that's a big ass star. Amazing it can stay together being as massive as it is. I'd be willing to say if that start were to go supernova in our life time, we would be able to see it regardless of what galaxy its in.

We've secretly replaced this supernova's regular coffee with FOLGERS Crystals!

Let's watch!

1. The Planets Move (2000 B.C. – 500 B.C.)
A thousand years of observations reveal that there are stars that move in the sky and follow patterns, showing that the Earth is part of a solar system of planets separate from the fixed stars.

2. The Earth Moves (1543)
Nicolaus Copernicus places the sun, not the Earth, at the center of the solar system.

3. Planetary Orbits Are Elliptical (1605 – 1609)
Johannes Kepler devises mathematical laws that successfully and accurately predict the motions of the planets in elliptical orbits.

4. Jupiter Has Moons (1609 – 1612)
Galileo Galilei discovers that Jupiter has moons like the Earth, proving that Copernicus, not Ptolemy, is right. Copernicus believes that Earth is not unique, but instead resembles the other planets, all of which orbit the sun.

5. Halley's Comet Has a Predictable Orbit (1705 – 1758)
Edmund Halley proves that comets orbit the sun like the planets and successfully predicts the return of Halley's Comet. He determines that comets seen in 1531 and 1607 are the same object following a 76-year orbit. Halley's prediction is proven in 1758 when the comet returns. Unfortunately, Halley had died in 1742, missing the momentous event.

6. The Milky Way Is a Gigantic Disk of Stars (1780 – 1834)
Telescope-maker William Herschel and his sister Carolyn map the entire sky and prove that our solar system resides in a gigantic disk of stars that bulges in the center called the Milky Way. Herschel's technique involves taking a sample count of stars in the field of view of his telescope. His final count shows more than 90,000 stars in 2,400 sample areas. Later studies confirm that our galaxy is disk-shaped, but find that the sun is not near the center and that the system is considerably larger than Herschel's estimation.

7. General Relativity (1915 – 1919)
Albert Einstein unveils his theory of general relativity in which he proposes that mass warps both time and space, therefore large masses can bend light. The theory is proven in 1919 by astronomers using a solar eclipse as a test.

8. The Universe Is Expanding (1924 – 1929)
Edwin Hubble determines the distance to many nearby galaxies and discovers that the farther they are from us, the faster they are flying away from us. His calculations prove that the universe is expanding.

9. The Center of the Milky Way Emits Radio Waves (1932)
Karl Jansky invents radio astronomy and discovers a strange radio-emitting object at the center of the Milky Way. Jansky was conducting experiments on radio wavelength interference for his employer, Bell Telephone Laboratories, when he detected three groups of static; local thunderstorms, distant thunderstorms and a steady hiss-type static. Jansky determines that the static is coming from an unknown source at the center of the Milky Way by its position in the sky.

10. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (1964)
Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discover cosmic microwave background radiation, which they suspect is the afterglow of the big bang. Their measurements, combined with Edwin Hubble's earlier finding that the galaxies are rushing away, make a strong case for the big bang theory of the birth of the universe.

11. Gamma-Ray Bursts (1969 – 1997)
The two-decade-long mystery of gamma-ray bursts is solved by a host of sophisticated ground-based and orbiting telescopes. Gamma-ray bursts are short-lived bursts of gamma-ray photons, which are the most energetic form of light and are associated with nuclear blasts. At least some of the bursts have now been linked with distant supernovae — explosions marking the deaths of especially massive stars.

12. Planets Around Other Stars (1995 – 2004)
Astronomers find a host of extrasolar planets as a result of improved telescope technology and prove that other solar systems exist, although none as yet resembles our own. Astronomers are able to detect extrasolar planets by measuring gravitational influences on stars.

13. The Universe Is Accelerating (1998 – 2000)
Unexpectedly, astronomers find that instead of slowing down due to the pull of gravity, the expansion of the universe at great distances is accelerating. If these observations are correct and the trend continues, it will result in the inability to see other galaxies. A new theory of the end of the universe based on this finding has been called the "big rip."

>> ^quantumushroom:
Most people wish to see good deeds and work rewarded and bad deeds and evil punished. That's how we roll on earth. I find it amusing that you wouldn't care about rewards versus punishment for MT and Hitler, yet you find the 'golden parachute' concept upsetting.

