I am not sure whether people "hate vegans" as much as find them annoying. I think it rude to show up at carnivore social event and demand animal-free food. It would be equally rude for a carnivore to show up at a vegan social event and demand meat.

Vegans count as "picky eaters" because they exclude everyday foods that cost people eat. I understand how people with celeriac disease really have to exclude gluten from their diet, but then there are people who don't have any degree of celeriac disease but think gluten free is cool, and expect others to accommodate them. Same for people who insist on organic foods.

When I prepare a meal for a local homeless shelter, I am happy to make vegan food that is attractive, flavorful, and nutritious. I exclude pork (usually) because there are sometimes homeless Moslems there. If someone just happens to not like pork, well... tough. Just eat what's on your plate. [I'll eat cilantro / coriander without making an issue of it, even though I think it is disgusting.] — Bitter Crank

I like your answer.

It makes sense to me and I admire your generosity to volunteer for the homeless. And utilizing your cooking skills to spread joy to the less fortunate.

As a passionate Chef and Food critic I do acknowledge Veganism as a challenge to me since cooking is like art to me. I do find it disturbing something as simple as eating a ham sandwich can be politicalized in such extreme way.

If it is an consolation "I'm sorry for the thread" it was intended as a random thought that was provoked by this article.

https://theveganreview.com/why-people-get-angry-vegan-hate-discrimination/
"Why do people get angry towards vegans?" - Lisa Gawthorne

That is contrary to the older Egyptian notion of the trinity of our souls. When we die part of that trinity, the physical part, becomes nonexistent. — Athena

I’m not familiar with Egyptian faith but this notion is based on my own spiritual self exploration. Is an expression of my own personal interpretation of the Bible.

Finally, the third part rejoins the source.
That is compatible with the native American notion of the Creator and returning to the source after death. — Athena

I guess that is true. Again this is based on my own personal perspective on faith. What I realize is there is no standard in how to believe, I guess that is why I am a harsh critic of Systematic Faith. I believe is a flawed practice and the only way, you can worship God and understanding the Nature of God is through Spirituality.

We came from a Source and we return to the source.

Whether you believe in Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Native American faith and even Atheism (return to the Universe into a natural elemental state). This theme of return to the source is Universal.

Christianity externalized the God spirit and made God the trinity. — Athena

I wonder what your "personal" definition of Christianity is? The argument seemed to be based more on technical systematic understanding than spiritual. And Trying to understand the rational reasoning and the mechanics of what make God, God. Which is a different dynamic and different explanation than spiritual understanding.

So the trinity is the idea that somehow God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are separate, but one. Different manifestations of the same being. What I don’t understand is in the Bible, Jesus communicates directly with God. Wouldn’t this amount to nothing more than talking to yourself? How could Jesus feel forsaken, as he famously declares on the cross? Wouldn’t he be privy to all the information or knowledge that God has? I get it that expecting Christianity to make sense is asking too much of it, but I don’t think I’ve seen this objection to the idea of the trinity, and I’m wondering if it has been posed before, and if so what the responses were. — Pinprick

What I don’t understand is in the Bible, Jesus communicates directly with God. Wouldn’t this amount to nothing more than talking to yourself?

My understanding is that we came from God, we are made up of the essence or a part of the spirit of God (Holy Spirit). So you can think in a sense that before we were conceived we were once one with God. Once we were born and took human form we became distinctly different, separate from God but we are from God. In that sense I believe that is what defines a Soul.

Jesus always spoke in context of the Father (or Spirit) and if you pay attention to his wording and you can tell that he is speaking in metaphoric language (or parables). "I know the Father, and the Father knows me." kind of theme to where he is implying in Human form I am separate from the Spirit but once his time comes he will transcend to become one with the Spirit.

I believe that is why in the beginning of the New Testament he is referred to the Son of Man than later referred to as Son of God. Maybe insinuating that he wasn't always divine or maybe didn't acknowledge his divine nature or aware of his divineness until he began his journey and when it was time for him to go to the cross that it was at that moment when he became the Messiah. A sort of transformation of awareness.

Maybe during Jesus journey he was struggling with his identity of being God. How would you feel if suddenly God spoke to you and said "You will be my vessel and become the Son of God. You will be the sacrificial lamb that will save humanity from Sin." and from birth you will be aware of that.

A sort of Spiritual Existential Crisis but not in a traditional sense. Maybe God being in human form made him vulnerable to attacks by the enemy by means of temptation and that was the challenge for him. To maintain his innocents (Free of Sin) state until he got to the cross. The temptation of either settling to a normal human life existence or completing Gods divine mission to save humanity was the struggle.

Being God the spirit made him immune but becoming God in human form made him vulnerable.

Wouldn’t he be privy to all the information or knowledge that God has?

That would be a very frightening experience to have the knowledge of God. It probably would drive any normal person insane. And that is probably why he was preying at the garden before he was crucified. Knowing your fate and knowing what you have to do to accomplish Gods will which will save humanity.
Knowing the future but knowing you can't change the course of it because this is the way to humanities salvation. The burden of overwhelming responsibility that Jesus held is like holding the whole world on his shoulders.

That's why Jesus said “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” - Luke 22:42

Never asking why he had to do it because he knew why he had to do it. He knew his purpose, he knew why but in a way he was asking the Father to find a way to give him relief from this burden but without compromising his divine mission.

The struggle between human nature and divine nature.

This argument is weak because livestock feed off agriculture. — Bylaw

Is not based on facts is based on cultural perspective. You can tell truth and statistics till " Your blue in the face" you aren't providing enough motivating reason to change societies perspective and life style.

Hence why I said "Meat is an addiction"

Facts and data will not change societies sentiment.

I'm not aware that people hate vegans. — Tom Storm

The title is based on a article I read recently with the same title. The thread is mostly a question of cultural perspective than factual.

There is no right or wrong answer is just exploring how Vegans are perceived by society. If the practice of veganism is an effective strategy to promote change in the world.

So what conclusion are you trying to get to here? — Amalac

I actually have two....

1) The more you label something as wrong, more people will do it. I agree with the Vegan cause but people will still eat meat cause it has become taboo and vegans are making this behavior very attractive.

2) Vegans are becoming more of a dogmatic secular group than that of a activist movement and they’re losing creditibility because of it. When you shame meat eaters is no longer about the cause or the environment but about your personal beliefs. What the individual perceives as what is morally right or wrong. And the original message gets lost and is seen as something different.

Slave owners could have used exactly the same argument in the past: “you can't abolish slavery, you have no idea how radical a change in the economy that would be!” — Amalac

I didn't say is not possible but consider this analogy of a doctor.

If a Doctor has a patient with gangrene and need to have a limb severed. You don’t rip off the arm, the patient will go into shock and die. Prep work is needed to properly remove the infected limb surgically. So the patient can survive.

Slavery in US history has record of that. Was it the right thing to do, yes obviously but not without struggle.

As for food being delicious, suppose someone found out that human meat tastes really good: would that justify their torturing and exploiting humans to eat them? Of course not, so why should it be any different in the case of other sentient beings? — Amalac

It doesn't matter if it's cruel or not is an addiction, is like having a moral debate with a meth addict. When a prostitute provides services to get her hit money does she question the morality of her actions, no. She wants that feel good hit, she knows is wrong what she does but again doesn't care.

The point is being missed here is that the ideology or beliefs is not the culprit.

Is the psychological behavior that motivates radicalism behavior.

Take for example Red shoes.

Let's say there is someone who dislike Red Shoes.

Than let's say this person who dislikes red shoes meet someone who says. All people who wear red shoes are evil.

Then the person who dislikes red shoes now hate people who wear red shoe because the subjective idea exists that all people who wear red shoes are evil.

That becomes a domino effect of other negative thought that may lead to radical ideology.

Is the art of manipulation and controlling the masses by adding subjective opinion to an already existing negative idea. To nurse and enhance contempt and negative perspective to motivate violence and hate.

All conviction and ideology is vulnerable to this method of manipulation.

I see secular humanism as a catalyst for the next trend of radical ideology and extremism.

Not because the values are bad but the motive that defends these values maybe easily corruptable.

That's the core of my argument that all beliefs and values can be corrupted. But can only be corrupted by your defined motives to believe in these values.

If you believe that something Is negative based on a subjective bais of your own personal experiences. Than you will be vulnerable to external manipulation through “re-enforced negative agreement”

“Re-enforced negative agreement” is a method of psychological manipulation.

By taking your fear, rejection, contempt and inadequacies and Re-enforcing these thoughts through agreeing with your perspective.

If you believe all religion is bad I will agree with you but not out of sincerity.

I will agree with you to feed your hate and contempt, to try to manipulate your thought processes by adding other subjective thoughts saying.

Religion is the cause of all violence and suffering.

I would continue by adding more subjective negative ideology. Feeding into that negative emotional spectrum to prime you to make them more susceptible for control.

Once the foundation is set I would add subtle messages to our conversation to insinuate certain acts of violence but not out right confessing it.

So I wouldn't be liable or be directly connected to such actions committed but still be able to achieve my motives.

Then let nature takes it course and see the drama unfold.

I believe that secular Humanism Has that potential catalyst for the next Radical Extremist movement.
Again not because of the ideology but by some of the people who represents the ideology and the motives they harbor.

That's with all groups, politics and faith.

If you have something to hate, religion and religious people. Than hateful people will become most easiest to control. Not saying all spectral Humanist hate religion but is the emphasis on motive not ideology. Trying to make that clear since my post may come across as confusing.

And hateful people are broken due to broken past experience which makes it easy to control them through subjective thought manipulation.

This method only works if the subject meets certain parameters.

And to keep them motivated they need to keep a grandiose sense of self worth and make them feel they are on a crusade.

But like I said this method of manipulation can be applied in any ideology platform. And you don't need to believe what they do just feed into whatever negative things already exists in them.

And that is what makes Radicalism very seductive and dangerous is through false justification and false validation that makes them act on violence.

I am not going to lie, I am Christian so I can’t relate to Humanist ideology. But I am preaching about Unity, tolerance and peace.

We as Christians are trying our best to create a model of good Christian, bad Christan in a attempt to weed out radical extremist Christian views. We acknowledge it is escalating to rapidly and becoming overwhelming concerning.

Trying to bring awareness to others by saying utilizing your own philosophy, like I use my own Christian philosophy to suppress these radical views.

I believe the Humanist community should a least bring some awareness of the potential of Humanism radiclism.

Like Christian try to correct other Christians saying “Hay this is not the way”

Humanist can do the same if a fellow peer is exhibiting behavior that is concerning. Maybe preach passive non-belief stance, through tolerance and peaceful disagreement using your philosophy.

In other words, once your ideology cross the line to violence you have become a radical.

The common denominator of faith is that it is the excuse people give when they don't have good reasons for their belief. What can't be justified through an appeal to faith? Slavery... homophobia... capital punishment... clitorectomies. The problem with faith is it is not a reliable pathway to truth. — Tom Storm

Slavery... Homophobia.... Capital punishment

Are just examples of human nature inherit subconscious fears and discriminatory tendencies. That would have arose regardless of the existence of religion or not.

Because human being seek to justify bad behavior through personal interpretation.

I can take scripture and redefined it how I see fit to accomplish a motive. But it won’t mean it will be align with God’s grace.

I have to admit I encountered Churches with very prejudice preaching styles that it makes me have a hard time believing that they are even Christians.

But I feel that is more of a human character flaw than that of religion.

That is where educating yourself about the faith is important. To study Scripture on your own and study the historical background. So when you do encounter that preacher with bigotry ideology you can say.

That is not true “That’s not what Jesus meant”

I feel there are a lot of preachers who take advantage of people who don't study the Bible and don’t meditate on the word. Many go to Church but not once read a page of the Bible and depend on another person to relay the word.

But if the person is corrupt and not align with God's grace you can manipulate a congratulation to think badly.

But if you are well versed in the scripture and knowledgeable of the word, you can identify these vipers like a sore thumb.

I think is that faith is not a standard definition. I believe in God but how identify with God is different compared to others

I don't believe in deity beings (physical solid being in the sky) either but I still acknowledge that God exist. I understand it is a paradoxical way of thinking.

I speculate that we all have a certain belief in God but not in a standard dogmatic sense. Or in a traditional conceptual way.

Some may say I believe in God but define him as a living Univese or reality.

Some say a Spirit, a ghost or a floating consciousness without a body.

Others may say I believe in God but believe in a being sitting in a thrown in heaven.

Or other may say I believe in God but is conceptual as a model idea.

But the point in me saying this is that faith is not a set of rules to be followed it is an a evolving relationship. How the individual identifies with God is unique to each perspective.

You get to see hints of that when you study Evangelical Theology.

How it is broken up into 4 categories

1. Biblical Theology - Biblical theology is the focus on the specific ways that the discreet and unique authorial voices in Scripture reflect on the larger questions of theology and the relationships of actions and activities between God and human creatures.

2. Historical Theology - Historical theology, likewise, is undertaken within the practices of faith, paying specific attention to all the movements of human history from the perspective of biblically informed views of space and time, accounting for the dynamic movements of dogmatic theology and the practices of the Church.

3. Systematic Theology (Study of Dogmatic practices) - The practices and reflections of systematic theology take up the canonical currents of Biblical theology, appropriating the theological voices of history. It does so with the full consciousness that dogmatic theology serves the Church as the people of God in her efforts to live and act faithfully in relation to her Creator, and Lord and Savior in the power of the Holy Spirit. Dogmatic theology’s goal is forming practiced faithfulness.

4. Practical Theology - practical theology begins with the full consciousness that all the practices of the church and Christians are underwritten by theologies; biblical, historical and systematic. The goal of practical theology is to reflect intentionally on present practices and their ingredient theologies in order to critically discern their shape and character so as to deeper faithful practices, correct those which are sinful, and discern with greater clarity how to live out biblical Christian virtues.

To me these are just different flavors of Christian faith and understanding the different philosophical dynamic of faith.

It shows how religion in essence is another branch of Philosophy with the belief in God as the center piece.

Even St. Augustine of Hippo study platoism but adopted it to the Christian faith to better preach to his Congregation.

That would make black holes God's/the Universe's "recycling bins" though perhaps there's a more poignant term. — Outlander

I wouldn’t say that black holes are God’s but seeds to the creation of the next Universe.

I believe Black holes are the catalyst for the next Big Bang.

In the center in every galaxy there is a Mega Black Hole. That’s what keeps the Galaxy together. Without the Black Hole in the center the of each Galaxy it's anatomy would fall apart ceasing to exist. Is the gravitational force of the Mega Black hole that becomes the glue that keeps it together.

In the similar manner as how the Earth rotates around the Sun. The gravitation force of the sun holds the planets in it's orbital position. The Black hole in the center of the galaxy has a similar effect.

Granted there are other factors to keep in mind but this is just a brief outline of my personal theory.

Anyway, there are billions of Galaxies in the Universe housing a black hole at it's center and maybe even micro black holes in a quantum level spread through out time space.

When the big crunch happens imagine where all the black holes go. All the black holes in our Universe will merge together into one singularity.

Which I believe will be the smoking gun to the next big bang.

And a White hole may be the end result or what is described as the next Big Bang.

Many may argue that White holes don’t exist but I speculate that the Big Bang is a white hole and it is connected to a black hole or cosmic level black hole.

There has been evidence leading to it's existence. I believe the gamma-ray burst labeled GRB 060614 is evidence of a White Hole.

“Have we seen a white hole?”
https://earthsky.org/space/have-we-seen-a-white-hole/

Because it involves a singularity, the big crunch. How would you do that in a lab? Create a small back hole and see what happens? — Olivier5

In Israel they already creating artificial black holes to test a few theories. So that is not outside the realm of possibility.

