tar

Steve, Well, thanks for writing that. It bears many close relationships to thoughts I have entertained. Not so sure about a few thing you mention. Things I have entertained and reasoned away. Little inconsistencies where personally I have felt the need to come down, one way or the other, for the notion to actually make sense as a description of the "way things are." For instance, the many universe thing. If there is one consciousness in this universe, would that mean that there is a different consciousness in a neighboring one? The "infinite regress" thought leaves a lot of room for different answers to this. And as we shift grain size, which apparently we can do with ease, we can imagine all the answers being true. Except we, in our imaginations are not required to, or do not have the ability, to work through all the implications accurately to see if the thought would really work. That is, would it "fit" with reality? I have thus "decided" that there is a difference between imagination and reality. They are not without their intertwineness, but what is "possible" in one, is not nescessarily possible in the other. Let me illustrate this by having us all put ourselves in the shoes of someone who has meditated his/her way to nirvana. All the world is one thing, and this person is aware of it all. He or she is standing on the mountaintop completely understanding it all and is "one" with it. Along comes Jack the wandering vendor, who is not aware of this fact, who asks us if we would like to have one of the sandwiches and a bottle of water from his knapsack . We realize we are quite hungry and thirsty, having taken 4 days to reach nirvana, but had not thought to bring any money with us. Although we are one with reality, we have nothing to trade with Jack for the sandwich and drink. Back to reality. Or take John Lennon's "Imagine". Put everyone in a field celebrating their "oneness" and lack of division from each other. What if the food truck doesn't come along? And what do you do when night falls and it gets rather chilly? And what do you do the next day? Or if a hungry grizzly bear comes along? Or a lightning storm? Or one of us has a deadly communicable disease? Our imagined oneness may well fracture. Running up against reality. So with this in mind, I ask, what is "really" there, when you imagine "another" universe. As soon as you "actually" find any evidence of its existance, it instantly becomes a characteristic/component/member of THIS one. Regards, TAR2

How do imparticles manage to form the border between Canada and the U.S.?

Imparticle, The impractical, I mean the imparticle needs to automatically convulse into all possible combinations of ideas. Don't know why the lamp I took a look at when I first read your theory is still sitting there, very lamp like. Shouldn't it be on to other things? Regards, TAR2 Interesting to me, is the fact that we each hold a "complete" model of the whole universe in our heads. It isn't really complete. It can not be. We only see it from here and now. We speculate and do transforms and make analogies and shift grain size, as appropriate, to consider things "as if" we were there and then. But what of a cave on a planet circling a star 100 ly from here. What is in the cave? We have no freaking clue. Regards, TAR2 and why an "infinite" number of imparticles. Couldn't a mere handful, or lets say four, do the job of taking on all possible convolutions, given an infinite amount of time? and how about this "idea" idea. Let's say the ideas that humans have are analogous representations of actual patterns that exist. The "idea" does not have to actually exist, except in its embodiment in the patterns and synapses and connections and timing of firing of neurons in the brain of the person holding the idea. It is well known that humans have a tendency to "see" patterns, and fill in the blanks, even where an "actual" pattern is not. As in seeing the face of Jesus on a grill cheese sandwich. This relagates "ideas" to something that it takes a human to have. Not something that "needs" to be actually existant in the external world. So while the patterns we have in our heads are probably taken from the external world, in several ways or senses of the word take, it does not necessitate that the "ideas" exist in and of themselves, external to a human mind. Take God for instance. If in our model of the world, we need "someone" to have the whole "idea" in his (or her, or its) mind, it would be God that would have this ability. But we would more or less be projecting our own abilities onto the universe in total, to have this "idea" that the universe is capable of having an idea. On the other hand the universe is capable of having an idea, because I just had one, and I am not "other than" the universe.

Appolinaria, But what are your reasons for putting each of a "triad" into a particular column? I know you said you put together a chart. I am interested in your reasoning. This interest is along the line of my investigation into the "meaning" behind language. Certain of the speculations in the link you posted earlier, such as Lucifer's number being 741 or whatever it was, have no meaning to me. One has to know what Lucifer is in the first place, and then figure out why this particular number has any relationship to the concept of Lucifer. Without some form of reasoning, that suggests why such and such should be true, I am at a loss to "translate" it into what I "know" to be true. That is, understand the "meaning" behind it. For instance if I have 741 pennies, is that a bad thing, but if I had 742 or 740 then that would be OK. Why? So in that light, and with the thought that you are an intelligent young woman, I was, and am, interested in the reasoning behind the groupings you made. Not to prove them right or wrong, just to understand how "we" think, and to speculate on the reasons why we seem to see things in these various triads. Regards, TAR2

Big nose, While I would agree that there is a similarity between imparticles and faerie wishes, faerie wishes imply faeries and wishes, neither of which imparticles imply. Where imparticles fail exactly is in their ability to be part of a valid argument, but not a sound one. They could be true, but there is no "other" reason to consider that they are, other than the initial argument. In this, one could build a valid argument for faerie wishes or imparticles, and still explain everything based on them. But they both fail, till you find an "other" reason to believe they are true. Perhaps this is where metaphysics is weak. It has to do with the consistency of the argument, being true to its own assumptions and logic, but not having a way to be tested against a rather consistent reality. Metaphysics being sort of an "internal" reality, that proves all to the holder, and nothing to anybody else, in an "external" way. Not that metaphysics is not important to us. We all do it, to some extent. But I am thinking that meta has the appearance of being "beyond" physics, but is occurring well inside reality. So much so that it is occurring only within the holder, and has no effect on, or connection to the "greater" reality, until some "other" proof can be verified. Thus the need to ask "how do we test it?", so we can consider it true (or untrue). As is done, in Physics. Regards, TAR2

Imparticle, Well if true, and I suppose it is, there remains the fact that things we are concerned with, are in the here and now. In that case we are conscious of our particular combination of patterns...somewhat locked away from the greater and lesser folds. It is the particular arrangement of neighboring patterns that lends the "value" to reality. To be just one imparticle, would not have any meaning. Nor would being all imparticles. It is awareness of a particular slice that gives meaning to reality. That being said, an imparticle is rather incapable of explaining anything, other than a general idea of a "thing" that is both actor and stage. I think we already accept this general concept...All the world is a stage... The important things, the predicates, the things that can be said about something or anything, are particular patterns. A convolution or collection thereof of particular scale and particular duration. These are the things we can point to and say, "there...that is real". In any case, us humans seem to be nicely in sync with each other. In scale and moment. 'course we have about 7 billion ways of looking at it. Regards, TAR2

Swarfega, This however is not so easy to answer. I struggle with it myself. Not so much because it might be true of the universe, but that it evidently is true of me. I am 57 and people, even with modern medicine, do not live past 100 very often, and very rarely after 117. Plus I smoke. (brilliant, huh). In any case, chances are, I have done most of my living. Struck me last November that if I was to make any contribution to society, I better start soon. I decided I would investigate the meaning behind language. Find the things we all have in common, that we just use different symbols and sounds to represent. Asked for language CDs for my Birthday and Christmas presents. Have Japanese, Brazilian Portuguese, Arabic, Russian, Mandarin Chinese, and Hindi. Listen to them a lot. But I am 57, new languages never came easy to me, and I think in English, all the connotations and usages I know are English ones. So I am not progressing very quickly, just getting use to the sounds, and picking up a little vocabulary. Thought struck me, (to your point), why bother. Even if I should learn them all, and be able to converse with a large portion of the world's population in their first or second language, my abilities would end rather abuptly when I died. The whole shooting match would be gone. Not an answer, but my take is this. If I continue to have insights into the "meaning" behind language, and can tie neurology, evolution, philosophy, religion, politics, personality, psychology, art and science into one neat, factual package, I could write it down, and it may be of some use to "society". Even after I die. All I can do now is read, and think, and learn. To see what is already known, and how and why it all fits together. As Appolinaria suggests, we are of and in something that we belong to, and that belongs to us. We have no other "something" to be in and of. This is it. Whatever that may be. It was before us, and will be after us, but we are solidly attached to it, in both directions. For that matter not only attached in a time sense, but in a space sense. There are tiny things that make us up, and huge things that we are components of. Not an answer perhaps, but a way to look at things. Being a mortal, occupying this particular place and time, we can imagine it all from here and now. If we were not as we are, we could not do that. Regards, TAR2

Swarfega, Here is a nice quote. Don't know who wrote it, but it is something to think about. "To the world you may just be someone, but to someone you may be the whole world." As the captain on star trek might say. Make it so. Regards, TAR2 Swarfega, But more directly to your points. There are "improvements" to our situation, that you can imagine. Making something work better that is currently working poorly. (ignoring for the moment the eventual demise of the universe.) This is not the first time that a human has had such notions. We have been doing such for a long long time. Look around you, at what has been established. The science, the law, the universities, the transportation, communication, manufacturing, building, farming and medicine that humans have achieved for and with each other. Each advance building on the life work of those who came before. Consider sitting alone on a desert island. Just you and the plants and animals, the sea and the stars. What would you do then? What COULD you do then, without the benefits betowed upon you, by those humans of like mind who came before you and established and maintained the society you are a part of? As to the demise of the universe. It is sufficiently far away in time, for that not to be an actual concern. Much can happen in the meantime. People will be born and die, civilizations will rise and fall, species will thrive and decline. It is not impossible that our species will find ways to survive even the death of our Sun. So your efforts will not be in vain. Make the contributions you know you can make. If only in repayment for the efforts of those who came before you, and as a gift to those who will benefit. And do not worry too much about making the wrong choice of careers. Things are a little different now, than in the days a person would be bound to a trade. Things move pretty fast these days. The internet is a powerful tool. Emerse yourself in a field that you love. Become the best you can be. The directions that you can take from there will be more numerous, and will present themselves as you go. Plus, you will find out what has already been tried, and what has already been established, and know better where the impovements can be made. And what you can do about it. That is what I would tell you, if you asked. You did ask? Regards, TAR2

Greatest I am, I know you are probably fuming. Powerless to respond and all...and probably thinking of all kinds of rationales for how you are right and the Science Forum is a bunch of idiots...that you don't need anyway. We all, me especially, would have been better off had you not stepped over the line. Not sure myself where that line is, but I think it goes something like this. If you believe something is true, and you have it right, and everybody else has it wrong...you have an obligation to put your arguments and evidence on the table. Saying it is true, and even drawing further conclusions from this "untested" truth, does not make it true. Arguments and evidence make it true, or at least lend enough veracity for it to be incorporated into the body of knowledge that can be considered scientifically verifiable. (or falsafiable for that matter.) And this is a science forum. There are, as it has been pointed out, other places to preach your religion. Not that points of view are not important to consider. But if someone has a point of view and I ask him why this needs to be the case, and he/she tells me "because an angel told me, or because a voice in my head told me" this does not amount to a whole lot of evidence that I can inspect for myself. You have made many of the same points that I consider "true". I would have rather that you had stayed, to explore where and why religion "really" is true, on what levels, and in what figurative and in what literal senses. Not so important to justify ones own beliefs, as to understand why we have them in the first place. It is already very obvious that people hold "different" beliefs. Very illogical to consider that merely believing something, MAKES it true. True things are already true, or are already possible. Science is after what those things are. And true things are not difficult to point out to people, once discovered, they are already present, and have a consistency that leaves a record for anybody to view. To verify or falsify a belief, merely by looking at the evidence. Regards, TAR

Greatest I am, Not sure what you are meaning by Apotheosis. Seems Wiki says that is the being raised to a divine level. Are you saying that you were raised to such a level for 5 or 6 seconds and now you are back to normal? Personally I had a brief moment on a hilltop in Germany where I "understood" the essential meaning behind "treeness", and though hard to explain, with it came an understanding of how life on Earth grabbed form and structure from a universe whose general direction is toward disorder, and the whole operation (life on Earth) was but a brief moment in the enormity of time an space. I called it an epiphany. I am thinking that perhaps all of us have the capacity for such moments. Maybe we each have had such moments in our lives or will have. It speaks to our nature. That we are part of something AND conscious of it. Both subject and object. I do believe such moments of insight are important in the discussion of religion, because when one person has an insight, it is not always easy to relate this insight to another individual, without misunderstanding. Insights are tricky things. One never knows for sure whether they may be bringing someone to their insight, or whether someone may have already had that particular insight, and is interested in bringing you to a different one, that they have had. For instance, perhaps Moses had such a moment in his trek in the wilderness. He brought back the tablets to bring the insight to others. Or Christ, recognizing where Jews had "fallen from the way". Or Mohammed in the cave, recognizing where idol worshippers had it wrong, and where both Jews and Christians had "fallen from the way". But in all cases, insights are not worth much, when they are somebody elses. They are not insights, until they are yours. Perhaps this is an important thing to remember, when discussing religion. We each have a tendency to consider our own collection of insights, a pretty good approximation of "the way things really are". Important because it is probably true. Regards, TAR2