---
They're dead, so their eternal suffering, joy or nothingness affects only them. As far as our need to see rewards and punishments: I do not believe eternal suffering, nor eternal reward to be an aspect of justice, for it serves only the purpose of satisfying a lust, not a function. If their postmortem reward or punishment (not the idea of it, but the truthful existence of it) affected us in a positive, progressive way, only then would it be a worthwhile system of dealing with what we consider injustice. However, because it is uncertain that there is a force which doles out afterlife justice, we have no business worrying about it. We can appreciate what dead people did while they were alive, or be glad they're dead because they were a hinderance to the progress of life.

I don't disagree (ha!) with the idea of religion; I believe it serves a function, especially at our point in evolution, where we are only beginning to come to terms with these absract concepts. But religion all too often is a closed system, causing divides that need not exist. Yes, religion has done good -- let's keep that aspect; but it needs to be fluid. All philospohy of worth should be as an ocean, whether it be concerned with possible existence/nonexistence of gods or scientific understanding of our universe.
---

Yes, for most people, God serves in part as a kind of Keeper of Scorecards, but rewards and punishment may be only one aspect of an "afterlife" which technically is consciousness after this life.

You're perhaps assuming that the endgame of religion is to
follow rules now to live in a Heaven forever, which would mean
some sort of consciousness apart from a Creator. That may not
be it at all. Buddha described Nirvana as 'the end of
suffering' and left it at that. Buddhism is atheistic.

---
I'm assuming that the interpretation of the majority of mainstream religions are to live in a Heaven forever, because that is how I have encountered them with almost everyone I've ever known or known about. I'm not opposed to the idea of an afterlife, I simply find it a moot point. As the living, we should be concerned with life, not death.
---

You claim moral relativism exists, but for the atheist, does evil exist?

Which way of living demands more responsibility, the
religious person trying to follow moral precepts or someone who
doesn't necessarily care what happens because nothing finally
matters; death is the End? I don't want to live in a society
where everyone makes their own rules up as they go along; few
atheists would either.

Since for the atheist there is no Prime Mover behind what
society commonly defines as "goodness", why would an atheist
seek to enforce any kind of (self) responsibility at all? If
you felt bad about hurting someone because you didn't treat
them according to the Golden Rule, why not just kill them? If
there was no afterlife they would simply cease to exist along
with their pain and the question of right or wrong would be moot.

Yes, I'm being a tad silly, but hopefully I've made some half-assed point that, "Morality has to come from somewhere."

---
Your points are not silly at all, merely common interpretations -- and I don't mean that pejoratively. I do not believe in evil in such a rigid, unrealistic way. Evil could be considered any action which seeks or causes an end to life. But evil is not necessarily bad. Cancer kills, human dies, human returns to earth, new life begins. From "evil" comes "good". A supernova could be considered evil, but it also gives birth to new life, which is good. I believe our existence within a realm of constant destruction dictates to us the sanctity of life, and thus morality. Life is the underdog in this universe, which will become apparent (to whatever exists in this solar system) when our sun decides to stop behaving as it is now. It's not always a struggle for power, but a struggle for life itself. Yes, in a relative universe you may decide to kill your fellow man, but on a macro level you become in conflict with life, in favor of destruction. Just as truth is valued over the lie, life is favored over death for very practical, and often poetic reasons that need not stem from God.

Concepts such as "morality" exist on the human level to illustrate and teach. Ideas and concepts are not so rigid as to dictate what is always right and wrong, nor should they ever be used to represent an absolute; espcially one as silly as "evil".
---

You are perhaps basing your argument against either the
existence of God or belief in God on the idea that since
religions provide conflicting statements, all of them must therefore be
false.

Religions are not God. Religion is a human endeavor and
therefore flawed, whereas the nature (or concept) of God is
perfection.

---
God as perfection is an assumption lacking observation. The nature of God (assuming it exists) cannot possibly be determined; though I'm not in opposition to the idea of that possible explanaion, let's not kid ourselves that the idea is anything but assumed. (Assumption not necessarily being a bad thing, but also not something to base your existence on.)
---

If I say, "We are breathing air" in English and you say it in
French, is one of us 'lying?'

