Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله


Advanced Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by user5000

  1. Yea.... I dont know about that...not to offend anyone, and not to derail this thread as this is a whole conversation in itself. This is not exclusive to the imam you speak of...... any type of messiah like figure. More likely to be meant in a metaphorical sense maybe....... but an actual guy, be it jesus or any type of other messiah coming down to earth with superpowers and what not.... Not very rational.
  2. Impossible......people talk, no matter how much they are sworn to secrecy with “NDAs”, especially with something like “interstellar technology” Government is very leaky, even private corporations/companies have proven to better at retaining secrecy than the government.
  3. When it comes to the moon landings, I simply reference the answer from quora below Quote’ Unfortunately for conspiracy theorists, there are three unshakable types of proof that NASA did go to the moon: 1. The surface of the moon is currently being 3D mapped by satellites, and the surface mapping data exactly matches the photos the astronauts took. See the surface contours in this photo, the hills and craters? The 3D data being gathered by LRO satellites exactly matches these contours. For example - Shown below on the left is a 3D computer reconstruction from 3D data stereo images taken by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE terrain camera and 3D projected to the same vantage point as the Apollo mission surface photo. The background terrain in the 3D model is an exact match with the Apollo 15 photograph shown below on the right. This can be done for all of the thousands of photos that the astronauts took from hundreds of different locations as they walked and drove around the landing sites. 2. The dirt flying off of the Lunar Rover wheels flies in a pattern that can only be done on the moon. Suppose you shoot an artillery shell on earth. It will follow a path dictated by air resistance and Earth gravity, which can be precisely calculated. The shape of the path (trajectory) will be sort of lopsided, because of the air resistance slowing the projectile down. But if you shoot the artillery shell on the moon, it will follow a differently shaped trajectory due to the lack of air resistance and lower (1/6th of earth) gravity, which can also be precisely calculated. The trajectory shape will be a perfect parabola because of the lack of air resistance. And the projectile will fly way farther than it would on earth due to the lower gravity. In films of the lunar landings, the lunar soil flies off of the buggy wheels in a trajectory that can only happen in a vacuum and at 1/6 G gravity. Any physicist in any country can make a plot of the moon dust and mathematically prove that the rover is driving on the moon. This calculation has been done many times already. 3. We have thousands of lunar rocks that have been lent out to scientists all over the world. NASA has lent out thousands of moon rock and soil samples to the world’s scientific community. There is virtually no doubt among the scientific community that the Apollo lunar samples are genuine moon rocks and not lunar meteorites. These three things PROVE without any question that the USA did land men on the moon.
  4. No, NASA didn't find evidence of a parallel universe where time runs backwards https://www.cnet.com/news/nasa-did-not-find-evidence-of-a-parallel-universe-where-time-runs-backwards/ Link to the full article above ^^^ I'm here to spoil the parallel universe party. Scientists haven't actually discovered a parallel universe, but you might think they have, based on multiple reports from across the web. In the last few days a number of publications have suggested scientists "found evidence" for a parallel universe where time runs backward. These mind-bending articles posit that an experiment in Antarctica detected particles that break the laws of physics. All the reports pull from the same source of information: A pay-walled report by New Scientist on April 8 titled "We may have spotted a parallel universe going backwards in time." At the center of the report are findings from the Antarctic Impulsive Transient Antenna or ANITA, an experiment maintained by researchers at NASA. It involves an array of radio antennas attached to a helium balloon which flies over the Antarctic ice sheet at 37,000 meters, almost four times as high as a commercial flight. At such a height, the antennas can "listen" to the cosmos and detect high-energy particles, known as neutrinos, which constantly bombard the planet. These particles pose no threat to us and pass through most solid objects without anyone even noticing -- some estimates suggest 100 trillion neutrinos pass through your body every second! Rarely do they interact with matter. But if they do smash into an atom, they produce a shower of secondary particles we can detect, which allows us to probe where they came from in the universe. ANITA detects neutrinos pinging in from space and colliding with matter in the Antarctic ice sheet. Over the years, ANITA has detected a handful of "anomalous" events. Instead of the high-energy neutrinos streaming in from space, they seem to have come from a strange angle, through the Earth's interior, before hitting the detector. These findings can't be explained by our current understanding of physics -- that much is true. "The unusual ANITA