QuestionforAtheists, I have had my children. My wife believes in God. She took them to church. I attended every once in a while. My mother took my sister and I to church. My father rarely attended. My Grandfather and Grandmother (on my father's side) were both very involved with the church and took their children to church on Sundays and other days. I am not a stranger to religion. I have no distain for religious people. But I am an Atheist. I do not believe in an anthropomorphic God, that judges and manipulates things to his will. We believed giving our children a religious upbringing, christened and the like would give them a solid foundation of values, and a solid feeling of membership in the community. I have no overpowering reason to tell them much of anything about things I do not understand myself. There have been several deaths amoungst family and friends lately, that my children dealt with just as well as I did. Personally I think death is rather inappropriate. Here you are living, the only thing you have, and then its gone. When I expressed this thought to my wife the other day, she said "I guess that is what God is about." (Expressing the thought that we believe in God as a way to answer/counter/deny the inappropriateness of our loss of everything when we die.) I am not personally inclined to urge anyone to relinquish an "answer" when I have nothing better to offer as one. To me, life is everything, it should not be discounted as a "stage" in existence. It IS existence. With this thought I have managed to cobble together my own personal "religion" where I imagine myself lucky to be alive. To have, with the help of evolution, grabbed form and structure from a universe whose normal direction is toward disorder. To be a human with the ability to consider the whole universe "my" universe, and to, factually not really be that wrong about such a consideration. Of course it is huge and old beyond comprehension, but I can view it all and imagine it all from here. Quite a nice arrangement. For now. And as far as being dead is concerned, I figure it will be rather like not being born yet. 'cept the universe will remember me. Preaching wise. I would say the purpose of life is to live, and to share the experience with others, and to make it possible for others to do the same. Regards, TAR2

Realitycheck, Well, you forgot the stars. What about the stars? The sun is our sun. The moon is our moon, and is sort of a continuation of the Earth, locked in mutual rotation/revolution, almost a siamese twin sister/brother planet. So that is two. Earth/moon and Sun. What of the third? Regards, TAR2 You are leaving out the absolutely unquestioned MAJORITY of the equation, that being, the REST of the universe. P.S. And that "third" is sufficiently huge and sufficiently old enough for Greatest I am, to not reject eternal things out of hand. Appolinaria, Took a quick peek at the chapter 33 you linked. A very complicated "notion" to understand on its face. There is great mixture of figurative and literal notions and I am unwilling to emerse myself in the "logic", when the division between literal and figurative is not seemingly obvious. However, if I am to be honest to my goal of "finding the translation", I probably have to consider it, and perhaps it will provide some elucidation as to the "meaning" that humans find in existence, and perhaps I will see the one to one correspondences between such intricate imaginations and the experience we all share.

Realitycheck, So, what is a sunspot? Or a flare? Seems to me, as big as it is, it probably has some character, some regions and some complicated attributes. Magnetic fields and such. Remember a few years ago hearing about a "song" the sun sings. I will see if I can google it. Regards, TAR2 http://solar-center.stanford.edu/singing/singing.html OK, sort of like a crackling fire. Perhaps you are right. Or a boiling pot of fudge.

Appolinaria, Do think you are onto something. Not sure I see the reasoning, why those different entities would go particularly with each concept. Perhaps you can explain a bit, but I like your thought... Add rktpo... And Freud with the Id, Ego, Super Ego. And Hegel with Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis. There seems to me to be a theme here, that is not foreign to anyone. Like you say. Same concept. Different quantities. Interesting to me, that there is this "meaning" that seems very understandable and real to all, that is argued about and denied, simply because the phrasing is different, and the conclusions drawn somewhat arbitrary and/or self serving. I would like to throw into the mix the concepts of 1st person, 2nd person and 3rd person. Seems all languages have the concepts of I, you, and he/she/it. Who and what we put in the we camp with us, probably has a lot to do with the credos we go by. What "we" believe. Seems relevant to me, to consider the "translation" between one's own credo, and "their" credo. Not to say that the conclusions are not dissimilar. But the meaning behind the belief in question, might very well be the same meaning behind the credo of the "other". This guess is based on the fact that there is only one reality and "we" (who or whatever, that group may consist of) are in and of it. Regards, TAR2

truth be known, There is a difference between seeing a pattern that COULD be true for a particular reason, and looking for the reasons why things follow patterns. I had denounced AiE's shooting star sign, and then found myself outside removing a foot of snow from my driveway in October. Thought...is this a sign...that unusual things ARE possible if the universe wants to tell you something. But then I thought for a moment, and the forcast for the Nor'Easter was made before my denouncement. It was already coming, and would have come had I prayed for it, or prayed against it. Nice thought for a moment, that the universe would do something personally targeted at me, but alas, I don't think that is the way it goes. Makes no sense. Did it snow to punish the wicked? Reward the faithful? Million people out of electricity because fallen trees and branches wheighed down by the wheight of wet snow on early fall foliage took out power lines and closed roads. "An act of God". No doubt. But God in the sense of nature/reality/universe being somewhat out of our control. Very wrong, logically, to determine such a thing was done by an agent that had particular, mysterious reasons to do such a thing. That it was a message to me in particular is even more absurd. Yet I had the thought. It was odd, and I thought ... could it be, that there IS a God, and he was letting me know...in his own way? A thinkable thing, sure. A "valid" argument, if the assumptions are correct. But the assumptions would include that the universe was acting to talk to me in particular, which leaves me wondering whether that particular statement (the snow storm) was "overheard" by everybody else that witnessed it, and whether it may have distressed them a bit. And a "sound" argument, it is not. There are no other supporting reasons for it to be the case. The snow storm was neither for or against me. Only my "wondering" would even suggest such a thing. So, on to the dark matter fireball thing. 1,500 years? Are those people years or God years? They say a thousand years is like a day to God. So the big Rip should be late tomorrow...or do I have it backward? I would be willing to bet any amount of money that the MilkyWay will still be doing its thing in a mere 1,500 years. ('course I wouldn't have much to lose if I was wrong, would I.) Oh, my eternal soul. Well I already have that, if I have one. How possibly could what you believe, give that to me, or take it away? 'Bout as sensible as a snowstorm being part of a conversation between me and my imagination. Regards, TAR2 Wait! If your estimates are that we have another 1500 years, then that would discount any other, Mayan calander running out, end of the world predictions. In that case, all other wrath of God, doom sayers are wrong. We can run a muck with impunity for scores and scores of generations. Thank God. Regards, TAR2

INow, Long time no see. You did have a wonderful thread going. I learned a tremendous amount viewing the links. I encourage anyone and everyone to view it. I do however remember being part of the unraveling of it, and in a hope to not repeat the same mistakes will reread the thread. Bottom line, I have done some reading and thinking about language since. And my current thinking about what things "mean" have many roots in the insights and information provided in the thread you referenced. It has great relevance to the "battle" we discuss here as well. I urge everyone to take a peek. Regards, TAR2

kitkat, I do not disagree with what you say. Merely stating that we have to have a human bias, because there is not "another" perspective we can take. We can put ourselves in the shoes of another entity, but it is always "us" we are putting in the "others" shoes. Are you saying one can reach a level of understanding that is not a human one? Regards, TAR2

Ophiolite, Isn't Mooeypoo a young woman?

Thread, Peer pressure is probably an important concept to evaluate here. Peers would have no power over you and your thoughts and decisions, unless you considered them peers. In some logical sense a peer is someone who belongs to the same group as you. You and your peer have some things in common that put you in this peergroup. Established religions help define a peergroup. "WE believe" is an idea strong in the words spoken in the churches I have attended, and strong in the Koran, with Believers being those who understand the truth, and unbelievers being those in error. Interesting to me, is that both science and humanism allow a situation where "EVERYONE" is your peer. This is actually a more "godly" attitude to take, than one that would elevate one peergroup over an other. And the scientific and humanistic attitude actually encourages the belief that we are ALL subject to the same God/Nature/Reality/Universe, which might be considered MORE adherent to the underlying teachings of Moses, and Christ, and Mohammed, (that GOD is the one truth that we all live under), than considering that YOUR peergroup, defined by what you collectively believe, is the one FAVORED by, and inclusive of, God. (and that "others", are not in this peergroup, and hence are "outside" of God, in error). Hopefully my personal stance is clear. No established religion holds the only key to entry into God's group. We all, are already, in. Regards, TAR2

