[Herra Tohtori]

Meh. For all intents and purposes, supernatural phenomena do not exist.

Anything that happens in our universe* or in any way affects it is unavoidably an integral part of the universe. Everything that happens in the universe is thus a natural phenomenon. Supernatural stuff can not, by definition, affect our universe because then it becomes part of our universe and thus a natural phenomenon.

"Supernatural" is just a concept often used to inaccurately describe things that don't seem to have an explicable origin, and more specifically seem to have an unknown, conscious origin. That doesn't change the fact that everything observable is part of the universe, and conversely, anything that is not part of the universe does not exist. Ergo, god(s) cannot be supernatural and must be natural entities.


Whether or not one or more of these powerful, personal entities have affected the birth of Earth, life and it's evolution, we have no way of knowing for sure. I personally doubt it and don't think it's necessary in any way. But as it stands, it doesn't seem to make much of a difference because these entities sure did a good job of hiding themselves of something really *did* all this.

In other words, it's possible that all that is was actually made 10:12 pm last afternoon and our neurons just remember things before that because they were all set individually, but this is more of a Flying Spaghetti Monster domain of theologic theories and quite obviously highly unlikely. But possible, of course.

As to the original topic, the realism of Vasudans: I think it is certainly plausible to think that there would be other beings in universe with a torso, lower and upper pairs of limbs and a head of some kind, walking in more or less upright position. It's a pretty vague form and leaves a lot of things to be decided by evolution, such as the structure of the skeleton (endo/exo, amount of joints in limbs, chemical composition), cell biology like how to produce energy and from what elements, how to store genetic material (DNA, RNA, other mechanisms), what to consist of (proteines most likely, but polymers are also an option for example), internal organ position, nervous system structure (central nervous system or distributed nervous system), fine tuning of sensory organs (what wavelengths, sound frequencies and chemicals they would sense, and also the more exotic sensory organs like electric and magnetic fields)...

The existence of another humanoid beings in the universe is pretty much sure given the huge size of it.

Now, much less likely is to encounter one of the races set to the vague humanoid form such close to our origin system. Or any kind of sentient species at all to begin with.


*note that when I'm talking about universe, I speak of everything that affects each other. So actually universe in this context is the multiverse, but at any rate I think that multiverse is the actual universe in the true sense of the word... and what we know as "universe" is actually just a "verse". Or perhaps it is our observerse...

So, commonly used term "universe" would be "observerse" (the part of universe directly observable to us, also includes the parts beyond the red line the expansion event horizon), and consequently the term "multiverse" would be the actual "universe" (includes all observerses).

[Mobius]

Going back to old R. Descartes' philosophy, what can we really verify?
Although science has proved to be a good method to analyse and, up to some extents, predict reality,  we have to admit that, as every knowledge matter, it lies on a weak ground, which is sensorial perception. in theory, unless we prove the perceptions of our senses are the TRUE (!) and the RIGHT (!)ones, we cannot justify most scientific laws.

However the fact that science can't every be 100% proven correct is no justification for saying "Well then, I'm going to pick something less likely to be correct." Sure senses can be imperfect,  but saying that this is a reason to choose something else is like saying that cause your eyes can be tricked you might as well close them and use The Force when crossing the road.

That's was I was trying to say. We can't be sure of something and believe on something else...something that looks like a tale.

In other words, it's possible that all that is was actually made 10:12 pm last afternoon and our neurons just remember things before that because they were all set individually, but this is more of a Flying Spaghetti Monster domain of theologic theories and quite obviously highly unlikely. But possible, of course.

I want to know why people follow these theories. They're possible, of course, but there's almost no trace of proofs(I just read something about Intergalactic distances, but I don't remember it now) while other theories have plenties of proofs to speak of.

As to the original topic, the realism of Vasudans: I think it is certainly plausible to think that there would be other beings in universe with a torso, lower and upper pairs of limbs and a head of some kind, walking in more or less upright position. It's a pretty vague form and leaves a lot of things to be decided by evolution, such as the structure of the skeleton (endo/exo, amount of joints in limbs, chemical composition), cell biology like how to produce energy and from what elements, how to store genetic material (DNA, RNA, other mechanisms), what to consist of (proteines most likely, but polymers are also an option for example), internal organ position, nervous system structure (central nervous system or distributed nervous system), fine tuning of sensory organs (what wavelengths, sound frequencies and chemicals they would sense, and also the more exotic sensory organs like electric and magnetic fields)...

The existence of another humanoid beings in the universe is pretty much sure given the huge size of it.

Now, much less likely is to encounter one of the races set to the vague humanoid form such close to our origin system. Or any kind of sentient species at all to begin with.

That's what we were giving for sure

[Centrixo]

ok you belive god is real, then ok i belive a race called the Tu'Brak is real and are a dangerous foe...

if you do not belive there is such a race, then it's easy to disprove superstitions...