events have been known and discussed since 2016," says Ron Ekers, an honorary fellow at CSIRO, Australia's national science agency. "After four years there has been no satisfactory explanation of the anomalous events seen by ANITA so this is very frustrating, especially to those involved." Although the New Scientist report was filed on April 8 -- and the ANITA results are almost two years old -- the theory has only recently caught fire. Ever more urgent headlines have spurred its spread across social media. "NASA uncovers evidence of bizarre parallel universe where physics, time operate in reverse" reads one. Another says "Scientists may have just found evidence of a parallel universe." Because the New Scientist piece is behind a pay wall, many of the subsequent reports on the parallel universe are cribbed from the opening paragraphs and don't explain the full details behind the find, in which one of the scientists admits "there are one or two loose ends" for the parallel universe theory. There's another neutrino observatory at the South Pole, known as IceCube, which has been following up on the ANITA observations and suggests the standard model of physics cannot explain these strange events. "In such a situation you start exploring even more extreme possibilities," says Ekers. There is a really interesting science story here, but it's not the one you're being sold. The ANITA experiment is mind-boggling in its own right. It looks for "ghostly" particles that pass through most matter. It has definitely detected something unusual and unexpected. There are plenty of competing theories that aren't explored in the quick news hits, like the idea the Antarctic ice may itself be giving rise to these anomalous events. But there's so much we don't know about neutrinos that astrophysicists and scientists are still trying to unravel. "We are absolutely sure that there is new physics out there to be found," says Clancy James, a radio astronomer at Curtin University in Australia. Jumping straight to "parallel universes" is a little over-the-top, and there are less extreme theories that could explain what ANITA has detected. More than that, reports regurgitating this theory without thorough examination complicate the public's relationship with science, which is already on shaky ground thanks to misinformation campaigns around climate change and the coronavirus pandemic. When you see stories like these its good to remember "the Sagan Standard", an adage uttered by the famed astronomer Carl Sagan. It goes "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." At present, we've got a great theory but we lack the extraordinary evidence to back it up. What we do have, Ekers says, is "a somewhat cheeky explanation ... born out of the frustration of having nothing else that worked." He says this is "good out-of-the-box thinking" and a "fascinating" idea but not one that should be taken very seriously. So, I'm sorry. We didn't find evidence for a parallel universe. Fortunately, if there is one, then over there this article doesn't spoil the theory at all! It supports it! So please, direct all your email toward the parallel universe Jackson Ryan. No, I won't be taking questions.
  5. Adding this to the thread. While surfing the interwebs I came across this article on Aljeezera and found it really helpful. Love when I come across a clear and effective explanation of something. It's like "Yeahhhhhhhhh that makes sense.... I think..." Quote' Is a confrontation between religion (I exclude "dogmatism" here) and science necessary? Having a background in both science and religion, I do not think so. We do not have to battle over things that are dissimilar in terms of reference and remit. Let me say why. Science is about "how": it tries to find natural "facts" through ideas, theory, postulation, experiment and empirical evidence. It is not meant to find "truth". Science is based on statistical probabilities and experimental evidence; during this process of discovery, it is prone to errors. A scientific approach cannot find for sure whether our universe was created or self-made, for example. As our knowledge expands, many "established" scientific theories have been thrown away. Scientific giants understood this and accepted the "new" knowledge with humility. On the other hand, religion is about "why": it gives meaning to our life through a metaphysical approach, searching for ultimate "truth". Religion's emphasis is on morality and behaviour. Believers are asked to keep an open mind, observe, question, reflect, contemplate and then act. A verse from the Quran (chapter 3, verse 190) is intuitive - "Surely in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the alternation of night and day, there are signs for people of understanding". Science explores and scientists differ. On the issue of human evolution even Darwin's supporters could not agree, because some thought that "the mental capacities and the moral sensibilities of humans could not be explained by natural selection". This is understandable. Our individual life on Earth is infinitesimal compared to the age of our known universe; our personal sphere is also minuscule compared to the expanse of the universe we are in. To pretend that we would be able to know the "truth" of our life and about the universe would be sheer arrogance. This does not mean we surrender to our "fate" and sit back; not at all. We, as human beings, are not a mere physical entity but have "moral sensitivities" and a spiritual dimension. We are born with an inquisitive, creative mind that is full of imagination and innovation. We see, hear and observe things and ask questions. Do we get all the answers? No. We are not supposed to; if we did all our uniqueness would disappear and we would end up being dull and stagnant. That is the mystery of human life. As an experimental physicist until my mid-30s, asking questions and throwing challenges were part of my research. This did not deter me from getting closer to my (Muslim) faith. I have always been fascinated by the life of many ancient scholars from China, Greece or India, who were religious saints and scientists at the same time. I am enthralled by many pre-Renaissance Muslim scientists and scholars like Al-Khwarizmi and Ibn Sina, who were pioneers in science and at the same time devoutly religious and spiritual. I am still amazed to see this tradition of harmony between science and religion in the personality of scientific giants like Newton and Einstein. Their thirst for knowledge was matched by their humility. Belief in or denial of God is the main issue Monotheistic religion is essentially about primary belief in one Living God; the rest follows from this premise. In Islamic belief God has 99 "attributes" eg His Omniscience or Omnipotence. The Abrahamic religions are adamant on monotheism. Yes, there is no way of experimentally proving God's presence, but there are coherent evidences in support of this belief, such as a) all the Prophets who were known to be extremely honest and trustworthy in their life informing us of God, b) numerous signs (ayat, in Arabic) within and around us and in the cosmos testify His presence. These arguments cannot just be brushed aside as irrational or non-progressive. The benefit of a resolute belief in God has a positive impact on life: it has created a myriad of highly-motivated, spiritually-uplifted and self-regulated selfless individuals who have spent or even sacrificed their life for the good of others. The belief in God and a sense of accountability in the Hereafter is a catalyst to those actions. Then there is the classical argument: imagine there is no God. Believers do not lose anything on Earth. But imagine there is one, what happens to deniers in the Hereafter? It is true that religion was and can be misused to foster division, hatred and cruelty; but history is the evidence that most wars, destruction, ethnic cleansing and killings were the result of manipulative politics or selfish use of religions, rather than the inherent faiths in and of themselves. The complexity of body, mind, soul and spirit There is obviously a common ground between the two approaches, the spiritual and the scientific. All living beings have phases or evolution in their life from birth to death. Without a doubt there is biological evolution in the world of low-level living beings, including many animals. Our "evolution" in a mother's womb, from a zygote into a fully-fledged baby, is mentioned in the Quran - "And certainly We created man of an extract of clay, then We made him a small seed in a firm resting-place, then We made the seed a clot, then We made the clot a lump, then We made the lump bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, then We caused it to grow into another creation, so blessed be Allah, the best of the creators" (chapter 23, verses 12-14). So, religion is not irrational. It asks us to think very seriously about our place on this planet. Just because we are physically similar with some primates, I believe we cannot conclude that humans have evolved from them. Yes, gorillas and chimpanzees are biologically closest to humans and their DNA sequences are very similar, but that does not necessarily "prove" that a highly intelligent and spiritual man evolved from them. Even with very close DNA-similarity between two twin siblings we see incredible differences between their personality, ability and creativity. The human mind may operate faster than light, but it cannot fully understand the mysteries of our universe and our life. It is time we step back and try to comprehend the highly coherent and intelligent universe and the "whole" of our existence. It is also time religious adherents practice their critical autonomy to continuously enhance their knowledge and understanding of our natural world. As for Muslims, I can only say that our belief and reason (aql, in Arabic) are intertwined; we should be the first to use this gift of reasoning. Credit: Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari @MAbdulBari
  6. Well, this may be a stretch, but acceptable to put forth when talking about something like the essence of humanity with little to work with; maybe you were created by some other life form/species? Again, it's just an idea, and one that i'm highly doubtful of.... but still... There is then the more acceptable "Theory of evolution"
  7. Terrible statement. You should always keep an open mind. I came on here with and laid out some things I've been contemplating, intending to have people with more knowledge on the subject refute them/give me a deeper explanation so I can have a clearer understanding, leading to a more informed decision. That's the purpose of this discussion. I've been pretty receptive to the explanations put forth in this discussion so far, and many of them have me taking on a new view on some things I found questionable. So no, it is not a futile effort.
  8. Very well put... seriously. This is the first post in this thread that definitely has me thinking. You walked the fine line between human biology/religion almost perfectly, refuted my previous post without even directly addressing it.... thanks for your contribution to this discussion!
  9. People begin to sound like mystics when they speak of such things. As complex as nature, the world, and the universe is, we speak of things like interdimensional beings such as Jinns, angels, or a satan operating under a veil within our current reality, when there is absolutely 0 evidence of this, Not one shred, diminishing the complexity of this world and making things sound like a fairytale. Rather, it seems to be something that germinated from early human's unscientific, irrational minds that tried their best to explain why bad things happen to good people, why good people sometimes do bad things, and why there's so much needless suffering in the world? Am I wrong? If so, why? Three different explanations, please refute them. 1.Socialization. We are taught by their parents and other family members to believe in the devil, and so when one is brought up with such a belief it takes on a force of factuality that is impervious to criticism. 2.Group membership. We (those who follow abrahamic religions) are part of groups or communities that include a variety of beliefs, like belief in the devil, and since people receive so much from becoming part of this group — community, solidarity, camaraderie, heritage, etc.—we consume ideologies without much inquiry, as the benefits of becoming part of the group overshadow the benefits of rational thought and empiricism. 3.Existential angst. A lot of people find the ambiguity of life threatening. It may be realistic but it may be existentially worrying. So it goes with god and the Devil. People would rather believe in their existence than embrace the unnerving fact that we are here in this world for unknowable reasons, with no mystical deities in pearly or fiery realms presiding over.
  10. This video was uploaded a few days ago, and I just so happened to come across it right now while surfing the TUBES. Super interesting, and in line with this discussion, highly recommend you all watch it.
  11. Forgive me, but I completely tone out when people start talking about numbers, and special phrases. Another reason I started walking on the edge of religion. 1 bad deed = this, 1 good deed = that, this and that deed is worth that, say this x amount of times and it erases X amount, mercy = this, weighing of the hypothetical scales. Is this a numbers game? Maybe they were meant in a metaphorical sense? You are biased, as most people who are firm in their beliefs are. I was also biased. Move on to Judaism or christianity, and im certain they also have their own respective sayings and special deeds that wipe all of their sins. Its prevalent amongst the three abrahamic faiths. Please don't be offended, it's nothing to do with you. I love that you're taking part in this discussion.
  12. You're saying that the existence of Hell is compatible with justice, or that it exists because of free will, and that it is a choice rather than an imposed punishment, right? I get that, but it just brings us back to square one. Why? The problem of Hell is similar to the problem of evil outlined in my original post, assuming the suffering of Hell is caused by free will and something God could have prevented. Just the mere existence of this Hell is inconsistent with the notion of a just, moral, and omnibenevolent God, right? Many get into the argument of Hell being eternal, some argue that Hell exists to purify rather than inflict pain, and others state that Hell itself will cease to exist. Im questioning it's mere existence/ reason for existence. ......I think I believe in a Hell..... maybe.... but it just doesn't seem compatible
  13. Sounds like something I would say 2 years ago. As Ive mentioned multiple times in this thread, how does hell fit into the idea of a loving, all knowing, eternal being/force/creator. Why create them in the first place? So far, the only direct answer Ive gotten was that "Only god knows". Whenever we reach a dead end, it becomes "gods will" or "only god knows" rather than, "we don't know".
  14. Ok, axe out mating. How about status and resource? Violence for resource? Sounds familiar, no? Pretty much every war in the last 5 centuries? Status? Pax Britanica, Pax Americana? Criminal Organizations, ect. ect.
  15. So, in essence, it all comes back down to us really not knowing. Thats agnosticism. We don't know for certain. We would like to think of it as a god, creator, divine architect, whatever.... but, we still don't know forsure.
  16. Right? So why? it doesn't seem like an answerable question..... So, you just take it and believe as it is?
  17. Interesting, but once again, in reference to my original post, why does this have to be god, or have anything to do with a divine creator? Why not some unknown aspect of this universe that is beyond our scope of comprehension?
  18. Aggression in mammals, including humans, has a genetic component with high heritability. Consequently, it is widely acknowledged that evolution has also shaped human violence. As I posted above in reply to dragonX, maybe there is an evolutionary origin of morality? This instinct of Violence can be seen as an adaptive strategy, favoring the perpetrator’s reproductive success in terms of mates, status or resources. Humans are moral animals?
  19. They would have still occurred, hypothetically, yes... why?
  20. ur living in fairytale land if you think humans are smart enough to formulate moral laws. what you need to do is travel to yemen or something and get a real taste of life rather than the fairy tale land
  21. I mean, It kinda already is a summary of the myriad of ideas I wanted to include. You don't have to refute the whole thing, pick and choose any of the ideas. in a TL;DR summary, I guess it would be something like.. -Religion gives people hope and a moral guide to live by (moral guide more so in the past). Sometimes this is good, sometimes bad. Its binary and makes people feel like they belong to something special. -Where is the proof that god exists, why does causation, existence, and all that is unexplainable have to be a god, rather than something unknown. -and why, if he is just, would he create something finite in knowledge only to send it to hell, assuming he is all knowing. That was a terrible summary, really, which is why you kinda have to go through the whole thing...
  22. I understand, however thats not the point of this discussion.... not so much a hardcore debate, just thoughts on these ideas for anyone who is interested. : )
  23. Can you elaborate? Your statement just goes back to Argument 2.) of causation.
  24. Hello, I hope you are well and in good health in these strange times. Im a young guy in his early 20’s who was raised in a (Shia) muslim family. For most of my life, I followed the religion to the T, never questioning anything nor having any doubts about it. It wasn’t until the past year or so that I did a complete 180 for reasons unknown, and found myself questioning and disagreeing with a lot, if not most, things. I still consider myself Muslim, and I guess you could best label me as a: Agnostic Theist - DOES believe in gods and DOES NOT claim to know they exist. As opposed to what I would call the majority of muslims, or followers of abrahamic religions: Gnostic Theists - DOES believe in gods and DOES claim to know that they exist Many may disagree with my stance, and some may outright declare me a kafir for it, as you apparently cannot be agnostic and muslim. The purpose of this discussion is to lay out some ideas or thoughts that led me to taking this position, and literally, have you refute them, or at least tell me what you think, and get your ideas and thoughts on them. There have even been some posts I found interesting taken directly from here on shiachat and incorporated into the discussion. AND SO… In order to understand religion and god in the way a gnostic theist would, it seems that you have to know through your heart's certitude, the core center of your being, not through your thinking or rationalizing mind. You have to ask who you are. What is your awareness or consciousness? What is it? Is it some thing? What is aware of your consciousness or who is aware of it? I just don’t believe humans are smart enough to comprehend such questions, really. For gnostic Theists, what happens if you're wrong and there is nothing? From what I can understand, it is supposed to be easy. If you die and find out that there is no God, you don’t lose anything, because….. you're dead, obviously. Yes, you endure some hardships in life and have to resist some things, which some argue is not without worldly benefit, because it makes you a better person and a better contributor to the society you live in, something I can attest to as some of the finest people I know are those who are firm in their beliefs, regardless of the religion they follow. For example, by paying a small premium, you get an excellent insurance policy with tremendous benefits, if a god is there. Thus, being a Muslim, Christian, Jew ect. is apparently a win-win situation. In either case, you are supposed to be better off than the others. This isnt always the case however, as we have clearly seen what extremism and exploitation in any religion leads to. In abrahamic religions, people are told that when this temporary life is over, God will raise everyone for an eternal life wherein he will immensely reward all those who pursued personal and collective excellence through religion; and He will imprison in Hell those who misused their free will, rebelled against Him and adopted un-religous ways of life that caused injustices, corruptions, ecological disasters and other imbalances in the world. BUT WHY? What's the point? Steve: “Is God merciful, compassionate, and just?” Bob: “Yes, absolutely,” Steve: “Is there an eternal Hell?” Bob: “Yes, absolutely,” Steve: “So why would a merciful, compassionate, and just God create a FINITE creature with FINITE knowledge of sins, only to later send it to infinite damnation and hellfire? Does that make sense to you?” Bob: ………… I'm not sure how I feel about a God who wants to condemn most of the planet to a fiery hell, an aspect that seems prevalent again, amongst abrahamic religions. What type of loving, sensitive, omnipresent, omnipotent being wants to condemn his beautiful creation to a fiery hell at the end of it all? Why create them in the first place if you knew they were to later be cast into hell? This is important as it also brings into question the notion of "God is good", and the existence of Evil in the world. Assuming there is a god, why does evil seem to prevail? One way to look at the issue is to recognize evil merely as the lack or absence of good, leaving you only with good and the absence of good. Since evil then becomes the absence of something, it cannot be something that can be placed on the account of god. This claim does not argue that evil exists; it merely rejects the "reality of evil." So, either a God is responsible for the evil and suffering and cannot be considered "good", or you can argue that evil and suffering subsist despite God because he cannot, or will not eliminate them. But, this is conflicting, as God is often defined as omniscient, meaning literally all-knowing or often all-wise. Fully understood, God's omniscience places every element of life in divine hands. The rock claim goes hand in hand with this, the omnipotent being (god) can not construct a stone that it cannot raise. The omnipotent being is not able to produce such a stone because its power is equal to itself — thus eliminating the omnipotence, because only one omnipotent being may exist. Religion seems to keep people afloat, making them feel like there’s something better on the other side. Amongst the major abrahamic religions, it seems to be set up binary, it’s us and them, saved and unsaved, heaven and hell, enlightened and heathen, mumineen and kafir, holy and righteous … that makes a lot of people feel better about themselves. Furthermore, it seems to impose a Rule of Law, which acts to keep people on the right track. What happens when you don’t have the order that religion brings? You have the order of MIGHT, like in China for example. The religion is the state. Now of course they do have religion(s) in China, but the reality is, what’s running China is a dictatorship, and the king is the ruler. This is what they look towards. This brings us to: ARGUMENT 1.) Moral laws require a lawmaker. The argument that subjective morality is unacceptable because it has, and will, differ from person to person and two contradictory statements (let alone millions) can not be true at the same time, as per the second fundamental law of logic. So the lawmaker can not be a human being. Believers in abrahmic religions are compelled to believe then, that only God can provide true objective moral boundaries as the creator who is all-knowing. If there are no clear guidelines set by an all-knowing god, and there are no guaranteed consequences for our actions, then life is ultimately nothing but a large hedonistic doghouse, and nobody can prove otherwise. RESPONSE- This does not take into account the notion of a secular government with secular laws. We do not need religion to dictate our morality and we as humans have the intelligence to discern all that we need to live moral lives. We live in a completely different world now than those before us because of the interconnectedness we have today, which did not exist before. Today we have access to so much information and to the vast body of work that people have written about philosophy, ethics, and morals. We can understand why it’s good to be a good person without having to invoke a higher power, or some divine spiritual entity that’s watching over everything. Before, that wasn’t the case, we were establishing civilization, moving from primitive groups that lived in tribes, which we all came from. People need to take into consideration that we are here because our ancestors were better at violence than others. We are a warlike species of beings that have consistently throughout history conquered each other, doing awful things to each other (taking over land, cities, people), and religion is what we needed then, to get people to act in a moral and more ethical way, to get people to stop from raping and pilliging their way across the world. Some argue that religion is in many ways a sort of a natural creation of the human mind and the human psyche to try and move us past our primitive tribal tendencies, towards a more cooperative way of existing. And ARGUMENT 2.) The argument of causation. Everything has a cause and an effect. Your jacket is an effect, and the clothing factory is the cause. This world must be effective, right? So it needs a cause. What if it existed by itself. That would mean itself is the cause. Well, then what made itself exist? What proportioned the necessary atoms and particles to form a universe? For Theists, this must mean, in conclusion, that there was a Supreme power involved. An infinite regress of causation with regards to natural phenomena is impossible, thus proving the necessity of a first cause/creator of all-natural phenomena who itself is not bound by anything. Inconceivable and necessary, God. BUT Why does it have to be a god (and more specifically a god found in a particular revelation or revelations?) Why does it have to be a god at all? Why can't this cause less cause be some unknown aspect of this universe that is beyond our scope of comprehension? Or is it simply called "god" merely because we just don't know enough about this first cause? What if there is a domain within our existence where things don't operate by cause and effect. Secondly, is God at the beginning of this causal chain? Is he "before" all other effects? That is already a limitation on god. The universe may be more than matter a spacetime and maybe even more than what our thoughts could conjure. The known or visible universe might work through what we would call causality but maybe the unknown part of the universe (before the Big Bang) might have a whole different structure that escapes our feeble imaginations and our limited ideas or thoughts. Have you ever thought about this? Why does that "unknown" always have to be a god by default? In contrast to a gnostic theist who his firm in their religious beliefs, scientists acknowledge that we don’t have all the answers, we don’t really know where the laws of nature came from, nor do we know why the universe began in the way it did (if it even did have a beginning) For example, we understand nuclear physics and we can build nuclear reactors from it. We understand the physics of stars, and understand that they built carbon and oxygen, and we know how they did it. We can see it. When you look far out into the universe, you are essentially looking back in time, and as you’re looking back in time you see less carbon and less oxygen. PRESTO, direct observation that in the earliest universe there wasn’t any. We don't have anything to justify that the laws of nature originated themselves spontaneously out of nothing, nor do we have anything to justify that it was created by a divine architecture. All these systems, their state of the art designs, the laws by which they exist could be mere accidents or chance, or they could not be. We just don't know…… Thoughts?
  25. So, I've been reading quite a bit about DMT (dimethyltriptamine), a chemical produced in the pineal gland in our brains, the same chemical that elicits our dreams. This gateway to dreamland is released in massive amounts at the moment of death. When I say massive, if a water glass of DMT evokes a dream, at death, an equivalent river excretes into your system.It may well be the reason we, as a species, are capable of sentience itself. It should be noted that the pineal’s significance is neither a new idea, nor an unfounded one. Spanning the expanse of human civilization runs an undercurrent of worshipful adoration to the almighty pineal, more widely known as the inner eye, all-seeing eye, or the like considered the body’s gateway to the soul We've all seen that before ^, Egypt had its Eye of Horus (now emblazoned on the US dollar bill). Hindu culture has its bottu (the familiar forehead dot). Even the ancient art of yoga recognizes the brow chakra, or ajna, as blossoming at the pineal, or third eye. That’s only to name a few. Great, so what does all this have to do with death and the afterlife? among people who used (smoked) DMT, out of the macrocosm of potential experiences, two major themes emerge nearly universally: 1) A stretching of time – they experience the hectic 6 or 7 minutes as a near eternity or lifetime. Imagine Cobb’s 50 year night in Inception. 2) They experience religious incarnations with a tilt toward whatever sect the subject is affiliated with. Here’s the clincher: after death, while this massive psychedelic dose courses through the brain, there is this mysterious several minutes where the brain still functions. With our new perspective, however, we at last understand what these minutes are… These few minutes after death, subjectively, are experienced as an eternity (eternal heaven or hell), engrossed in the DMT universe. Also, the trip itself is a highly personal experience dictated by the deepest realms of the subconscious. Therefore, whatever at your deepest core you expect to happen when you die… Congratulations, that’s what’ll happen… Every religion was right. On to something or totally off? Can DMT be the barrier between this world and the other world... from an islamic standpoint?
  • Create New...