Also, to many atheists why is 'lying' only a feature of religion? You mean atheists never tell lies--even little ones--when it suits them?

---
Lies are available for all to use. I wouldn't dream say otherwise.
---

Faith is not logical and much of religion isn't either, but to dismiss them all out of hand seems rather absolute, in a world where "there are no absolutes".

We can all agree when out brains die, if there is nothing, we will "experience" nothing forever. If there is an afterparty, atheist and believer alike will go "somewhere" even if it's only within their own consciousness.

---
On the contrary, faith is perfectly logical. I have faith in my senses enough to walk outside on a cool, winter day and not expect to walk into lava. Unless I smell sulfur... then I'd become suspicous, maybe I'd notice the increase in heat, and my faith will change. No longer can I have complete faith that outside is a good place to go. Just as my faith in Santa Claus went to zero, and my faith in God went to near zero, based upon observation and learning.

As humanbeings, we do not have the capacity to say anything with 100% certainty, so we must be careful to organize our minds into tiers of belief/faith. (Forgive my semantics; tier is perhaps not the best word, but I'm tired right now) Your immediate senses being on the top tier, followed by recognized patterns from experience, down to intellectual knowledge from schooling, on down to some philosophical interpretations, religion, God or gods, etc. (The existence of smurfs being, obviously far down at the bottom -- much farther than God even.)

Humans are unique in that we are deeply affected by ideas; but ideas have no corporeal nature that we are aware of (yet), so we cannot let any one idea rule our lives, but rather let us rule them. We are the makers of dreams, and need not suffer otherwise -- unless Kai'ckul visits my dreams and says otherwise.

I don't disagree with the intention of your words, but I
have a few problems:

Why would it matter whether Hitler or Mother Teresa go to
heaven or hell, or anywhere in between? I've never understood
the significance of an afterlife. In my opinion, the idea of
an afterlife is gluttonous. Why are we so obsessed with living
forever?

Most people wish to see good deeds and work rewarded and bad
deeds and evil punished. That's how we roll on earth. I find it amusing that you wouldn't care about rewards versus punishment for MT and Hitler, yet you find the 'golden parachute' concept upsetting.

Yes, for most people, God serves in part as a kind of Keeper of Scorecards, but rewards and punishment may be only one aspect of an "afterlife" which technically is consciousness after this life.

You're perhaps assuming that the endgame of religion is to
follow rules now to live in a Heaven forever, which would mean
some sort of consciousness apart from a Creator. That may not
be it at all. Buddha described Nirvana as 'the end of
suffering' and left it at that. Buddhism is atheistic.

Also, moral relativism exists whether you choose to believe
so or not. If it didn't, we wouldn't need police, jail and
prison systems, mental health facilities, military or
psychiatrists. The fact is, people can and will do what they
want (or what the voices in their head want) when they want.
Whether or not a god or gods exist has no bearing on this
reality. Even if you believe it does, your belief does not
change the fact that murder, rape, disease, supernovas and
golden parachutes happen. It's our responsibility to prevent
these things from happening, not a gods.

You claim moral relativism exists, but for the atheist, does evil exist?

Which way of living demands more responsibility, the
religious person trying to follow moral precepts or someone who
doesn't necessarily care what happens because nothing finally
matters; death is the End? I don't want to live in a society
where everyone makes their own rules up as they go along; few
atheists would either.

Since for the atheist there is no Prime Mover behind what
society commonly defines as "goodness", why would an atheist
seek to enforce any kind of (self) responsibility at all? If
you felt bad about hurting someone because you didn't treat
them according to the Golden Rule, why not just kill them? If
there was no afterlife they would simply cease to exist along
with their pain and the question of right or wrong would be moot.

Yes, I'm being a tad silly, but hopefully I've made some half-assed point that, "Morality has to come from somewhere."


Now, if you're thinking the way I think you're thinking,
which is that religion provides us with absolutes, the problem
becomes thus: Which god or gods, tenet, belief system do I
believe in? There really is no absolute answer, and if there
is, only a handful of people in the world (universe?) will
ever know. There's this thing called truth (which even itself
is somewhat difficult determine) -- does truth matter or is it
merely the idea that matters? If it's only the idea of
religion that matters, you haven't solved the so-called
problem of moral relativism, you've only hidden the truth from
the believer so that they do the "right" thing. So in other
words, you're lying. Is lying bad? Yes.