“Israeli Physicists Create Black Hole in Lab to Prove Stephen Hawking Was Right about Them” -
https://www.news18.com/news/buzz/israeli-physicists-create-black-hole-in-lab-to-prove-stephen-hawking-was-right-about-them-3498767.html

Unfortunately, it's not the God-of-the-Bible that I learned about in my religious upbringing. After the age of reason, my own skeptical review of the "Holy Book" led me to doubt that it is the word of God. Ironically, it was my education in Science that eventually convinced me that the ancient Greeks were correct in their conclusion, that a First Cause is logically necessary to explain "why there is something rather than nothing". But the humanoid deity of most popular religions -- while useful for tribal cohesion -- is a poor model for a Cosmic Creator. On the other hand, the philosophical thinkers of most world religions have agreed, in general, on a creative Principle, that is not subject to the emotional outbursts of a sky-king with a fragile ego. Blaise Pascal dismissively called such an abstraction "the god of philosophers", which paled in comparison to "the God of Faith". — Gnomon

I do see the God in the Bible but you can say is subjective through my point of view.

when it comes to religion whether is Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism or Islam. There is a common denominator in all faiths. Even some philosophers would agree with the religious, on this belief.

and I am hesitant to express this thought because it may sound misleading but I am talking about “panpsychism,” the idea that consciousness might be a fundamental ingredient of all matter, right down to the atomic level.

It is the foundation of all religious belief but was never given a name to this idea. Till the 1930’s by Otto Neurath and Rudolf Carnap.

I don’t agree with everything but I do see this concept manifesting in other faiths including my own.

Many of my Christians brothers and sisters would not agree with me and probably call it heresy but I believe Jesus was trying to describe the Heavenly Father in that way.

When Jesus spoke of the Father in the New Testament it makes sense to me in scripture. And how he spoke of our Heavenly Father in parables in an attempt to explain this concept. That the Father God is all around us, in us and in all creation.


Which is the common denominator in all types of faith.

I guess to make it clear, being faithful is not static thinking but is dynamic. To see God in just one way makes it unrealistic. That is why we don’t have an images of God or idols he is meant to be a multidimensional God.

I didn’t mean to sound preachy here. I am just expressing my views of Christ and how I see the world through my own eyes.

As I understand Buddhism, the ego is what causes suffering for the reason that suffering means something is claiming identity in the face of sensations. So if the ego dies a consciousness would feel everything there is and there will be a cancelling of good and bad which results in a state of bliss. If the body dies, consciousness can live on because it is nothing without an ego. But how can a state beyond the world be? — Gregory

That is funny you say that because I been recently researching scripture of the Bible. And it relates to the same idea in Genesis

Genesis 2-17
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Most people confuse this to knowledge of Science but in reality it talks of the awareness of ego. Shame, guilt and the primordial subconscious of the human psyche. And how it will be the cause of suffering in the world.

In Buddhism it talks about escaping this ego when you enter into Nirvana. In Christianity it says a savior will free us from that but we describe it as Sin.

I’m sorry I just find it fascinating how certain philosophy and belief intersect sometimes. Just noting the similarities.

Unfortunately, like street drugs, most religious doctrines don't come with a warning label. On the surface, they may sound attractive, but inwardly they may be full of "false prophets' or "ravening wolves". So how can we "try" or "test" the bitter pills? Trustingly try it and see what happens? Or use our rational faculties to research the alleged contents? When, long after the age of reason, I did the research, I learned that the book I was taught to take on Faith, was full of false spirits (unverifiable facts) and ravening prophets (those who assure you of "things hoped for". :cool: — Gnomon

I don’t see religion as fill with false prophets but as different interpretation of the same story told.

In its very core is the retelling something deeper. I been recently testing my faith with Scientific research and I been oddly having an adverse effect. The more reasoning and fact searching I do the closer I get to God.

Maybe I am just an odd person with odd perspectives but when I research thermodynamics and biblical scripture and articles of cosmology. I see the logic behind there being a God.

And how the Universe is created by the Cyclic theory, the first law of thermodynamics and close system Universe. How I keep all these in mind when I read biblical scripture and I see God’s grace. And how it blows my mind how it mirrors the book of Genesis ch. 1 thru 11.

May is all subjective but through my own eyes I see the correlation granted not identical word to word but I still see the spirit especially when I star into the cosmos.

I see the Universe as God’s canvas and energy that exist is his paint on a palette and gravity as his paint brush.

With each stroke of his brush he makes galaxies, stars, the cosmos and reality.

And like the sand mandala in traditional Buddhist fashion the Universe will be re-created again in God’s image. In “the Cyclic theory”.

But like I said it is just my way of seeing it.

I recall a paper Hawking gave on how multiverses _restore_ the second law, solving the problem of what happens to information about particles destroyed in black holes. Iirc, it's that over an infinite number of universes, the net loss is zero. But don't trust my ability to — Kenosha Kid

I like Stephen Hawking theory of the Multiverse. To sum it up in a nutshell he said the Universe is like a mosaic patter and that each region of our Universe may have its own laws of physics.

A more reasonable theory to me.

My post above is in regards to the “Cold Spot” in our Universe and how it is considered to be possible evidence of the Multiverse.

Because the “cold Spot” maybe due to another Universe colliding with ours.

It is to reference a article I read that is why I am posting this topic.

“The first ever evidence of the Multiverse”
- Marcia Wendorf
https://interestingengineering.com/the-first-ever-evidence-of-the-multiverse

So I may have taken the definition of “entropy” out of context here.

Also I guess I need to first understand the “Theory of the Multiverse”.

When I first heard of the Multiverse theory I automatically pictured a bunch of bubble Universes inside a giant single reality.

And the Big Bang was the product of two membrane Universes banging up against each other creating the singularity or pre- Big Bang. You had the transfer of energy coming from two Universes creating this one.

Cosmic honeymoon creating an offspring which is this Universe. LOL! Sorry Cosmology joke.

But if this is evidence of a multiverse than the first law of thermodynamics is not applicable to a Universe.

I look at skepticism as a unknown variable in a mathematical problem.

Skepticism is like That variable where the answer changes and is always an unknown.

Our thoughts are compared to an equation you are trying to solve for the unknown.

I am a man of faith but I can still consider myself as a skeptic on particular topics.

Like my recent post on “The theory of the Multiverse and thermodynamics” is an example of me being a skeptic because it contradicts entropy or on some areas of entropy.

But being skeptic doesn’t always having to mean I don’t believe in God it just means I choose to use skepticism to think and solve a particular objective.

I am trying to understand Entropy in the most simplest term.

There is a couple of parts to this that I understand when defining Entropy.

First Part:
From what I can understand is that Entropy is a measure of the disorder in a closed system. In other words there is a certain amount of possible variables or X amount of possible mutations that can happen in a closed system.

Second Part:
Entropy increases when it gets hotter and decreases when it gets colder. So heat makes the Universe function creating more mutations and when the Universe gets cold it means that the Universe is dying cause there isn't enough Entropy to create more mutations.

A good analogy is this...

A customer hires a architect to design a house with X amount of materials. The house that this architect is designing will be a house that is constantly expanding itself. Let's pretend it is an "AI home" that can remodel itself without outside interference. The home can modify the existing rooms at will and can only add a certain amount of rooms due to the limitation of available materials it has. So this "AI home" can only modify itself an X amount of times.

Materials being energy and the house being the Universe.

another example:
If you have 50 pieces of lumber that can only produce 3 rooms and be arrange in 20 different ways. That's it there is no other ways outside those 3 rooms and 20 arrangement ways.

Like solving a rubik's cube there is only 43,000,000,000,000,000,000 ways to solve it, no more, no less.

The solution being the amount of mutations that can occur in the Universe or possible amount of creations like planets, stars, blackholes, life, etc.....

And heat is the motivating factor to cause Entropy to make things. When the Universe expands things get colder and Entropy can't produce more mutations due to the lack of heat. Hence the "Big Crunch theory". But evidence is pointing to more of "The Big Rip Theory" because the Universe is accelerating and it is getting hotter.

If the Multiverse theory is proven to be true then that would mean a outside force is funneling energy in our Universe causing a rapid expansion. Which may contradict "the first law of thermodynamics" you can't create more energy to make more stuff. It also contradict "the second law of thermodynamics" that only an X amount of mutations can exist in our Universe.


Either one, we are a bubble ready to pop "The Big Rip theory" or two the Universe will keep expanding forever. Either way is because some one or something is shoving more energy in our bubble Universe to create more stuff.

If the Multiverse is true than isn't logical to assume that Entropy will become infinite with an infinite amount of possible creations will keep occurring?

Also if there is a Cosmic membrane what is it made of?

First let me say I am trying to understand Entropy and Enthalpy

What I understand is Enthalpy is the amount of internal energy contained in a compound whereas entropy is the amount of intrinsic disorder within the compound.

I also know that The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed

I understand that...

But Entropy doesn’t make sense to me because it contradicts the point of a expanding Universe.

How can something become more disorganized if there is more space?

To put it in simple terms. I have a messy room filled with stuff. Stuff being energy, wouldn’t my room automatically become more seemingly organized if the room is expanding? Room being the Universe.

And another point is If the first law of thermodynamics states you can’t create or destroy energy. That would mean energy is finite. There is only a certain amount of energy in the Universe.

And Entropy is the result of a expanding Universe with finite energy. Based on my understanding.

So wouldn’t the multiverse change that perspective because that would mean you can introducing new energy in a encapsulated Universe or at least the possibility of introducing new energy to our Universe.

And wouldn’t that explain the existence Dark Energy? Dark energy being the unknown energy expanding our Universe.
And where it came from...

Also, wouldn’t the multiverse cause problems on how we see a Entropy Universe?

I have other questions to like, if the Multiverse is proven as true. How will that effect the other theories of physics?

A good example how energy behaves differently between one Universe compared to another due to the possibility of different laws of physics.

If we are living in a multiverse are we living in an encapsulated Universe and each Universe has a cosmic membrane or do Universes have no boundaries which in that case one universe can merge with another like two galaxies?

If there is a cosmic membrane that mean there is an external force that this native Universe is trying to shield itself from. Like a air bubble in water.

The point is the theory Multiverse would challenge how the laws of thermodynamics is viewed.

Entropy would not make sense if the Multiverse theory is proven as true.

Provided superposition is common in the brain and elsewhere, the quantity of possible mechanisms available to perception is staggering. This could probably be a new scientific "field". What do you think? — Enrique

Do you have references or materials you can provide to support this theory?

Surely its value is mostly in the experience of life and not the relative span of time? — TiredThinker

The answer is both,

“Give someone chocolate for the first time and they will fall in love. But they will never have the same sweet experience as the first time if they eat it again.”

Life comes with a finite of experiences if we lived forever we would probably face eternity with “Apathy”

Immortality is a goal for the fearful and to respect life you need to give it the dignity to end gracefully when the time comes.

I am confused about the use of the word "God" that is used in most of the above discussions. Would it not be more correct to use the word: "Gods"?

Is not Jehovah considered by many here to be a God? Jehovah is 14 billion years old and created a big bunch of stuff? Is all of that so negligable as to be ignored?

And Is not not Jesus Christ considered to be a God by many here? That makes two Gods here as an absolute minimum.

And are there any Catholics participating in the above discussions? If so do not Catholics not consider Mary, wife of Jehove and mother of Jesus, to be a Goddess and being prayed to and to be listening to such prayers? Is Mary not Godly?

That makes three Gods.

I have heard of some Catholic Saints performing miracles and being prayed to. Is that not Godly behavior?