but a sun can have sunspots one day and not have them another the sun is "doing" this seems to me, that if we are considering whether the sun is alive or not, we might have to "think" on a different than human size and time scale, to guess at what the sun might be "thinking" or what its "purposes" might be some argue that even humans have no "choice" and are just doing what the sum total of all the chemical reactions and physical reactions occurring in an around their "organism" are causing them to do that we are merely intricate stones rolling down an intricate hillside seems to me that entities, by being entities, have already gained a bit more respect than that, and should be given a little credit for managing to be what they are in spite of the universe's apparent drive toward disorganisation

In Exile, If God had not "done it again" when you asked, would you today be an "unbeliever"? I ask this question so that you could ask yourself how much of that night was you finding what you wanted to find, and how much was actually the universe responding to your request. For instance, if your God is true, and your understanding of your connection with him/it true, then you could easily grab a video camera, go out on the next starry night (preferably not a night of a known meteor shower) and request he/she/it resolve this debate for us once and for all, by giving us a particular unusual series of "shooting stars" of particular colors, brightness and timing, coming from particular directions, that you would describe in detail, before the fact, and keep the camera rolling, as God performed the exact trick. If the show would then go on, exactly as you impossibly asked, we all would have evidence we could point to, of his/her/its obedience to your whims. I would like to here tell a true story. I was in Japan on business and they were having a long drought. I jokingly told my "guide" that if he gave me a Yen penny, I would talk to the clouds on the way out. He did and I did, sort of humming an "indian rain dance type of song" as I mentally "requested" the clouds to gather and give the area rain. After my return to the U.S, shorty afterward (within the week, I don't remember exactly) I saw on the news that the Tokyo area was experiencing a hurricane with torrential rains. A few years later I was at a conference in the Lake Tahoe region and they were experiencing a VERY long drought. Lake Tahoe was so low that the docks on the North end of the lake were sitting on gravel and you could literally walk across this one cove on dry lakebed. On the ride back to the airport with my workmates, I was telling the Japan story and suggested to our driver, that he give me a penny, and I would talk to the clouds on the way out. He did and I did, humming the raindance song, and urging the clouds to gather. The next week California, including the Tahoe area had tremendous rains and mudslides and the drought was over. My workmates gave me the nickname "Chief Tom Tom" after that. What should this tell me about God, and faith, or for that matter, my power over the universe? Forget God. You should probably worship me instead. (did you ever hear of coincidence?) Regards, TAR2

jimmydasaint, But a battle it remains. One that certainly can be fought with "gentlemen's rules" with gloves on, to minimize breakage and blood. I personally have great respect for both sides for various reasons, and do not think one side would do all that well, without the insights provided by the other. I have come to some of the same conclusions as Einstein in regards to the reasonableness of any Anthropomorphic, judgemental God, actually being a fact. But literal facts and figurative facts have a different nature to them, and figuratively, if we all should hold the same set of values, and should that set of values guide our lives and interactions with each other, and with the world around us, there is not a real good reason not to call this collective set of values an existing thing, a fact if you will. And if this set of values is called common sense, or morality, or Jesus's love, or the rules of God, or the way of Allah, or human sensibility, or pack mentality or karma, or whatever, it would remain a fact of our existence. And although I respect the scientific method, and sort of know the difference between valid and invalid arguments, and sound and unsound arguments, and inductive and deductive reasoning and where each can get you, I am not convinced that I do not belong to the universe in a greater sense than my brief lifetime or limited body/brain/heart group would allow. Take for instance the fact that a woman is born with her full contingent of eggs. That means that half of my "pattern" came into existence when my Mom was born. And a quarter when my maternal grandma was born, and an eighth when her mom was born. Some small part of me has been around for quite a while. Some really small part of me for ages. This associates me with the past, very factually. And then take my effect on the future. (or Einstein considering he would not continue after his death (yet here we are still sharing his thoughts)) My children, and my works and words, will continue. Anyone I have touched will "remember" me. The vibrations my existence has caused ripple out, diminishing but perhaps never to 0. The photons from a match I lit one starry night when I was fourteen now currently exist in the universe in an ever growing half spherical shell, now with a radius of 44 lightyears. An observer on a planet 45 lightyears from our solar system has not yet experienced the beacon, announcing my existence to the stars. When I die, say in 30 years, an observer (with a powerful enough photon detector) might witness my beacon on a planet 75 lightyears from here, AFTER I am dead and gone. (gone from Earth, but perhaps, factually, not from the heavens.) Regards, TAR2

