Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Re: How Good Is The Evidence?

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard Ruquist on March 6, 2001 17:03:54 UTC

Do you think evidence of the existence of the reincarnation of Buddha (or the person you most believe reincarnated) is extraordinarily in the negative, strongly in the negative, mediocre in the negative, neutral either way, mediocre in the positive, good or strong in the positive, or extraordinarily positive?

I am the person that I know most of all has been reincarnated. I do not even know if any of the others you mention have even existed. Again I see you being presumptious that my statements are based on some religious belief system

Same question for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Same answer, except that I know I have not been resurrected. But I have read of many people being resurrected. So if Jesus existed and if resurrection is possible, it is most likely not unique with Jesus and cannot be used to prove that Jesus was god, unless you are willing to admit to a great number of gods. Depends on how you define god, I guess.

Same question for relativistic effects such as time dilation and space contraction.

I put more credance in the answer to this question as I am willing to believe that the design of accelerators works, as I have read, even though I have no personal experience with such accelerators. I do have personal experience with The Professor who designed the Harvard accelerator and the gut who ran it for many years. And I believe that what they say is true. But althought I put the highest credance on relativistic effects being true, they are all still hearsay from my perspective.

Same question for the existence of extrasolar planets, white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes.

Extrasolar planets are in the same class as Dark Matter. There is inferential evidence for their existence, and therefore more believable than the other three which are more like theoretical constructs. I would rank planets & dark matter second to relativity, followed in third place by the theoretical constructs based on relativity and astrophysics

Same question for the visitation of extraterrestrials on Earth via flying saucers.

I doubt that there is physical existence of the above. If there is an afterlife, then I would not doubt that we have visitations on a non-physical plane. Of course, as soon as axions or whatever the medium is becomes part of physics, then I could no longer call it a non-physical plane.

In summary in order of credance of existence
1.relativistic effects, electrona, quarks, etc
2.dark matter, extraterristeral intelligence,etc holes, evolution, big bang, etc.
4.afterlife, astral projection, string theory
5. reincarnation, biblical prophecy
6.superior, god-like beings
8.god, in his usual meaning
9.flying saucers
10.Theories of physics on this forum that disagree with conventional physics


Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins