must dictate which activities are and are not possible. So the laws of physics are said to be representations of the laws of nature. These "laws of nature" must necessarily be prior to physical existence, if physical existence is law abiding activity. Hence we have a necessity to conceive of immaterial "Forms" which are prior to material existence.
Actually it works at all levels, that's why quantum physics provides us with such good predictions. if you think that events at the small level are absolutely random, and completely unpredictable, then you misunderstand quantum physics.
Quoting tim wood
Laws of physics are descriptive, but the metaphysics I referred to assumes that these laws are representations of the "laws of nature" which govern the behaviour of the physical universe. And this is modern metaphysics I am referring to, not ancient metaphysics.
Quoting tim wood
Actually, the science of physics works really well to make accurate predictions, and there is a reason for this, physical things behave in predictable ways. If you want to start with the premise that all prediction is based in probability, that doesn't effect the argument, because we already know that inductive principles are based in probability. The fact remains, that accurate predictions are possible. Due to this fact modern people tend to assume that there are laws which govern the way that things behave.
[I]Superficial clouds disperse to the mind of simulation, probably after some primal simulate fluctuation. [/I]
Growth, from a state of nothing, implies mass injection. I was not born of nothing, I was born of mother, father, sperm and egg. Nothing can become something, but not without stimulations.
Nothing doesn't become something, something makes something from nothing.
Immaterial forms immerse us in dreams.
An orchestra of anima, orchestrated by a mind. His own friends are known P-zombies; games of an 'AI bias.'
If not stars, what? Hives? And from hives, what's possible?
Perhaps the first mover was a species and less about space and more about shape.
The parasite shape that evovled as it's motion continued. Imagine opposite black hives; living matter jumping from hive to hive, momentary existences.
Time can be chaotic or harmonious; around the beginning of time, time was likely chaotic, and in our time, harmonious. From chaos can come harmony; a great war can bring huge profit to the winner.
Time is and/or isn't a harmonious, neutral or chaotic state.
Time is implied by existence; the harmony of stars and planets creates time, times where animals can exist, and create more times, where video game characters can exist. Time, is also what we consider NOT, or NON, it is, sometimes, just a concept.
Do the Forms exist? Why not pure potentiality, or even spiritual nothingness, instead?
Spiritual powers say WHY things are the way they are. Materially, things can be explained through science. Hume and Russell thoughts the "why question" irrelevant. Many disagree.
If there are Forms or spiritual powers (spiritual potential would be in the middle, spiritual nothing would be the opposite of Forms), can we tap into them?
Consider this: https://subtle.energy/list-100-peer-reviewed-papers-offer-scientific-evidence-psi-phenomena/?fbclid=IwAR2VrdcEtpPx1YzU-O-92EgJh9AjCKkEL0YgSZi_hDhwkaIy-WZPpQhF8Wk
What is the probability that the majority don't want to believe these studies? Would the conspiracy be leaked? But we have people claiming exactly that everywhere on every subject!
Believe! (and maybe watch a movie)
Pure potentiality is demonstrably irrational. This would exclude anything actual, but a cause must be actual. Therefore pure potentiality cannot produce anything actual, and if there ever was pure potentiality, it would always be the case, because nothing actual could ever come from it. However, we do notice that there is actual existence, so we can exclude the possibility of pure potentiality as an unreasonable proposal.
what movie? :chin:
By "actual" I mean active. If you are insisting that to be actual, something must be material, then I'll look to you for an explanation as to why you believe this. I see all sorts of indications that immaterial things are actual, starting with gravity and electromagnetism.
I find that completely incomprehensible. Velocity disappears, work and energy disappears, capacity and performance disappears, efficiency disappears, any physics measurement and concept that depend on the relationship between distance or space and time disappear.
Maybe that is what Hawk was trying to say. But you can't say that time becomes space as you go backward in time. It is just expressing a conundrum, a seemingly impossible situation (i.e. no energy or capacity) by creating a seemingly impossible physical transformation.
Under Einsteinian relativity theory there are no good principles to distinguish spatial measurements from temporal measurements. That is a deficiency of Einsteinian relativity which I mentioned above. So if you look backward in time through the lens of Einsteinian relativity, there is no principle to prevent an interpretation of "time becomes space". But that's just a matter of theory-dependent interpretation. The "seemingly impossible situation" is produced by application of a faulty theory.
I won't dispute this for three reasons:
1. I don't understand the relativity theory.
2. I don't understand what you are saying.
3. I have serious doubts beleiving that you, as well, understand either of the above.
From what I have read, philosophically, there are only 2 possibilities:
1 - Existence and time had a beginning
2 - Existence and time didn't have a beginning - they are eternal.
Any fundamental start point requires an action that had no cause. So you would have to believe in the reality of true spontaneity (without cause) if you envisage a start point. Do you?
If there was an eternal state and then a change occurs, you still need a truly spontaneous or truly random act (also without cause) in order to bring about that change.
The only other possibility is the argument from Determinism - that we are all part of an eternal and inevitable process.
Top scientists these days say that 'space-time' does not exist (as an example - see Dr.Nima Arkani-Hamed video (between about 4 - 10 mins in...... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE). In this clip he also states that the operations of Universe produce inevitable outcomes.
All of these questions relate to the underlying principle of cause & effect. For some reason this forum seems to keep bringing me back to the book by Finipolscie "Our Existence part 1 : The Nature and Origin of Physical Reality" It's all in there, and explained very clearly... but in a way that also lets you make up your own mind about the evidence. (It's on Kindle if you want to read it in the USA).
Time to me is inextricably linked to movement, and so it may be the same thing. If time did begin it would have to also be the first movement - as the ancient Greeks suggested. But it is quite possible to have physical existence without movement. However the introduction of movement to a static Universe would require a spontaneous act.... etc
Yes. I am both a Monist (the universal "substance" is Information), and a Dualist (in the real world Information exists in both physical and metaphysical forms).
In your reply to "tw", you equated Metaphysical Forms with the Laws of Nature. I agree. But in my own worldview, I go even further, to equate Metaphysics (mental forms) with the enforming power of Nature : what scientists call Energy, and what I call EnFormAction. The material aspects of reality are continually being transformed by immaterial energy. Energy is invisible and intangible, until it is embodied in material form. We only know that Energy exists, by inference from the behavior of matter.
Since the universal substance of the universe is invisible/intangible Information/energy, it occupies no Space and is the cause of Time, as it creates Change in the material world. If that is indeed the case, then there is no reason to doubt the possibility/probability of a timeless state "prior to material existence". That being the case, there is good reason to infer some kind of metaphysical Enformer to create our physical world system. :nerd:
Metaphysics : 2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
EnFormAction : Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (AKA : Divine Will) of the axiomatic eternal deity that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to give birth to our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Enformer : A hypothetical First Cause, logically necessary to kick-start the space-time process we call Evolution. Not to be confused with traditional anthro-metric deities. ("Einstein stated that he believed in the pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza") https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein
According to Hegel, it is the other way round: it is space that turns into time:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/324093
It seems that for Hegel, space is more fundamental than time, as in "at first there was space". The subjective movement of space, its negation, procures time.
Considering something in motion stays in motion and something won't start moving unless a force is acted on it and gravity is always at play (gravity applies force continuously. Perhaps the universe has always been in motion and space/time has always been curved.
The universe doesn't change in the sense that it didn't begin, and thus it continues forever at the same time.
Gravity has always cause motion and gravity has always existed.
I changed this to the universe didn't change in that sense that it didn't begin....
If it makes no sense to have a finite temporal universe, why does making it eternal solve the problem. I think they both stand or fall together
i'll have to reread the OP and read further about finite temporal universe. If the universe was forever in motion then it has no beginning. Stephen Hawkings argued that turtles on top of infinite turtles isn't completely ridicoulous.
Something can't me moved unless acted on by an outside force. Gravity always existed. Why is it so ridicoulous that there was always movement in the universe (even if its on the microscopic or sub atomic scale). Turtles on top of turtles isn't completely ridicoulous. Why do we assume there is no movement inside a black hole or when the universe was really small. Heat = movement.
i looked at the OP again.
If a spirit moved the universe to allow movement? Why do we say a spirit doesn't itself move? To say the universe always moved isn't ridicoulous. Heat = movement. If he feels hot or cold today we know there is currently movement, some movement or there was movement at one time.
There are difficulties with eternal time because it brings in absolute time. How could an eternity lead to now and there be a now? That's a paradox. What I came up with is that there is no eternal time, but that we start counting time from the big bang on. First motion, latter motions.
Eternal time doesn't bring in absolute time. Einstein said that time is the iteration of events or the iteration of the movement of particles and among other things he said that a clock on space ship (moving fast) will tell time slower than a clock sitting your bedroom. This was proven with tests flying over the chesapeake bay.
You can have forever heat (heat doesn't have a beginning) and still keep with special relativity.
The rest of what you just said is contigent on the initial statements you made so we can go from there.
It gets into absolute time because of the eternity. Consider the Islamic kalam argument against eternal time. If you think there has to be eternal time, you again think of absolute time. Only nothingness was before the first motion, not a frozen eternity
If there is heat/movement (if there is movement there is heat and if there is heat there is movement) it is not a frozen eternity. Have you ever read "A brief history of time" by Stephen Hawkings. Did you read a book or watch a video?
Absolute time implies that time is not relative. What else are you saying that it implies? What would i search for (be a little more specific) for "the islamic kalam argument against eternal time". Are you saying that is what i should look up?
Absolute time says that things change merely speeds and that our perceptions are not the reality of time. So absolute time and relativity are reconcilable. If something moves at a faster speed, it would say that time doesn't slow down, but our perceptions change. As applied to space, this says things have an objective size and sequence, even though observers might differ in what they perceive. It is brought up with eternal time. The kalam argument asks how there could be a now in there is an eternity of past days. If you have an infinite staircase, you will never get to a point (now). We are here, so there wasn't an eternity of time. That's the argument at least. Absolute times seems required to have an eternal universe, and such a situation is paradoxical.
Can you rewrite that sentence and then we can continue on, otherwise i'll have to rethink everything else you said based on that sentence. That was your first sentence.
You don't have to have time as part of "space-time" in order to understand the math of relativity. Time doesn't slow down; THINGS slow down and enlarge. Clocks are not time itself. We perceive different "times", but there could be an overarching objective time above it all by which they are compared. Does that help explain my post?
I understand clocks aren't time, but clocks are built from particles and particles are effected by the fact that the linear velocity can't exceed C when you combine the X, Y and Z vectors. This does effect the clock's ability to "accurately" tell time.
I do agree there could be an overarching objective time but thats a separate forum topic.
In reality you could be right (small possibility) about what you believe, but modern Physicists (as opposed to 100 years ago when things were less refined and more simple and less things were known) crunch numbers, run tests and do math all day. What do you know about Newtonian Physics because you really can't skip Newtonian Physics nor Calculus.
Nor Linear Algebra which is not something i'm good at.
Not enough. But plenty of philosophers and some physicists believe that time is merely a measure humans give to events. Whether time is infinite in the past definitely applies to this thread's topic. The Kalam argument starts by saying "everything that begins has a cause" then goes on to argue there can't be an eternal past, so there must be a beginning. I see a problem with an eternal universe too. But I don't think we need to posit God just because there is a first motion. The kalam argument is used primarily to argue for God
I actually don't know the answer to this so i'm asking you. Do most (most) Physticists say there was always heat (a temperature above -480 degees farenheit or 0 degrees kelvin) from the beginning or was the original temperature 0 kelvin? Once again what do most Physicists say?
Absolute 0 for farenheit might be -483 point something but i don't feel like looking it up. 0 kelvin is absolute 0 in kelvin.
From what I've read, physicist generally say there was no heat at the beginning because there was no motion.. It went from a point, which is not even a size, to size, and then to great size (expanding universe). What triggered this motion is what the debate is about. But there is no point talking about the point (pun intended). All that is actual is the heat and motion coming from it. Causality is tricky when dealing with a point as the limit
An object at rest will stay at rest unless acted on by an outside force (Newtonian law)
Not saying you are wrong but are you saying this particular aspect of Newtonian physics is wrong?
Ofcourse not all aspects of Newtonian physics were rejected by later physicists.
There is no "rest" before the first motion. There is nothing. Everything is a stream or flow from a single "point"
The eyes can link up with mental vision. Hindus call it third eye
If no particles are moving, how is that not rest? Actually now that i think about it can matter even exist in the first place if there is no movement? I'm not sure you can say there wasn't always heat/movement.
You didn't tag me so i didn't see the post.
What do you mean by activity? Basically what i'm saying is can electron, proton or whatever subatomic particle that existed in the beginning, how can it exist without motion (because you said there was no motion). At this point in time i believe micro collisions or movement eternally existed going back forever.
An Proton for example as far as i know is a wave of smaller particles moving back and forth. Can matter exist without movement/heat?
The only way you can explain (at this point in the conversation) is a spiritual/religious solution which is what you did with the follow up reply. As you've probably guessed, personally i have no problem with that.