[Mobius]

God may be not real, but no one is authorized to act like my teacher did. We must respect the others' opinions, but being almost suspended because of a stupid discussion is horrible.

You're free to think whatever you want

[MP-Ryan]

Religion and science are only capable of being reconciled if one recognizes that science is based upon accumultation of observable facts (and thus yields knowledge which is true at a given point in time for all like observers) while religion is a collection of faiths/beliefs which are based upon accumulation of oral and written tradition and yields knowledge which differs between all possible observers at any given point in time.

Science is a way of knowing (if knowing is truly possible), whereas religion is a way of believing or making sense of reality, which is always possible.

Man has been using religion as a means of understanding the world around him for as long as man has recorded history (and undoubtably well before that).  It is a very valuable form of knowledge.  However, religion is a conditional form of knowledge tied to context.  It is on this last point where modern religion finds itself in a quagmire.  Rather than accepting that knowledge may change over time, they insist upon interpreting stories - which were written down by man's hand - as facts from God which are absolute.

Christianity, for instance, is reconcilable with both Big Bang theory and Evolutionary Theory, just as it reconciled with gravity and the realization that the world is round.  The problem is that many individuals (see Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort for two astounding examples) insist that the bible be interpreted literally.  It is my opinion 9and the opinion of many biblical scholars, so this isn't fluff from nowhere) that Genesis and Revelations, to choose a couple examples, are written using literary devices (such as metaphors) in order to explain the world in a time when no other explanation would have held water.

So - and I haven't read this whole thread - if any of you are Literalists, I suggest you take a good hard look at the Bible from a literary standpoint rather than a purely dogmatic one.

That said, Convictions and Beliefs are probably the most difficult knowledges to change or modify.  I do not generally get deeply involved in religious discussions anymore because - while I can explain the molecular existence of evolution - I'm not going to convince someone who is resolute in their beliefs.

[S-99]

So - and I haven't read this whole thread - if any of you are Literalists, I suggest you take a good hard look at the Bible from a literary standpoint rather than a purely dogmatic one.

That said, Convictions and Beliefs are probably the most difficult knowledges to change or modify.  I do not generally get deeply involved in religious discussions anymore because - while I can explain the molecular existence of evolution - I'm not going to convince someone who is resolute in their beliefs.

Well said. Idk why people like to mix religion and science. They're too different things, one is a belief, the other is quite literal with theorizing and tons of hands on learning. Taking the bible literally would just well suck for many. The bible tells you how to be a good person and how to get to heaven in the new testament, and in the old testament it tells you basically how to be a jew with moses and the ten commandments and all the other jewish laws from god.

The bible doesn't say, god hast taken quarks, and created an atom, and put thy atoms together to make a cow. It's only through science that we know matter is made up of atoms. The qu'ran and the bible certainly didn't teach you that. It took good hard thinking and proving. Christianity and other religions don't push for scientific method, because their not supposed to, but because they're not supposed to, religious leaders just put there hands over their ears and go LALALALALALALALALA! and start trying to put religion in place of science which is incorrect, as opposed to trying to understand things out there. And that's where you go those who are too sheltered by there religion (shall i mention the muslim community with why the **** women need to cover themselves up all the time, and why muslims go ape**** when a chick just dresses up in pants and shirt or something normal like that).

Anyway becareful with mixing science and religion. I mean according to your religion you'll hear something from the science community that will support claims in your religion until that something gets disproven for something else and that makes you go ape****. It's sort of like how many christians will only read about the science that tries to prove creationism and be all happy until they read about evolution as the beginnings of man People seem to forget though it doesn't matter if we were created or evolved, and if god is out there (which i choose to believe), then he's one talented scientific son of a ***** people don't give him enough credit for whether he evolved everything or created it.

[TrashMan]

Having faith does not mean you refuse science. Remember that Einstein was religious.

And wasted the last twenty years of his life trying to disprove quantum theory because of it.

I do not believe that science and religion necessarily exclude each other. The problem comes when people attempt to use science to validate their preconceived notions of how the universe must work due to their religious views. This often results in them not getting the answer they expect ("Oh no! The geological record shows that Earth is more than 6000 years old!") and then fudging the data or simply lying about it in order to recover from that.

Meh... It might yet turn out that he was right... As our knowledge of hte universe changes, so do our theories... Wasn't there some discussuion about Einsteins universal Constant being brought back? And expecting a result doesn't mean thats how it's supposed to be...

Regarldess, I'm listening to quantum theory ATM..an extreemly interesting subjects, but so...strange... it amazes me how little we understand (and my professor  is a lead reserachers at CERN, so he knows his stuff).

[TrashMan]

Have you ever read something about the structure of the human body? Either God wasn't able to create an efficient species or we are the result of a long process we call evolution.

1) Our brain became bigger, our mandibola not. The result? We give dentists thousands of €;
2) As I said, we still have the remnants of the tail;
3) Our body is fragile and has certain limits we can barely reach;
4) The way our bones in "critical" areas are placed gives us problems with our posture;

We look like God? Then God is far from being perfect.

Of course we are a process of evolution...But if God started that process or steered it..then in a way that is some form of creationism..isn't it?
Just not the instant one some dweebs are proposing..

And...we look like God? I don't think physical apperance was ment there, but rather some of  our... mental or spiritual attributes  (ingenuity, mercy, etc...)

[TrashMan]

SNIP..

Rubbish...Now you're just arguing semantics by equating everything that happens in the universe with nature.
Hell, let me play wit ha definition of a few worlds, you'll see that after taht I will be able to claim just abut anything...

I'll define supernatural as anything taht is not uranium....Wow..now allmost everything IS supernatural...

[Centrixo]

I see religion as a excuse for someone to look forward to death and then heading for heaven for a afterlife . True that is what the bible says, which is just a book with printed black ink, so it can be edited anytime. But in my opinion, people die and that is it.
Ok that is Off Topic...

Maybe we all need to find some information before the vasudans became what they are. Either a Fish or a Lizard is what the Vasudans evolved from at least that is what i think. 

[karajorma]

Science is about how the universe works. Religion is about what the meaning of the universe is. And what the meaning of life is. Science has no interest whatsoever in those questions.

The problem is that religion used to also be about how too. Most primative religions blame the supernatural for everything that they can't understand. Why does it rain? - The gods. Why does the sun shine? - The gods. Science wasn't around or was unable to give a suitable explanation for these phenomena so they had to be supernatural.

But we don't need religion to explain how any more. Religion needs to realise this and stop trying.

Meh... It might yet turn out that he was right... As our knowledge of hte universe changes, so do our theories... Wasn't there some discussuion about Einsteins universal Constant being brought back? And expecting a result doesn't mean thats how it's supposed to be...

It's VERY doubtful that he'll be proved right. For that to happen pretty much every electronic device you are using would have to be found to be working exactly as predicted by science despite that science being completely wrong.

There's a difference between him being right about small things and quantum physics turning out to be completely wrong (Which is pretty much what he thought).

[Herra Tohtori]

SNIP..

Rubbish...Now you're just arguing semantics by equating everything that happens in the universe with nature.

Not nature (as in, environmental nature with trees and fresh water and stuff). Natural.

If you want to refer to unexplained phenomena as "supernatural", then it's your loss, I think that as pretty inaccurate way of describing things.

Hell, let me play wit ha definition of a few worlds, you'll see that after taht I will be able to claim just abut anything...

I'll define supernatural as anything taht is not uranium....Wow..now allmost everything IS supernatural...

You are not entitled to that opinion. Revoke it immediately or you may have to keep it.

The problem with that, obviously, is that there's no logical proof that uranium would be the only natural thing in universe and everything else supernatural. You just claimed that, whereas I based my claim on the structure of the words "natural" and "supernatural".

Basically, there's just one assumption in my claim and everything else is derived from that, so feel free to prove the following wrong:

Everything that happens is part of the universe.

Supernatural as a term is paradoxally flawed in itself. It is clear to me that everything that happens is part of the universe because it happens in the universe (well duh). Thus everything that happens is natural. And because everything that happens has now been defined natural things to happen in the universe, there's no room for supernatural. Unexplained, yes, but it is different from supernatural.


Hell, nuclear power plants are natural just as much as wheel is natural. But they are not inherent parts of nature in themselves.

[Commander Zane]

I see religion as a excuse for someone to look forward to death and then heading for heaven for a afterlife .

It's so us chicken**** humans have something to say that we're no longer afraid of death...

[Centrixo]

not my problem i do not follow a book that has been re-written so many times. but i said that was Off topic and so is this bit.

Zane, loosen up, we are talking and for some reason it's gone off topic instead of vasudans and terrans .

[Herra Tohtori]

Bloody hell, someone had religions figured out in exact same way I do... There's not really much I can add to this quote:

Believe nothing, O monks, merely because you have been told it or because it is traditional, or because you yourselves have imagined it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings, that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.

Now, go find out who Siddhartha Gautama was, if it doesn't ring a bell already... 

[Snail]

I've purposefully avoided this thread for fear of little green men. Or lizards. I hate lizards. Especially flying lizards.

[Mobius]

I've purposefully avoided this thread for fear of little green men. Or lizards. I hate lizards. Especially flying lizards.

There are no flying lizards in the UK...and I love Lizards (though I killed about 50 of them).

Bloody hell, someone had religions figured out in exact same way I do... There's not really much I can add to this quote:

Believe nothing, O monks, merely because you have been told it or because it is traditional, or because you yourselves have imagined it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings, that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.