That might make multiple Gods here in these discussions. — Ken Edwards

I think you are referring to the holy trinity the Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. “3 becoming 1”.

In the faith it can be confused as 3 separate Gods. “The mystery of the holy trinity.”

I was a practicing Catholic who converted to Christianity and I have to admit is very different “poe-ta-toe”. “Pa-TA-toe ”

We both believe in The apostle and Virgin Mary, but we acknowledge they are the Servants of God.


And in the Christian faith we discourage preying to Saints since prayers should only go to God. But we acknowledge them in our faith. And Acknowledge them as Servants of the Lord.

The faith is hard to explain because there are different denomination that created different dynamics of faith. What I say through the perspective of a Christian may differ through the perspective of a Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox Christian.

You need to keep in mind each denomination cookie cutted the Bible to fit that denomination dynamics.

Catholics are more ceremonial and structured while Christianity has a more relationship outlook and free spirited. Protestants wanted reform and separated from the Roman Church. Christian orthodox have very strict practices that need to be followed.

It also depends on the church. Because you can go to a Church where the congregation express very strong opinion which in my opinion undermines the faith.

Than you have really good Churches that understand scripture very well and are not pushy in there teaching.

Is kinda like dating you’ll meet some nice girl who understands you well and with others you’ll wish you haven’t left your house.


But the point is they all encompasses the same core belief “Jesus Christ”

You have the audacity to say how hard the bible is to understand, yet you make claim to having something I apparently do not have? Simply because you don't "get it"?? Whatever dude. — PseudoB

Not sure if this comment is directed to me or not but I was simply sharing my experience about my Bible study.

Is up to you or anyone on here if you want to accept my post with a grain of salt or not.

I didn’t mean to insult anyone’s intelligence but simply offer my own personal insight on things.

And I am not undermining the Bible just stating that the Bible has more content than meets the eye.

You have to take in consideration that the Bible has been revised countless time approximately 50 time from it original dialect over the years.

So that in itself can be a challenge. If you read the Bible in its original dialect vs the NIV now. There would be some discrepancy. That is due to the language difference. You have to keep in mind it was translated from Hebrew, Greek and Arabic and the English translation may be a little off. And now you have modern vocabulary in the Bible that didn’t exist during ancient time. So the modern interpretation will come across as a little off so I try to stick with the Kings James Version since is more closely accurate. In my opinion.

Like I mentioned before you have the biblical structure style like Narrative, Poetry and Discord. And Symbolic nature to consider when reading it.

But I didn’t mean to offend. God Bless in your pursuit and I hope you find what you are looking for.

Thanks for the question. I was raised Catholic, served at the Latin mass and all that, but my consciousness changed a lot from 17-19 and one day I realized I had believed only in wishes instead of something I had evidence for. Religion is something that is on my mind a lot though, which is why I post about it — Gregory

I hope I am not intruding, I try to respect everyone's views and opinions here.

I want to ask is it "skepticism" or "doubt"? Because there is a difference between the two. I see many who post here getting the two confused and I wonder if anyone understand the two dynamics.

"Doubt" is more subjective, based on personal experience and emotional perspective. A sort of discouraging point of view.

Where as being "skeptic" is more of a analytical tool to understand something. Based on information or insufficient information but your willing to accept as truth if more evidence is presented.

Skepticism is like a logical tool, for example in physics. Is used to solve advanced mathematical equations and to explore options to over come obstacles.

Is a strategy often used in debates to not just win arguments but to investigate and learn.

But "Faith" and "Doubt" are like night and day. Is one of many forms of Emotional Intelligence, a way we use emotion to interpret our reality. Without emotion there would be no "cognitive" in the mind, we would be like objects. Without emotion we would not see reality. Is a core element in how we perceived the world?

"I feel there for I exist."

Like I said in previous post "How does this information make you feel?" is a question design to bring awareness to your own conscious state. And to bring an understanding that the information you are processing is not just data is emotion too.

So ask again to anyone out there. Is it "Skepticism" or "Doubt"?

I use to be Christian and I know their theology quite well. — Gregory

What was your turning point was it to much awareness or was it circumstantial?

"You" call it The Bible Project?? — PseudoB

The name of channel on you tube "The Bible Project"

That is a series of video by academic scholars who take an in depth look of the Bible. Not just spiritually also as an analytical perspective of its content.

It explain from the literally style of the bible like how it is divided in Narrative, Poem and Discord.

A good example is the book of Exodus and how in one section it explain the historical account of the Israeli people leaving Egypt in Narrative then re-telling of the story in poetry.

Elaborating in two perspectives the chronical telling of the story and another through emotional expression.

Than it explains the symbolic nature of each book. Like the vocabulary doesn't follow Webster dictionary is more symbolic in nature and how the word is used in a sentence changes its definition. Like the word Nephem. Many don't realize it is an art form and sort of mental discipline in studying the bible, you can't read it as a casual book like you would a normal text book.

If you read it as a normal book it can be very confusing, but if you understand the symbolism and I guess emotional understanding of its teachings. It reveal itself the answers.

Not to compare apples and oranges but is like in any religion like for instance Buddhism.

You need to meditate through prayer, practice mental discipline not just intellectually but emotionally as well. I always preach that knowing the holy spirit is a paradigm of emotional, intellectual, spiritual and physical understand is a balancing act like the Yen/Yang.

That is why they say practicing Christianity is a very hard faith to practice and requires a lot of dedication to its teachings. That is why we say "There is no such thing as a good Christian except for Jesus."

But anyway....

Like said reading the bible is like you would have to read lets say Book of Exodus than you would reference the Book of Deuteronomy because what you read in Exodus would not be made clear unless you read the Book of Deuteronomy. Because there would be a verse in Deuteronomy that explains clearly a verse in Exodus.

So I guess if you think about is a little like a Treasure Hunt to keep the reader engaged. You have to jump from one book to another to understand the verses from the previous book. And is important to read the whole book to understand the faith appropriately.

Like I said is a life long endeavor.

is it worth studying philosophy? — ramo

I know I am going to get a lot of hate for this, but in my opinion is... No.

I hardly see any value in it because Science replaced philosophy

Philosophy was a filler for the unknown but as Science advances it pretty much began to answer many of these philosophical questions.

Even Elitist Scientists like Stephens Hawking and Niel Tyson find it absurd think.

I found philosophy going against science sometimes which is odd to me and it got me thinking as in maybe is purely subjective now.

A part of me is sad but I can’t deny the evidence philosophy is simply an obsolete way of thinking.

So I think my questions about religious belief and actions are fair: why act religiously when there is no evidence God is listening in the sense you might think he does. — Gregory

I’m going to confess I am a believer in God but I won’t argue about whether he is real or not.

But I will say this religion is like studying anthropology.

You need to understand it goes deeper than asking if God is real or not.

Is about culture, emotional expression, art and human history.

You also have to acknowledge it was a form of structural order for a culture that didn’t have kingdoms and governments, there were only tribes.

The question of is “God Real”? Undermine many valuable attributes that I mentioned before.

Sometimes you have to go past the question “Is God Real” and analyze the content itself.

Also, if your not familiar to the type of religion you are criticizing how do you know you are not making a bias claim?

Is like me as a Christian criticizing Buddhism and I never studied there practice. It would not be a fair assessment to the Buddhist faith, I would be making a subjective opinion based on very little experience on the topic.

Or a Muslim criticizing Bushido.

To answer the question of religion you need to study the content and cross reference it to philosophy.

Like study Existential philosophy teachings of Søren Kierkegaard and compared it to the book of Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Job in the Bible.

And where the teachings diverge or become similar to each other.

Only then you can provide a fair analytical answer to the question.

But I haven’t met many Philosophers who is willing to study the teachings of both religion and compare it to philosophy since it would challenge the individuals convictions.

You would have to have a dualist mind set to pursue this.

So, what do we mean when we refer to "the will"? How can we best define this quite opaque term? Please discuss. — Michael Zwingli

Free will is best described as a paradigm of emotions and logical thinking.

To describe free will you would have to define each subset of the human consciousness and how each area overlaps.

Is not just logical thinking, is not just emotion, is not just experience or physical senses. Is a combination of everything.

Is like asking a math teacher what is Math? And the subject has arithmetic, algebra, calculus, geometry and physics. And how these subject sums the entire topic of Math.

You would have to explore areas of subjects like.

Emotions and the anatomy of emotions. Define each emotion function and purpose. How it contributes to logical thinking

Logic and explore the motive of reasoning something. Good example is “Ambition and Goal thinking”

Experience and how your physical senses create your reality. And ask are all sense created equal (your sense created as equally as mind or is it unique per each person)? and if not how does perspective change cause of it?

That is why I say, to answer the question about “free will” you need to provide a paradigm answer.


But let me add something to your question

Does “Free Will” have the potential to evolve?

Will the evolution of “Free Will” change how we see and interact with reality?

Yes, I understand the serpent is a manifestation of the fallen one, ha'satan, but here again I have to ask, what is an angel?? Is it not a "messenger"? So, this is the core play on the Agreement issue, the play on the free will choice of who/what to believe. At least, this is my Perspective. But ths Perspective unlocks access to a ton of spiritual things that have been "hidden", and dare I say, deliberately, as per Scripture: — PseudoB

I can show you a link that can explains it better than I can.

I call it the Bible Project is very informative and I think is up your ally.

"Introduction to Spiritual Beings in the Bible"

Intro to Spiritual Beings
https://youtu.be/cBxOZqtGTXE

Elohim
https://youtu.be/U5iyUik97Lg

The Divine Council
https://youtu.be/e1rai6WoOJU

Angels and Cherubim
https://youtu.be/-bMRxQbLUlg

Angel of the Lord
https://youtu.be/qgmf8bHayXw

The Satan and Demons
https://youtu.be/CamYtVpoTNk

The New Humanity
https://youtu.be/takEeHtRrMw

It is just a Introduction there is more details that require higher education. More than I can provide but I hope it leads you to the right direction. And gives you a path to the right direction.

Evil in Biblical terms

As it appears to me, after years of research, and aligning with Hebrews 11:1-3, saying that the things we sense are made of things we cannot sense, that Genesis actually reveals some much more foundational things than is acknowledged even by the Church. If we consider that in the beginning all was perfect, then this negates the existence of evil.... That is of course until we are presented with the knowledge thereof. — PseudoB

Things were perfect in the beginning but you also have to acknowledge how the angels Rebelled and that could be interpreted how evil was manifested. I am referencing the book of Enoch. How the fallen manipulated humanity.

The snake in the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was a fallen angel that manipulated Adam and Eve.

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is more of a symbolic representation of the human condition and the human heart than literal knowledge. Is an explanation of acquiring Knowledge without Understanding or Wisdom. The Wisdom would come from God which is the Tree of Life. God wants us to have Knowledge but without Love, Knowledge would become corrupt and suffering and death will happen.

Is the misuse of Knowledge that promotes suffering by omitting Love from the human heart. When you remove Love, human beings will "Do was right in there own eyes" which is following your own moral code through selfish intentions.

Like saying I will do what make me feel good even though it will hurt other people.
"In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes." - Judges 17-6

You would also have to understand the mechanics Sin, Iniquity, and Transgression to understand evil.

"Sin" would be defined as Moral failure
"Iniquity" would be defined as a Bad behavior or bad Character
"Transgression" would be a violation of trust or broken relationships.

How these three overlap creating suffering or Evil in the world and how God is trying to save us through his Love and Wisdom. Why Jesus was sent to save us and went to the cross. He was the perfect human being who would pay the ransom for our Sins and go to the cross cause of it.

I understand that "Sin", "Iniquity" and "Transgression" is described differently in the Webster dictionary but you also have to know that words in the Bible change depending on the literary style and how the story is being told. Is like trying to understand Shakespearean literature. It has its own style.

Like the word "Nephesh" meaning Soul and how you structure the sentence changes its meaning.

To analyze the Bible is a lifetime endeavor, you can make an entire career just exploring a few verses of the bible. And is like you would need to have a understanding Psychology, Anthropology, historical understanding of the Middle East Culture and how the interpretation of the bible changed throughout its' various translation. Also learning Hebrew, Greek and Arabic so you can understand the original literary style of the bible as it was intended.

And when reading the bible there is a lot of symbolism, metaphors, expression of feelings and hidden meaning that requires a esoteric perspective.

Not saying this to discourage reading the Bible I try my best to read it when I can and encourage anyone to read it to whether your believer or not. The teaching is very enlightening and healing.

Start by understanding how "Sin", "Iniquity" and "Transgression" that plagued the ancient Israelites in the Bible and you'll start seeing a pattern. And you'll get your answer to "Why?"

It seems to me is "Freedom of Speech" that went hay wirer. Not saying Freedom of Speech is bad but if you add anonymity to the equation. Society will be more keen to express themselves compared to someone who is identified.

Take my avatar name I wish to remain anonymous because I have questions about topics that may come across as absurd or to put it simply "stupid". Also, I don't wish to validate my reasoning or sanity if I want to express a random thought either. It is a way to say what I want without any real consequence except for the occasional embarrassment or foot in the mouth.

But it does lead me to believe that corporations has exploited this attitude as a means to make a profit and create a sort of "Emotional Milking Farm" in other words they figured out how to profit off your feelings.

Think about YouTube Platform for a second and how every time you like a video and subscribe to the channel the owner gets paid. The channel gets commercials and everytime commercials are viewed the owner gets money.

But here's the catch the audience needs to stay engaged. That's where "Emotional Milking" comes in. By providing information whether it is true or not that is irrelevant to the platform, is all about the reaction of the audience.

In other words "negative thinking sells" it doesn't care if the information is true or not it just wants a reaction from the audience to rank up its ratings because ratings means "$$$". Negative reaction proves to be more profitable than positive thinking.

Compare it to tobacco, alcohol and cannabis companies down playing the negative effects to promote good business. Like in the 50's they advertised cigarettes are good for your health and you should smoke at least a pack a day. Now we have Lung Cancer and COPD.

I am wondering is Social Media is the new tobacco company? And the health side effect is on the mind?

Has anyone ever considered that COVID-19 gave cryptocurrency a big boost.

When everyone was in lockdown it revitalize the crypto industry. Many may not see the connection but 2020 was the year of crowdsourcing platforms like DoorDash, InstaCart and Postmates.

During shutdown there was a surge of customers using Crypto to purchase there groceries and fast food delivery online. Because people couldn’t go out.

Now that there is a realization that there is a profit to be made in the crowdsourcing platform sector you have to make the connections with crypto. And how crowdsourcing affects it.

Where ever there is online transactions and e-commerce there is a potential for crypto to grow.

You also have to keep in mind there are a lot of companies accepting crypto now.

Microsoft
AT&T
Burger King
KFC
OverStock
Subway
Pizza Hut

Just to name a few. More than 15,000 companies are accept crypto as a valid means of currency.

As for the energy consumption and how it would effect the environment I wouldn’t worry to much about it. An Antmatter S9 mining rig can cost a crypto miner on average of 15 cents to 25 cents per day per device. And the expense incurred from the energy bill will discourage them to over mine and over consume energy.

The ones who will mine excessively will be those who can find a way to operate the equipment off the grid by utilizing clean energy tech. like using a solar panel array or wind turbines. It would be a necessity to utilize clean energy tech to maximize profit.

So yes I do believe cryptocurrency is here to stay for the long run.

It seems that you can't go wrong with Shiba, as long as Mark Cuban or Elon Musk tweet about it. — Shawn

For sure, that is why I lurk around Reddit a lot but I wouldn’t use WSB as a reliable source of info. But I do check it out in case I notice a feeding frenzy forming.

Trying to relive the GME again LOL!

As far as I can see, all the digital currencies are just pyramid schemes. — T Clark

Major companies are starting to accept cryptocurrency like TESLA and Microsoft and PayPal

If these big Companies weren’t accepting cryptocurrency I would be skeptical but these businesses are validating my optimism.

Now if these platforms like InstaCart, Doordash and Uber. Start accepting crypto then we’re solid.


10 Major Companies That Accept Bitcoin
https://www.google.com/amp/s/finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/10-major-companies-accept-bitcoin-190340692.html

If you are talking about analyzing shiba as in looking for chart patterns like head and shoulders or cup and handle or wedges

Then yes is a waste of time. To me at least, but like I said this is more of an investment of chance then strategy.

I am counting on a repeat of DogeCoin.