...

What can I say? I mean, you yourself have just denounced logic. That makes argument impossible by definition. Feel free to believe whatever you want, just do your best to not indoctrinate your children, or like, shape public policy that affects the real world, which actually does function on logic.

I guess my only question is this: why God and not Allah? Why not Zeus or Thor? With so many Gods to choose from, are you CERTAIN that yours is correct? How certain are you? Certain enough to try and spread your view of God to others? Certain enough to teach it to innocent children?

Anyway, sorry if I seem combatative, I really don't have any beef with you, and I know some very nice people with deep religious convictions. I don't happen to share these convictions, and that's fine. That's called living in an open society. Far be it from me to try and deny your belief that your neighbor is from another planet, or that your imaginary friend created the universe and loves you very much. But if you want to convince me that these things are true, an ancient book of tribal mythos won't help you. Especially not the bible, which has some very VERY nasty anecdotes in it indeed.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
I believe that God is perfect. Perfect. Humor me for a second and imagine a Perfect God. In six days (or in other words six periods of time), couldn't He have created (or "organized" if you translate it literally) binary stars, black holes, and Hawking radiation. Couldn't he have programmed the world to develop and "evolve" however he wanted it to, over millennia. Couldn't God have caused the "Big Bang."

My faith is not disproved by science, nor can it be. My faith is not based on logic, nor can it be. I believe in God because I have seen His hand in my life and have felt His spirit in my heart. No amount of Astronomy will ever change that. On the contrary, the more I learn of stars, planets, comets, and galaxies, the stronger my faith becomes. I realize more and more everyday how small and insignificant I am without my Faith in God, the Father, and in His son, Jesus Christ. Without Them, I am nothing.

In reply to this comment by djsunkid:
Does it involve a set of forces that explains the behavior of matter that is consistent on scales from 10 to ten to the power of 40?

Does it cover binary stars, black holes, and hawking radiation?

Does it say anything about neutron stars? I'd be interested in reading an ancient text that can tell us about objects in the universe that are SO dense, that a tablespoon of them weighs as much as the entire himalayas.

My point is, the universe is WAY more amazing than any mythos that has been dreamt up by man. We're just not configured to be able to imagine this stuff. Why would we be? A study of evolutionary psychology reveals much about why we are the way we are. Being able to intuitively grasp the dynamics of relativity is NOT adaptive for ancient man. We needed to develop math to figure out this shit.

So, tell me about your text. Does it have mind-bending philosophy? Does it want us to spend our lives looking at our navels? Count me out of those, please.



In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Have you read the ancient text I study from?

In reply to this comment by djsunkid:
Holy fucking shit. Modern cosmology is totally the religion killer. OK, virgin birth, yadda-yadda what ever. You think YOU'VE got miracles? Your ancient texts don't have SHIT on modern science, yo.

I believe that God is perfect. Perfect. Humor me for a second and imagine a Perfect God. In six days (or in other words six periods of time), couldn't He have created (or "organized" if you translate it literally) binary stars, black holes, and Hawking radiation. Couldn't he have programmed the world to develop and "evolve" however he wanted it to, over millennia. Couldn't God have caused the "Big Bang."

My faith is not disproved by science, nor can it be. My faith is not based on logic, nor can it be. I believe in God because I have seen His hand in my life and have felt His spirit in my heart. No amount of Astronomy will ever change that. On the contrary, the more I learn of stars, planets, comets, and galaxies, the stronger my faith becomes. I realize more and more everyday how small and insignificant I am without my Faith in God, the Father, and in His son, Jesus Christ. Without Them, I am nothing.

In reply to this comment by djsunkid:
Does it involve a set of forces that explains the behavior of matter that is consistent on scales from 10 to ten to the power of 40?

Does it cover binary stars, black holes, and hawking radiation?

Does it say anything about neutron stars? I'd be interested in reading an ancient text that can tell us about objects in the universe that are SO dense, that a tablespoon of them weighs as much as the entire himalayas.

My point is, the universe is WAY more amazing than any mythos that has been dreamt up by man. We're just not configured to be able to imagine this stuff. Why would we be? A study of evolutionary psychology reveals much about why we are the way we are. Being able to intuitively grasp the dynamics of relativity is NOT adaptive for ancient man. We needed to develop math to figure out this shit.

So, tell me about your text. Does it have mind-bending philosophy? Does it want us to spend our lives looking at our navels? Count me out of those, please.



In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Have you read the ancient text I study from?

In reply to this comment by djsunkid:
Holy fucking shit. Modern cosmology is totally the religion killer. OK, virgin birth, yadda-yadda what ever. You think YOU'VE got miracles? Your ancient texts don't have SHIT on modern science, yo.

Have you read the ancient text I study from?

In reply to this comment by djsunkid:
Holy fucking shit. Modern cosmology is totally the religion killer. OK, virgin birth, yadda-yadda what ever. You think YOU'VE got miracles? Your ancient texts don't have SHIT on modern science, yo.

The veil nebula is one of my favorite things I've ever observed. Through a 15 inch telescope it's a bright black and white wisp, and it's amazingly huge. Absolutely stunning.

Doc_M here is my take on the death of the conquistador. (spoilers head).

The beauty of this movie is that it allows for multiple interpretations of the entire time line and not just the ending.

One interpretation is that the movie is told using non-linear story telling. The non-linear interpretation leads to the following time line:
The protagonist loves his wife (in the year 2000). She dies while writing a book about Spain set in the 1500s. The protagonist's medical research leads to life extension technology. He prolongs his life for 500 years until the technology to travel through space becomes available. In a romantic gesture he casts his wife's remains (the tree) and himself into the nebula.

The second interpretation of the movie, which I feel more comfortable with, is that the scenes in the movie occur on a linear time line set in the year 2000 (i.e., There is no space travel). The scenes in the bubble are a visualization of the protagonist's inner space. We see this inner space every time the protagonist withdraws into himself. The scenes involving Spain are a visualization of the chapters in the book. They are shown every time someone writes into the book. In beginning the wife is doing the writing, and towards the end the protagonist is writing the final chapter as per his dead wife's wishes. The final scene shows the protagonist coming to terms his wife's death; the blooming tree is a visual depiction of his mind having an epiphany and the conquistador's death shows how the protagonist ended the book (accepting death as the spring of new life). Finally, once he has made peace with his wife's death he is able to fulfill her last wish - planting a tree over her grave.

Obviously Aronofsky wanted to make the movie consistent with the first interpretation. That is why the movie has the whole subplot involving the life-extending medical research. It is also the time line suggested by the movie's trailer. But I also think he consciously wanted the movie to be consistent with the second interpretation and this is not just me reading way too much into the story. The metaphor of 'mind as deep-space' is common in many mystic philosophies. You might have heard the term 'psychonaut' to describe people who engage in deep meditation or those who consume hallucinogens. Also, some of the scenes in the bubble show transitions of the protagonist withdrawing into his mind: example, consider the scene where he lies down with his wife on the hospital bed; the very next scene begins in the bubble and you can see the ghost image of the hospital bed and his wife slowly fading away as he is drawn into his mind.

For this and many others reason I love the Fountain.

In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
I think I've got this film figured out, but I still don't understand the death of the conquistador. If you get it, help me out here.

Doc_M here is my take on the death of the conquistador. (spoilers head).

The beauty of this movie is that it allows for multiple interpretations of the entire time line and not just the ending.

One interpretation is that the movie is told using non-linear story telling. The non-linear interpretation leads to the following time line:
The protagonist loves his wife (in the year 2000). She dies while writing a book about Spain set in the 1500s. The protagonist's medical research leads to life extension technology. He prolongs his life for 500 years until the technology to travel through space becomes available. In a romantic gesture he casts his wife's remains (the tree) and himself into the nebula.

The second interpretation of the movie, which I feel more comfortable with, is that the scenes in the movie occur on a linear time line set in the year 2000 (i.e., There is no space travel). The scenes in the bubble are a visualization of the protagonist's inner space. We see this inner space every time the protagonist withdraws into himself. The scenes involving Spain are a visualization of the chapters in the book. They are shown every time someone writes into the book. In beginning the wife is doing the writing, and towards the end the protagonist is writing the final chapter as per his dead wife's wishes. The final scene shows the protagonist coming to terms his wife's death; the blooming tree is a visual depiction of his mind having an epiphany and the conquistador's death shows how the protagonist ended the book (accepting death as the spring of new life). Finally, once he has made peace with his wife's death he is able to fulfill her last wish - planting a tree over her grave.

Obviously Aronofsky wanted to make the movie consistent with the first interpretation. That is why the movie has the whole subplot involving the life-extending medical research. It is also the time line suggested by the movie's trailer. But I also think he consciously wanted the movie to be consistent with the second interpretation and this is not just me reading way too much into the story. The metaphor of 'mind as deep-space' is common in many mystic philosophies. You might have heard the term 'psychonauts' to describe people who engage in deep meditation or those who consume hallucinogens. Also, some of the scenes in the bubble show transitions of the protagonist withdrawing into his mind: example, consider the scene where he lies down with his wife on the hospital bed; the very next scene begins in the bubble and you can see the ghost image of the hospital bed and his wife slowly fading away as he is drawn into his mind.

For this and many others reason I love The Fountain.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I have to admit I was kind of disappointed in this film. I think because I went in expecting hard SF, when in fact the whole thing was more mystical/spiritual.

The whole "tree in a bubble journeying to the crab nebula" thing made me roll my eyes.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I have to admit - I'm one of those that finished this movie, disappointed. Probably because I went into it expecting a SF type movie - and it was really more art house surreal. Also, it broke my suspension of disbelief , that whole tree in a bubble heading to the crab nebula thing.

Why did I label this nature? An investigation of whether god exists is an investigation of nature. A universe without a god would be different from a universe with a god.

The FAQ definition of nature, taken literally, wouldn't include things like stars, galaxies, nebulae, other planets, physics, chemistry, etc. That's extremely narrow. So I assumed it wasn't meant to be taken literally and used the dictionary definition of nature.

A fascinating one-off documentary from Channel 4 (UK) - detailing Einstein's struggle with his cosmological constant:

" When Albert Einstein formulated General Relativity in 1915, he was not aware the Universe was expanding. Large scale structure in the form of galaxies was not known and all fuzzy luminous nebulae were considered basically similar and within stellar distance scales. Only with Hubble work in 1930 came the realization some of those nebulae were in fact island universes, and that they were not only very far, but also receding from us at enormous speeds. This was not known for Einstein, and since gravitation exerts its influence up to infinity, it was natural for him to postulate some force working in the preservation of an apparent equilibrium among matter, preventing universal collapse. This is why he postulated the Cosmological Constant, symbolized by the Greek letter Lambda, and included a term accounting for it in the field equations. Once universal expansion was discovered, the need for an unknown repulsive agent could be dropped and Einstein dismissed the Cosmological Constant as his 'biggest blunder'"

Carolla's cool... especially as Commander Nebula