Let me append that last statement. We can and do "make up facts". We invent and create all the time. This is what we do, bring "thoughts" into reality. I was talking about fabrications that don't hold up anywhere but in ones mind. Aristarchus in Exile, I stand corrected. From the Wiki article on "messiah". Regards, TAR2

Aristarchus in Exile, How could a Muslim believe both that Christ is a Messiah that will return to defeat the antichrist, AND that Christ was merely a phophet of Allah, same as all the other Prophets, including Mohammed? Seems incongruent to me. Do any of your Muslim friends that believe these two things, also post here, that I might discuss this with them to find out if you really understood what they meant? I did read this thread and join in, in the hopes of voicing an "inbetween" argument. Apologizing for both sides, so to speak. However, you, as a banner holder for the "religion" side, are not doing too well. Most of your arguments are...well...as it was put, "like shooting fish in a barrel". Certainly scientists of the past did not know things that have been discovered in the meantime. But always when new facts came to light, the understanding of "what was true" changed in an appropriate manner. Not to say that new ideas are not met with scepticism, but this is entirely appropriate, since many "new ideas" turn out not to fly very well. In fact, probably a lot of the time, when someone comes up with a "new" idea, it is new only to them, and has been thought of before, and tested for its workability, against the facts of reality. Some test out well and are incorporated, some test out poorly and are discarded or debunked. When I was small I was intrigued with a piece of string and how you could put a loop in a loop and a loop in that one. My mom said "hey, you invented crocheting!" Of course, it had already been done, but the point is, that each of us is not the first to muse about their consciousness, and consider their connection with God/reality/universe/truth/nature/existence. Fact is, we are all mortals, and know it. Fact is we are not "other than" the universe. Fact is, there is nothing we can do, that evidently the universe is not capable of doing. (cause if we do it, we do it as a part of the universe). In this, our individual connection with GOD/nature/reality/universe/truth/existence, is a downright certainty. No one is wrong to claim it. Where you are so easy to attack, and where Mohammed is so easy to attack, is in the regards that you feel you have a "special" connection. That you know this GOD/nature/reality/universe/truth/existence on a personal level, and think that you are the only one, and everyone should listen to you. You say "well I am not the judge" while judging, and figuring that you "know" the real judge, and how the judgment will actually go. I am rather certain that I have equal access to reality as you do. To imagine that "your" understanding trumps "my" understanding, is somewhat dubious. Seems that any leg, either of us would have to stand on, would also be available to the other. In comes science, to break the tie. What is true to both of us? How do we determine such? This must be reality. Let's discover its nature together. The facts are wonderful enough. We need not make any up. Regards, TAR2

Aristarchus in Exile, I am not a Muslim, but I did read the Koran twice, and do not remember anything said like that. Mohammed considered himself the "last" prophet, and considered Jesus only as a prophet like himself. Mohammed did not consider Allah had any associates. He used this theme to discount Christian ideas like "the father, the son and the holy ghost". Of course I am paraphrasing, just remembering the "drift". In the Koran Mohammed tells the same stories from the old and new testament, and puts his own spin on them, calling the spin "corrections", pointing out where Jews and or Christians, had fallen into error. Of course this was what the Archangel of Allah had told him was ALLAH's truth. (could never figure out how an Archangel was not "an associate".) But I call you on your interpretation of what Muslim's believe, to point out a deficiency in what any religious person believes. That is that their idea of what is true, is actually true, and other's are in error. Science does not have this same deficiency. In science, what is true is what is evident to anybody and everybody. (If they are willing to stick to the facts.) Regards, TAR2 and Kyote11 reads like a scientist who somewhere along the line decided not to stick to the facts