ok im reluctant to use any quote
but will use Pericles<<..That is a good illustration of what they mean...You choose to believe that there are other dimensions that conventional science cannot track...The reason they cannot track it is because it relies upon your belief in non-trackable experiences.

The fact that you choose to believe them does not in any way invalidate the scientific approach..all science is saying to you is "I choose not to believe you".

The difference is not that science's claim is self-refuting,but that your claim is,and can only be,entirely self-justifying.>>

that sort of says how i feel re the after life..or rather those who comunicate [or claim to communicate] with the beings living on in the hereafter... i post it as more a statement[or a warning to those cold heartless lost souls who claim the right to lord it over the meek]

the story on the link is self explane-tory[and might hold some clue to what happend to that overlord..from the inquisition..that conducted his form of perversion of religious zeal..;..potentiate of spi-ritual poisen..during the dark ages

http://www.angelfire.com/ne/newviews/wsl9.html

i have no need to prove its veracity or proof[only that it be taken for what it is] a possable word for the wise, wispered from beyond, as witnessed by one who learned the values of repentance of the vile they chose to live

Error Above: ". Again, in the case of the Christian Trinity, other religions have trinities, herein, for a person coming from Mars, there does appear to be adequate differentiation to claim the Christian godhead is special.

Should read:

Error Above: ". Again, in the case of the Christian Trinity, other religions have trinities, herein, for a person coming from Mars, there does NOT appear to be adequate differentiation to claim the Christian godhead is special.

I am grateful for all the feedbacks my recent remarks have received. They enrich my own world-view with a view from outside. I shall try to address some of them, probably needing more than one 24 hour period.

As said, I am firstly interested in fairness in dealing with others’ world-views, and only secondly in offering explanations, if asked for, concerning my own position.

Grim,
I agree, except that one must be careful when speaking about an “all encompassing Cosmos, ie existing BEFORE the big bang“ since time, as we understand it, is intrinsically connected with our universe. As Hawking put it, to ask what was before the big bang is like asking what is to the north of the North Pole.

Dan S,
I understand your point, the meaning of which depends on what you call “observe": there are things in our universe which we are aware of because we can observe them using modern instruments, that people e.g. in the Middle Ages were not aware of.

There are also concepts and physical theories built around these concepts using mathematics, that purport to inform us about our universe. These theories we cannot “observe”, i.e. verify, directly, only check to what extent observable/measurable consequences of these theories are actually observed/measured using our physical instruments.

I do not understand what you mean by “real science” or “real universe“ although I agree that our universe is marvelous. However, calling it exceptional presumes the existence of other universes, which is still a very vague hypothesis.

>>you are welcome to try and define your minimum education levels required in the 21st Century to qualify to discuss such musings<<
Well, it is not my fault that to appreciate the role contemporary physical theories play in our understanding of the intrinsic nature of our physical world, one needs to appreciate the role of mathematics therein. And to understand these theories to the point of being able to CRITICISE them, one needs to KNOW a lot of non-trivial mathematics, at least - I guess - at the level of contemporary PhD in mathematical physics

bushbasher,
>> i'm not claiming all the rationality for we non-religious folk <<
That indeed belongs to what I called fairness in dealing with other world-views. Of course, there are many unreasonable people and institutions, including some Christians and their churches.

>> is it really true that 54% of australians "believe in the resurrection"?<<
I do not know, I suppose the response would have depended on how one interprets the ambiguous question (I presume you mean Jesus not our “afterlife”).

You are right, there is a whole spectrum of interpretations: from the “metaphorical manner“ (that would not do justice to Jesus, since it can be applied to many thinkers from history) to the verbatim, where “bodily” means return to his physical body (which e.g. contradicts the biblical account of him walking through a closed door). There are volumes of theological studies on how the term “bodily resurrection“ could/should be understood. I am not going to quote, probably would not understand them anyhow, since I lack theological qualifications.

I guess the majority of Christians take this basic tenet of their faith on its face value, and do not speculate about it, like the majority of people accept that 2+3=3+2 and do not speculate about commutative or non-commutative rings. I know, this is not very convincing, since the theory of rings is a well known and understood part of mathematics, whereas in theology you do not have this formal unity of understandings: The relation of the NT narratives to historical findings is even more complicated, and less understood, than the relation of OT (Genesis) to contemporary science.

pelican,

Please reread my remark; it was not about who is stupid or superstitious but about an unfortunate formulation that could be misunderstood.

Superstition is seen by everybody as a negative attribute, so if you “see (any) religious belief as superstitious” there would be no point in trying to understand each other, though you are probably right, that there are more superstitious Christians than atheists. (continued in 24 hours).

“...all encompassing Cosmos, ie existing BEFORE the big bang“ since time, as we understand it, is intrinsically connected with our universe. As Hawking put it, to ask what was before the big bang is like asking what is to the north of the North Pole."

My point exactly, George. Within the frame of reference of the Earth, 'North of the North pole' is nonsensical. If an imaginary line is drawn from the south pole through the north pole, and continuing forever, then there is an almost infinite amount of matter north of the north pole.
Within the frame of reference of our universe, nothing existed before the big bang. Some scientists (including Sagan) have speculated that, as our universe is -by definition- a black hole (no light can escape from it) perhaps all black holes contain Universes. The Big Bang occurs when a star collapses to form a black hole.
Sagan -in Cosmos- went on to speculate that, since the inflationary theory requires the universe to have begun from a point in space the size of an electron, perhaps every electron is a universe in itself.
In other words, an infinite regression.
I look at my hand and think, this hand is made of atoms.
Every atom is a Universe.
In every universe there is a world.
On that world there is a man, looking at his hand and thinking;
this hand is made of atoms...

THE"BIG BANG"IS JUST RELIGION DISGUISED AS SCIENCE

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/bang.html?q=bang.html

EXTRACT<<..one theory fits into a theology,and the other does not.

The assumption that there must be a beginning to the universe is merely a human invention...We believe that we see things have beginnings and ends before us,but in truth we are seeing matter change form.

..that the actual matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed is an axiom pf physics.....our sun is nowhere near the center of the milky way,the idea that Earth is the center of all remains at the heart of the assumptions of the Big-Bang/theory.

The"Bangers" describe the furthest objects we can detect(currently 13 billion light years)and from that calculate the age of the universe (currently set at 14 billion years).

But that only works if we ASSUME that the Earth is the center for all the cosmos that we can see...It is true that we are seeing objects out to the edge of our technological limits and we are seeing them in all directions.

And if we abandon the assumption that we see most of the the universe from a fortunate position near the center,..then we cannot really know how large the universe really is,and the mathematics by which we claim to know the age based on the size break down completely.

UPDATE: PROOF THE BIG BANG DID NOT HAPPEN

Perhaps the biggest contradiction with the Big Bang Theory is the question of the singularity...The "primordial egg"had to be a super-massive black hole...Therefore no amount of"bang",no matter how big,is going to thrust the universe out into,..well,..the universe.

Cosmologists eager to promote the Big Bang Theory have hit upon the"explanation"that the laws of physics,gravity.etc.simply did not apply in those first few moments of the universe...lol

Ah,but there is a problem...The singularity formed by the primordial egg turns out to be rather large.

Estimates of the total mass of the universe vary wildly, given that the ends of the universe have not yet been determined.One estimate is found at http://www.rostra.dk/louis/quant_11.html of 2.6*1060

more at the varios links

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=gd&q=THE+%22BIG+BANG%22+IS+JUST+RELIGION+DISGUISED+AS+SCIENCE&hl=en-GB&rls=MEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB