How The Multiverse Can Unite Religions

[Occams Barber]

Not much use for answering why I’m here, or what happens when I pop my clogs.

Is that all you need? Allow me:

Why you're here?
The question assumes there is a 'why'. Before you ask why you're here, you must first ask 'why there must be a why?'

What happens when you pop your clogs?
Nothing (from your point of view)

OB

 

[Sorn]

The multiverse is a horrible fudge in the context it was postulated.

The idea of infinite universes with all pasts and futures that you select on observation? To get round the idea thar nothing canexist at all till observed, which then makes existence subjective, not objective.

QM is bonkers at philosophical level , showing science is just a model not an underlying reality.

Also, I’m not sure hawking was aware enough of philosophy to see how badly he pulled the rug out from under himself. One of his last postulations was “ model dependent reality” that is mutually irreconcilable models needed , which need choosing case by case. Goodbye the theory of everything.

Clearly the spontaneous creation and collapsing of other universes is not ruled out by the model, or indeed speculation. But if the model is suspect as a viable explanation of what is, not what we observe, then any other conclusions from it are invalid.


In short the shrinking God of the gaps, is still a universe sized unknown at the level of what exists and why. All science does is find patterns in observations of what it does. That is - the limited part we can observed projected into our sense dimensions.

"All science does is find patterns in observations of what it does."
Well, no, science also tries to understand and verify why those patterns are what they are, to provide evidence that a particular pattern does indeed explain some observed phenomena and isn't just a coincidence.
This is so that reliable predictions and courses of action can then be taken to change something in our world / lives, or to do something differently to how it was done before.

 

[Mountainmike]

What gets me is why most completely ignore the bleedingly obvious?!

Obvious?
Or Bleedingly obvious.
so assuming the word bleedingly has purpose referring to blood:

It’s bleedingly obvious that the shroud of Turin , the sudarium of Oviedo ( and indeed the lesser known tunic of argentuille)
Are from the same victim, since with 60 points of forensic correspondence in pre and post mortem pathology of blood , bilirubin, blood serum, location and nature of blood and serum wounds are those of the only historic victim noted wearing a crown of thorns , wounds consistent with passion of Christ. All that pathology unknown till recent times, some only visible in UV light and other narrow spectra, so it’s bleedingly obvious it cannot have been faked, and also dates many centuries earlier not least because of chain of custody!

But then the bleedingly obvious ceases to be obvious for atheists wishing to avoid the obvious in matters of bleeding on relics....even if concluded by forensic scientists whose opinions would be treated as fact. Except when atheists don’t like the bleedingly obvious!

Or we could try concluding the obvious of The bleeding of the statue of Cochabamba or the Eucharistic miracle of tixtla for example.

So shall we discuss the bleedingly obvious
Or would you rather stick with the plain obvious...

 

[Mountainmike]

"All science does is find patterns in observations of what it does."
Well, no, science also tries to understand and verify why those patterns are what they are, to provide evidence that a particular pattern does indeed explain some observed phenomena and isn't just a coincidence.
This is so that reliable predictions and courses of action can then be taken to change something in our world / lives, or to do something differently to how it was done before.

By why you mean link to other patterns, in the model.
That’s an empirical “consistency” not a fundamental “why”

 

[SelfSim]

.. so assuming the word bleedingly has purpose referring to blood: {etc. etc, etc}

Flawed assumption.
'Twas for dramatic effect ..

 

[Sorn]

By why you mean link to other patterns, in the model.
That’s an empirical “consistency” not a fundamental “why”

One mans fundamental 'why' is another mans empirical consistency!
Science will always try and find out the fundamental why, but just by 1 why at a time, one layer at a time. Just for clarity though, what do you mean by a 'fundamental why'?

 

[Mountainmike]

Flawed assumption.
'Twas for dramatic effect ..

Tch. Tch. You don’t mean ....swearing .....

What about the bleedingly obvious anyway?

Have atheists got over their hissy fit when it became apparent the shroud is not a mediaeval fake? as witness forensic correspondence to the sudarium: with science unknown till last century and invisible to fakers?

 

[Frank Robert]

So you want us to follow some religion you made up by combining two unproven concepts? I don't have that kind of faith.

Your comment makes no sense. One religion is a two thousand year old religion Christianity which is you follow. The other religion is the twenty-five hundred year religion of Buddhism. The multiverse is a hypothetical. None of the three are proven and no one is suggesting that they want you to follow it.

 

[Frank Robert]

Obvious?
Or Bleedingly obvious.

Or would you rather stick with the plain obvious...

The term "elusive obvious" is much better.

 

[renniks]

Your comment makes no sense. One religion is a two thousand year old religion Christianity which is you follow. The other religion is the twenty-five hundred year religion of Buddhism. The multiverse is a hypothetical. None of the three are proven and no one is suggesting that they want you to follow it.

Two unprovens: The multiverse and Buddism, the so-called path of enlightenment. Yes, plenty of people try and combine other garbage with Christianity, but that's a dangerous path to being deceived.

 

[Frank Robert]

Two unprovens: The multiverse and Buddism, the so-called path of enlightenment.

Three unprovens. You are over looking the fact that your own religion is unproven.

When you speak of "enlightenment" you are displaying a lack of knowledge of Buddhism which is not uncommon. Enlightenment is a mis-translation of the Sanskrit "bodhi" which literally translates to "awakening."

Yes, plenty of people try and combine other garbage with Christianity, but that's a dangerous path to being deceived.

Let's start with the thousands of contradictory biblical interpretations.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Three unprovens. You are over looking the fact that your own religion is unproven.

When you speak of "enlightenment" you are displaying a lack of knowledge of Buddhism which is not uncommon. Enlightenment is a mis-translation of the Sanskrit "bodhi" which literally translates to "awakening."

Let's start with the thousands of contradictory biblical interpretations.

Not even going to touch bible contradictions. There are thousands.
Instead going to touch of the Buddhist influences in Christianity.
At least one of the several historical Jesus' was obviously taught by Buddhists.
A number of teaching attributed to Jesus, are lifted directly from Buddhism.
My guess is that the soldier Jesus, after deserting the Legions, fled east. And ended up in India. Spent a dozen or so years learning Buddhism. And went home to try to teach it to his fellow Jews in Palestine.

 

[Mountainmike]

Three unprovens. You are over looking the fact that your own religion is unproven.

When you speak of "enlightenment" you are displaying a lack of knowledge of Buddhism which is not uncommon. Enlightenment is a mis-translation of the Sanskrit "bodhi" which literally translates to "awakening."

Let's start with the thousands of contradictory biblical interpretations.

Just wondered if you knew the truth behind “ thousands of contradictory interpretations”.
Are you interested?

Let’s discriminate two issues : orthodoxy and orthopractice,
science has the same problem. All physicists agree on use of Quantum mechanics Equations ( orthopractice) but they disagree on arcane matters of underlying philosophy ( orthodoxy) ie philosophic meaning of Copenhagen interpretation. It doesn’t invalidate the calculations.
In essence it is the same between the two old churches despite the schism. Catholic and eastern.

Catholics have one interpretation, orthodoxy and orghopraxtice . It’s in the catechism. Catholicism has changed little in millenia ( despite the schism we still share that with Eastern orthodox churches) we do the same stuff as them for the same reasons ( orthopractice) in Essence- just evolved a little in issues which relate not to practice but arcane nature of mysteries ie we differ a little on orthodoxy, differences are not huge.


There’s the catholic interpretation ( orthodoxy and orthopractice)
the eastern schism was in essence arcane matters of understanding ( orthodoxy not orthopractice)

Protestants since reformation disagree on orthopractice and orthodoxy. There’s a reason.

An imperfect analogy but in essence the reformationists threw away the dictionary ( tradition ie what it means ) and authority from early times. They replaced it with a dictionary of their own making. worse all were empowered to invent their own dictionaries, Then they wonder why they all disagree on meaning? reformers even disagree with the contents of the book ...

like keeping maxwells equations, but letting all decide the meaning of symbols. Some even ditching a couple of equations!

So not surprising orthodoxy and orthopractice have gone, And since each is their own interpreter it shattered into bits.


But that’s not reflective of the church as a whole.

 

[Astrid]

Tch. Tch. You don’t mean ....swearing .....

What about the bleedingly obvious anyway?

Have atheists got over their hissy fit when it became apparent the shroud is not a mediaeval fake? as witness forensic correspondence to the sudarium: with science unknown till last century and invisible to fakers?

"Hissy fit". As if.
Next, evos will have a fit over Paluxy man tracks?
IF it were shown that the Shroud is
fully consistent with what it would have to be
if real, that would be very impressive.
It isnt.

Having read a few pro / con articles my
takeaway is that the "evidence" for
authenticity is akin to creationist proof
that there really was a flood.
The church won't permit shroud -testing.
Geology is wide open for anyone to test.

 

[Astrid]

Just wondered if you knew the truth behind “ thousands of contradictory interpretations”.
Are you interested?

Let’s discriminate two issues : orthodoxy and orthopractice,
science has the same problem. All physicists agree on use of Quantum mechanics Equations ( orthopractice) but they disagree on arcane matters of underlying philosophy ( orthodoxy) ie philosophic meaning of Copenhagen interpretation. It doesn’t invalidate the calculations.
In essence it is the same between the two old churches despite the schism. Catholic and eastern.

Catholics have one interpretation, orthodoxy and orghopraxtice . It’s in the catechism. Catholicism has changed little in millenia ( despite the schism we still share that with Eastern orthodox churches) we do the same stuff as them for the same reasons ( orthopractice) in Essence- just evolved a little in issues which relate not to practice but arcane nature of mysteries ie we differ a little on orthodoxy, differences are not huge.


There’s the catholic interpretation ( orthodoxy and orthopractice)
the eastern schism was in essence arcane matters of understanding ( orthodoxy not orthopractice)

Protestants since reformation disagree on orthopractice and orthodoxy. There’s a reason.

An imperfect analogy but in essence the reformationists threw away the dictionary ( tradition ie what it means ) and authority from early times. They replaced it with a dictionary of their own making. worse all were empowered to invent their own dictionaries, Then they wonder why they all disagree on meaning? reformers even disagree with the contents of the book ...

like keeping maxwells equations, but letting all decide the meaning of symbols. Some even ditching a couple of equations!

So not surprising orthodoxy and orthopractice have gone, And since each is their own interpreter it shattered into bits.


But that’s not reflective of the church as a whole.[/QUOisn't.
Sounds like the whole thing.

 

[Mountainmike]

It’s sad that so few read the science background only sensationalist media. All you have said is true in science world.

Sadly- atheist press have not presented an objective account of where the science is at. I can give you a reading list if you like

All the cloths have been tested.

All I said was true. Forensic analysis has demonstrated pre and post mortem pathology entirely consistent with the documented torture of Christ. Science unknown till recently and invisible to fakers. And the forensic correspondence Between sudarium and shroud shows the date is much earlier. As do other physio chemical dating methods.


But considering the utter balls the carbon dating labs made of their last incompetent fiasco- I can’t imagine the church is anxious to do a repeat.

People seem unaware : the RC labs are just radiation counters. Not professional daters.

There was only one professional archaeologist and RC dater in the group of shroud scientists with substantial experience of fabric dating. A guy called meacham who wrote papers before the test saying textile dates are a serious problem, and he identified the factors needed to consider to attempt dating, which even before the test he said was only indicative, not conclusive.

The dating labs cut both him, the sturp scientists , and all textile specialists out of the test. They ignored the sampling protocols agreed. None of them knew anything about the cloth. So All meacham said came true. The dating was a fiasco.
It wasn’t three independent tests. It was the same unrepresentative test repeated

Read his book: ” rape of the shroud”: meacham and accept you are listening to the ONLY professional dater involved, who was appalled by the antics of the labs. The atheist media of course never mention him.

And as a result massive piles of science supporting authenticity have Been ignored.
From, textiles to pollens, plants to minerals, pre and post mortem pathology. It is the real deal..

Did you know the only explanation for the apparent 3D shallow oxidation mark is a non contact short burst radiation? And that is the only way it can be mimicked? By either mannikin electro discharge or uv laser.

whatever it is, it is not an artwork.
Even now With today’s science nobody knows how to fake it!

how does a dead body radiate?
Fascinating whatever you believe.

"Hissy fit". As if.
Next, evos will have a fit over Paluxy man tracks?
IF it were shown that the Shroud is
fully consistent with what it would have to be
if real, that would be very impressive.
It isnt.

Having read a few pro / con articles my
takeaway is that the "evidence" for
authenticity is akin to creationist proof
that there really was a flood.
The church won't permit shroud -testing.
Geology is wide open for anyone to test.

 

[Frank Robert]

Just wondered if you knew the truth behind “ thousands of contradictory interpretations”.

You are correct. My statement was hyperbolic to make the point that there are thousands of denominations with unique beliefs. It is probably better to say there two main interpretations literal and metaphorical. But whether it's thousands or two the real problem is not what some believes but the push to teach religions beliefs in public schools.

 

[Astrid]

It’s sad that so few read the science background only sensationalist media. All you have said is true in science world.

Sadly- atheist press have not presented an objective account of where the science is at. I can give you a reading list if you like

All the cloths have been tested.

All I said was true. Forensic analysis has demonstrated pre and post mortem pathology entirely consistent with the document torture of Christ. And the forensic correspondence Between sudarium and shroud shows the date is much earlier. As do other physio chemical dating methods,


But considering the utter balls the carbon dating labs made of their last incompetent fiasco- I can’t imagine the church is anxious to do a repeat.

People seem unaware : the RC labs are just radiation counters. Not professional daters. There was only one professional archaeologist and RC date in the group of shroud scientists. A guy called meacham who wrote papers before the test saying textile dates are a serious problem, and the factors needed to consider to attempt a date.

The dating labs cut both him, the sturp scientists , and all textile specialists out of the test. They ignored the sampling protocols agreed. All meacham said came true. The dating was a fiasco.

Read his book: ” rape of the shroud”: and accept you are listening to the only professional dater involved, who was appalled by the antics of the labs. The atheist media of course never mention him.

And as a result massive piles of science supporting authenticity have Been ignored.

Did you know the only explanation for the apparent 3D shallow oxidatyin mark is a non contact short burst radiation? And that is the only way it can be mimicked? By either mannikin electro discharge or uv laser.

how does a dead body radiate?
Fascinating whatever you believe.

Just for clarity is it also your position
that evolution is false and that evidence for
the flood is sadly ignored by atheists who
won't be objective?

 

[Frank Robert]

It’s sad that so few read the science background only sensationalist media. All you have said is true in science world.

Sadly- atheist press have not presented an objective account of where the science is at. I can give you a reading list if you like

All the cloths have been tested.

All I said was true. Forensic analysis has demonstrated pre and post mortem pathology entirely consistent with the documented torture of Christ. Science unknown till recently and invisible to fakers. And the forensic correspondence Between sudarium and shroud shows the date is much earlier. As do other physio chemical dating methods.


But considering the utter balls the carbon dating labs made of their last incompetent fiasco- I can’t imagine the church is anxious to do a repeat.

People seem unaware : the RC labs are just radiation counters. Not professional daters.

There was only one professional archaeologist and RC dater in the group of shroud scientists. A guy called meacham who wrote papers before the test saying textile dates are a serious problem, and he identified the factors needed to consider to attempt dating, which even before the test he said was only indicative, not conclusive,

The dating labs cut both him, the sturp scientists , and all textile specialists out of the test. They ignored the sampling protocols agreed. None of them new anything about the cloth. So All meacham said came true. The dating was a fiasco.
It wasn’t three independent tests. It was the same unrepresentative test repeated

Read his book: ” rape of the shroud”: meacham and accept you are listening to the ONLY professional dater involved, who was appalled by the antics of the labs. The atheist media of course never mention him.

And as a result massive piles of science supporting authenticity have Been ignored.
From, textiles to pollens, plants to minerals, pre and post mortem pathology. It is the real deal..

Did you know the only explanation for the apparent 3D shallow oxidatyin mark is a non contact short burst radiation? And that is the only way it can be mimicked? By either mannikin electro discharge or uv laser.

how does a dead body radiate?
Fascinating whatever you believe.

A nice summary of several hackneyed creationists tropes.

 

[AV1611VET]

Having read a few pro / con articles my
takeaway is that the "evidence" for authenticity is akin to creationist proof that there really was a flood.

So you're saying the shroud is real, but the evidence for it is probably on Neptune? or swept up as white cliffs? or made into serpentine rivers?