You are perhaps basing your argument against either the
existence of God or belief in God on the idea that since
religions provide conflicting statements, all of them must therefore be
false.

Religions are not God. Religion is a human endeavor and
therefore flawed, whereas the nature (or concept) of God is
perfection.

If I say, "We are breathing air" in English and you say it in
French, is one of us 'lying?'

Also, to many atheists why is 'lying' only a feature of religion? You mean atheists never tell lies--even little ones--when it suits them?

Faith is not logical and much of religion isn't either, but to dismiss them all out of hand seems rather absolute, in a world where "there are no absolutes".

We can all agree when out brains die, if there is nothing, we will "experience" nothing forever. If there is an afterparty, atheist and believer alike will go "somewhere" even if it's only within their own consciousness.

>> ^quantumushroom:
People are saying it more now, and you're seeing it more
now, because they're just rallying against the stigma of
saying it at all. People are saying it loud and proud because
they don't want it to be considered a BAD thing anymore.
By itself, atheism is not a bad thing. But since the human
heart is infinitely deceptive, atheism solves nothing either.
Religious superstition is replaced by moral relativism and
"rationality" that is masterful at hiding its own emotional
drives. You're in the same boat as everyone else.
I don't think beings who cannot see germs or x-rays with their
plain eyes or past the 13 billion light year "edge" of the
universe with technology have any business announcing with certainty that,
"There is no God." My opinion.
Atheists remain a tiny minority and their bases for
eliminating all traces of religion from American society are
plainly wrong. Whether you accept it or not, religion has
always been a vital force in countries' historical DNA, usually with a surplus of goodness over evil.
As an atheist you must accept that all actions have no bad consequences except when discovered by others.
As an atheist you must accept that Hitler and Mother Teresa
both ended up in a void of nothing.
I don't believe "the gods" condemn anyone for being an atheist
but I do believe all are subject to laws of karma. Again, an
opinion.
Above all, I don't think atheists are necessarily happier than anyone
else. That's probably why there's never been any kind of mass "conversion" to unbelief, except at gunpoint by evil governments.


I don't disagree with the intention of your words, but I have a few problems:

Why would it matter whether Hitler or Mother Teresa go to heaven or hell, or anywhere in between? I've never understood the significance of an afterlife. In my opinion, the idea of an afterlife is gluttonous. Why are we so obsessed with living forever?

Also, moral relativism exists whether you choose to believe so or not. If it didn't, we wouldn't need police, jail and prison systems, mental health facilities, military or psychiatrists. The fact is, people can and will do what they want (or what the voices in their head want) when they want. Whether or not a god or gods exist has no bearing on this reality. Even if you believe it does, your belief does not change the fact that murder, rape, disease, supernovas and golden parachutes happen. It's our responsibility to prevent these things from happening, not a gods.

Now, if you're thinking the way I think you're thinking, which is that religion provides us with absolutes, the problem becomes thus: Which god or gods, tenet, belief system do I believe in? There really is no absolute answer, and if there is, only a handful of people in the world (universe?) will ever know. There's this thing called truth (which even itself is somewhat difficult determine) -- does truth matter or is it merely the idea that matters? If it's only the idea of religion that matters, you haven't solved the so-called problem of moral relativism, you've only hidden the truth from the believer so that they do the "right" thing. So in other words, you're lying. Is lying bad? Yes.

>> ^spoco2:
Also, I quite like this video response: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=8G3osI7Nrw4
Although in it he says that he doesn't believe that the sun will come every day, in fact he's always skeptical it will. Which is fine and all in regards to getting the point across, but also is a little silly. Once you get to a certain point of having gathered enough data, and seen something fit a model perfectly for a long time, I think it's pretty reasonable to assume and be comfortable with assuming that said sun is going to rise at the prescribed time the next day.


It's 50/50. My dad is a physicist and has high qualifications in astrophysics which i won't go into detail about, but as i was growing up and gaining a healthy interest in physics he told me once that, as a scientist, he had to accept that he may wake up tomorrow and gravity had taken a holiday. I think all scientists get the point there. He was trying to get across to my adolescent mind a point about science.