Now, go find out who Siddhartha Gautama was, if it doesn't ring a bell already... 

Of course...we all know that he was Buddha. What he said is perfect for my situation. There will be the second round tomorrow...I'll bring all the enciclopedies I have(well, only the ones I can fit in my bag).

Science is about how the universe works. Religion is about what the meaning of the universe is. And what the meaning of life is. Science has no interest whatsoever in those questions.

The problem is that religion used to also be about how too. Most primative religions blame the supernatural for everything that they can't understand. Why does it rain? - The gods. Why does the sun shine? - The gods. Science wasn't around or was unable to give a suitable explanation for these phenomena so they had to be supernatural.

But we don't need religion to explain how any more. Religion needs to realise this and stop trying.

Correct. We don't need tales anymore, we can get to the bottom of so many things. Actually, people continue to say that Science has certain limits and we can't be sure of what has been scientifically demonstrated, even undirectly(like Hume).

But there's a difference between saying "We are the result of an evolution" and "And embryo is not a living being". Our knowledge about nanotech and DNA research is still poor, but we have been studying animals for centuries. Some branches of Science have limits, others not.

[TrashMan]

SNIP

I was just pulling you leg Herra... God ain't I a stinker?
LOL..

no, but in all seriousnes, now.. yeah. Whatever would normally happen in a universe is not supernatural.
But let's take something like raising ppl from the dead..that's something that by itslef will NEVER happen in this universe. Now if God were to bring up someone from the dead, then since those dead are part of this universe, the "bringing back" part would happen here, in the universe...logicly..

Does that mean it's not supernatural, sinply becouse of the location where it happens?

[Herra Tohtori]

I was just pulling you leg Herra... God ain't I a stinker?
LOL..

I thought so too. I also thought that the sentence "you are not entitled to that opinion" would give that away...

no, but in all seriousnes, now.. yeah. Whatever would normally happen in a universe is not supernatural.
But let's take something like raising ppl from the dead..that's something that by itslef will NEVER happen in this universe. Now if God were to bring up someone from the dead, then since those dead are part of this universe, the "bringing back" part would happen here, in the universe...logicly..

Does that mean it's not supernatural, sinply becouse of the location where it happens?

Indeed it means exactly that, at least to me... Since it happens in the universe, it consequently means that it can happen in the universe (duh ). Therefore, natural. One could argue that wheels or gears never normally happen in the universe (although that's debatable), they need someone to make the wheel round and make an axis and chassis, and only then you have a cart on wheels. Yet, we seem to think they are completely natural. Natural, as in they work by the fundamental principles of nature.

If you consider what God would need to do to raise people from dead (considering their bodies have decayed and such) he would simply need to manipulate matter in such way that it forms a copy of the dead person, then simply set the stuff in it to motion and there you go. If you do that properly, copying all the neural connections, a copy of the person on his dying moment is born with it's original personality retained. That is theoretically possible, it would just require hell of a lot of data storage and processing power, and obviously a way to replicate the scan data. If such thing as God exists, I would say that's the least of the problems in this case. But to affect the universe - even personally created universe - even God cannot go past the laws of the nature. He could possible change them, but then again, then he would be doing stuff according to that new set of laws of nature.

Remember the quote: Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Obviously, that only applies to people who don't know the science behind the technology. That's why a cell phone might appear magical to medieval peasants, yet the wheels and gears would feel natural things to them since their physics is pretty intuitive after all.

Note that God, or creator, if such thing exists, is by definition also integral part of the universe. Or if you wish, you can say that the universe is part of it's creator. Or you can say that both universe and it's creator are parts of a multiverse. I tend to think that universe is it's own creator, but without consciousness or inherent purpose...

...anyhow, I maintain my position that a much better term for "supernatural" would be "unexplained" or "inexplicable", although I prefer the former for obvious reasons. I don't think there's anything that by definition couldn't be explained, but it's pretty sure there are a lot of things that are yet unexplained things. Such as the inertia of mass...


That's pretty interesting thing by the way. As of now, there is no accurate explanation in physics to explain why mass has inertia (although the hypothetical Higgs' boson particle is a prime candidate along with the structure of space-time), yet it is not considered supernatural. And same applies to ball lightnings and some other phenomena... I suppose there's a difference between "spontaneous unexplained things" (things that clearly are just things that have a reason and consequence without any obvious conscious intent, but we only see the consequence), and "induced unexplained things", of which we also see just the consequence but for one or another reason think that there's a conscious entity behind the reason. The former category encompasses things like inertia, gravity and stuff like that, while the latter category has the traditionally "supernatural" phenomena that is thought to have conscious origin.

[Snail]

Oh. I also hate Raa Lizards. I hate Raa Lizards.