Actually i agree, watching tv is a great way to pass the time but not a great way to get ideas about how society should work or about how to vote at the election.
That button doesn't always work on the laptop. Sorry
Quoting christian2017
No. It everything is dependent on motion and motion on them, but motion is the prime mover.
Quoting christian2017
Plato said learning geometry and would have said watching Snow White are activities that help the society. Platonic stuff
Matter is defined by degrees of solidity. Nothingness must be the softest "thing" possible (although it's closer to an idea than a substance. Sorry Descartes). I think science can answer the HOW but not the what or the why. The how can be explained by a non-existing clock. It clicks, the first second thus exist, and then the second, ect. Suddenly a whole clock exists and it rebirths itself every hour. It didn't come from nothing as far as science is concerned. It just is a brute fact. Nothingness is necessary (how could there not be nothing?) but not brute. It's too soft for that :)
I believe nothing exists as in a small vacuum as in the phrase "light travels best in a vacuum".
I believe there are spaces in our universe that have nothing (vacuum), or atleast that is what my current understanding is.
If matter matter requires motion and all matter involves gravitational pull (Newtonian as well as Einstein believed this), wouldn't that imply there was always motion, thus eternal motion going back forever? Or did i misunderstand you and matter or small particles did not always exist?
I believe those places are were holiness resides. Not a being, not a Person, but abstract holiness.
"Impermanence, called anicca or anitya (Sanskrit) appears extensively in the Pali Canon as one of the essential doctrines of Buddhism" Wiki
Impermanence implies something from nothing.
"The Theravada school teaches that there is no universal personal god. The world as we know it does not have its origin in a primordial being such as Brahman or the Abrahamic God." Wiki
You are basically asking what the particles were doing before the first pull of gravity and the first tick of the clock. I am saying "throw out absolute time". Nothing was before it. Absolutely nothing, holiness
back to collective soul or collective consceeeence. I don't entirely disagree with that. Is that what you are getting at.
We and the world have all the reality to exist on our own, yet we are dependent on nothingness. I can't settle that paradox, but it is not a contradiction. If it feels like a contradiction, the thought will take time. We don't all share a common soul nor experience the same things. So we are "collective" only through the womb of nothing. "A medium" as Hegel put it
Hinduism and Buddhism actually have alot in common. There are actually subsets of both Hinduism and Buddhism that approach the threshold of being atheist (to put it simply). I'm guessing if i wanted to know what you believe i would study a Hindu or Buddhist Holy book?
For an Eastern view, yes. For a Western view, the German idealists
Druidism and alot of (at the very least indo-european) non abrahamic religions share a significant (maybe not tremendous) similarities to Hinduism. I don't know much about the deeper aspects of Viking and Saxon religion.
The Dravidians were conquered by the "aryans" (not being racist because they would tell you this) in India/Pakistan. This is part of why there is still a caste system in India to this day. The aryans are commonly said among "scientists" to be indo-european. I'm not implying superiority, what i'm saying right now is a common cliche of what happened. Perhaps you know more about this subject.
I've read a little about it. Ancestor worship is very popular in other religions. I personally think it may have been a more comforting religion in times of crisis than the Jewish rabbi one now popular
I was talking about Hinduism. Did i mention ancestor worship? Whats this about a jewish rabbi?
I was speaking of Jesus. You brought up Druids, so I brought up another interesting theory. With the theory of evolution, how far back is it scientifically rational to worship your ancestors? Hinduism doesn't interest me as much as Buddhism though. Fascinination with nothingness!
Oh so you were saying ancestor worship was more comforting than christianity (your original phrase was slightly vague). I disagree but whatever.
Humans could easily go back 2 million years and a minimum of 100,000. I don't see why human ancestor worshiping religions can't go back to scientific adam and scientific eve. You ought to look up those concepts because scientists actually recognize scientific adam and scientific eve.
Christianity is immoral, ancestor worship isn't. Sure it's comforting to think a God would die for you in order to change you (not you personally) from a evil person to a good person. But it's a clear perversion of justice in the name of mercy. Mercy has to do with doing away with punishment in order to give someone a chance to make up for what they did. Christianity changes mercy into something else, saying that you can't make up for your sins so that your only salvation is for God to walla! change you into a good person. It's sick. It was created by sinners for sinners. Bad people created it. Weak people believe it. We all have weak moments though
Quoting christian2017
Cool
ok