It's not saying that it's likely or even that it will somehow come as justification for his skepticism. It's trying to say that science is about testing, testing, testing, retesting, and observing the results. When you see enough of the same result, you make a hypothesis, you stick to that hypothesis for as long as you continue to see the same result. You should always go into the experiment (in this case waking up, seeing if you're subject to gravity) without expectations, in case you screw your observations up.

So you're right that you can be safe and comfortable and reasonable to assume the things we know to be true will continue to be true, but you should always be skeptical for science.

And to the above poster, who is to say that the nature of mass and energy won't change to allow smaller mass stars to go supernova? We can't know! This is the point!

>> ^Shepppard:
I find the question to be loaded.
There's nothing anybody can do to prove the sun will come out tomorrow, Atheist or Christian.
There's always the possibility that the sun can supernova and that would A) First off, make it not come out the next day because there's no sun
and B)Not make it come out tomorrow because we just exploded.

Actually, no, our sun can never go supernova because it simply doesn't have the mass to go supernova. It will go red giant during its final stages, but that can only happen when it burns up a certain percentage of its fuel. And we know this won't happen soon because we can deduce at which stage our sun is.

I find the question to be loaded.

There's nothing anybody can do to prove the sun will come out tomorrow, Atheist or Christian.

There's always the possibility that the sun can supernova and that would A) First off, make it not come out the next day because there's no sun
and B)Not make it come out tomorrow because we just exploded.

There's the possibility that the earth can have an axis shift, in which case we'd almost all die anyway. For us, the sun wouldn't come out tomorrow, we'd be dead.

The REASON you can't win this bet, is because every time you say "And then the suns gravitational pull continues to keep earth revolving around the sun at a constant speed which therefore allows the sun to "rise""
they just say "And where did the sun come from?" When you say that it's not possible to prove, they go "God" laugh at you, and then send you away, without 1000$ in your pocket.

This does not contradict the claim that God is the designer or creator. Examples abound of complex things coming out of simple things. To be a proponent of evolution is to assert that, indeed, complexity can arise from simplicity.

The point about evolution, is that it works its way up by a natural mechanism, simple things do not "create" or "design" complex things, rather, under certain conditions, mechanisms can arise that again leads to complexity. We, as well as every living animal and plants have shared ancestor's in the form of early proto-cells, but to call those cells "creators" or "designers" is absurd, before biologial life, the earth was a barren, chemical wasteland, and before that it was debris, and before that gas clouds, and before that just materials waiting to explode in some supernova or similar. To call any of these increasingly simple, hot things "creators" is even more absurd.

If you want to call any of these things "God" then very well, but in reality, that argument is as weak as the "more complex than complexity" argument, which is just another unfalsifiable argument.. ie "The universe is 5 minutes old, and all your memories are planted."

The beam weapons will always remind me of Freespace...

Great movie; I was expecting the supernova as well, but the freezing thing was pretty cool too I guess.

I kept waiting for the lady to pull out a blaster and put one through his head. Either that, or when the control system for the artificial sun turned off, I expected a supernova.

At the very least, the whole thing could have been a metaphor for conception.

What a crappy, sappy ending. Technically excellent, but man what a weak denouement.

Fixed it.

In reply to this comment by ant:
*dead

While it's quite apparent that creationism, in the fundamentalist's sense, is an untenable argument, there exists no compelling evidence that proves or disproves a God created universe. Hence, each is left to ponder their own uniqueness. How did supernova remnants and lighter elements end up driving a convertible, staring up at the night sky in wonder at their own foundry. Coalescence by gravity, organization by molecular bonding, and inevitable complex structure? Nothing proves it's inevitable. Nothing proves it's accidental. Embracing the science is awesome. Bending science to suit a myth, not so awesome.

I love how the Rabbi says that genetic mutations can only be explained by God, cause of the direction of these mutations. Science has well documented evidence that cosmic rays from exploding supernovas easily causes genetic mutations in life, among other things. I don't think the Rabbi even mentioned how these mutations are effected by the environment, and because of this most of the mutations are not random.