I stand before the Alter of God

Printer-friendly version

Author: 

Audience Rating: 

Publication: 

Genre: 

Character Age: 

TG Themes: 

Permission: 

This story has a lot of my own feelings included. I would very hugely extremely appreciate feedback on some of what is written here. Alys P

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In which God do I believe? In which god should I believe? What I want to believe in is a modern god who recognises that mistakes happen and that he is willing to correct some of these mistakes.

Does that mean I am a mistake? – no.
Does that mean I am different and that I have been hurt and harmed and bullied and abused because I am different? – yes.
Do I want to be different? – no.
Do I want to be treated unkindly? – no.
Would I be happy if my differences could be altered so that the hate and unkindness stopped? – yes.
Do I see it as a mistake that my mind and body encompass this ‘difference’? – yes.
Would I accept alteration? – yes
Does god correct his mistakes? – there is little evidence to support this suggestion.

But would that be the God of the Bible and the Old Testament? This is a god whose fury and violence to those who profess to love him is at times incalculably worse than his behaviour to those who, he accuses, believe in another god. Apart from the most blinkered fundamentalists, there is nowadays general agreement that the so-called word of god is a collection of Laws for desert dwellers; abbreviated Histories written by our side; other writings which some readers take as important and some mildly incoherent ‘prophecies’. Those who actually read these words with a cautious eye, not even a cynical or secular one, will detect a quantity of statements and demands which do not fit with the needs or likelihoods of an all-powerful, all-knowing god.

Or perhaps the God of the New Testament would be more suitable for me – the one who is supposed to be all about love – but also says that while he offers a new law ‘Love one Another’ making it clear several times that he does not and has not cancelled out even one of the laws from the Old Testament.

Do I believe in any of the other gods who have been chosen by groups of humans over the centuries – from Ahriman to Zeus and all the letters in between. From the little I know of these various gods, none of them have or deserve my support. I am not keen on the idea of human sacrifice, and having been a virgin for too long (and in no need of a unicorn) I dread even more the idea of a virgin sacrifice. Can I believe that the fumes of the burnt offerings make any difference to something or someone as beyond-human as these gods are supposed to be.

The statement in the Bible that man is made in god’s image is taken by only the most exceptional religionists a real concept. The behaviour and attitude to almost every single analysis of what god might be like or how he might behave is based totally and without identifiable exception as ‘god will behave in a human-like way’. This rather suggests that over the centuries we have begun to behave as if god is made in our image.

Sometimes, authors come up with a sentence or two which gives a view of a god which actually hits the mark better than many of the ‘official religious’ statements. "This overwhelming mind listened to every cry or song in the world at once. She could hear all the minds of the world whispering, a sighing like wind in the forest but able to distinguish simultaneously and separately the song of each leaf. In every moment, all the world’s cries of pain and woe; and shame and joy; and hope and despair and aspiration; a thousand million moments from a thousand million lives – all the souls in their terrible complex beauty.” From ‘The Curse of Chalion' by L M Bujold.

Now please tell me how and why so many clerics claim to be able to understand that sort of omniscience and how they are able to determine the motives and intent of such a being. For myself, I fall silent and become nigh-on agnostic which means ‘I do not know'. I do not believe in the god that I have been taught and told about, I do not disbelieve in the possible existence of a god. But I do not know.

Personally, I despise the vagueness of certain aspects of the Abrahamic religions where the adherents of different concepts can argue incoherently and simultaneously that God created everything, that Evil came to be for some unknown reason and that Human choice created Evil.

Do I actually believe in god, or goodness or some supreme power. Not really. I do believe that I do not know. I do say that I don’t disbelieve in the potential for a god-thing but if there is such a thing then it is definitely not in the image of man as so many appear to behave. I know the bible says ‘man is in the image of god’ but the typical speech from the pulpit ascribes a quantity of human emotions to this superior being. I like it not.

For me the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Mohammedanism) all fail to give explanations for at least 6 key events. Actually I know of no religion which does successfully explain even one of these events. They cannot explain :-
the Creation of the Universe;
the Beginning of Life;
how a sperm and ova unite to become alive and conscious
how a sperm and ova develop a soul
what happens after death
what occurs at the End of the Universe.

Oh yes, there is an attempt by some to state that because they believe then that is the truth. I have difficulty with statements which simplify to “I believe therefore there is a God”.

For me, the scientists fare little better because, as yet, they offer no adequate or complete answer to any one of these 6 ideas. Whether you prefer the religious or the scientific theory (and a theory is just that until it is proven) both parties say ‘From Nothing came Something’.

There is much to be said, for me, in the belief that Life is an opportunity for Man to influence the Balance between Good and Evil. This means that you must do your best all the time to yourself, your family and everyone else.

I cannot find the source – but I once found ‘The Eleven Commandments updated and allowing for Inflation’.

1 You are responsible for society being to your satisfaction.

2 You shall support society and it shall support you.

3 Society offers rights in return for responsibility.

4 Respect and learn from your elders and betters; both from their mistakes as well as their successes.

5 Avoid excess - total dedication to a Religious Belief is as difficult and unbalanced as total dedication to Mammon, to Society or Family.

6 Avoid excess – to waste valuable resources is wrong so do not maltreat your own or another’s spirit, body, mind or property.

7 Avoid excess – You have only one life and you must not waste yourself on ‘what if’ and rather aim to do better next time.

8 Avoid excess – mental, moral and spiritual sins are as damaging as the merely physical aspects.

9 Avoid Wrong-doing which includes Greed, Anger, Sloth, Pride, Jealousy, Lust, Envy – avoid these; Theft, Adultery, Coveting, Abuse, Unkindness and so on are also symptoms of imbalance.

10 To kill, destroy or maim a body or soul or heart is wrong; although self-defence may be acceptable at times to some societies you must be guided by your conscience.

11 Love yourself and always remember that being different is not the same as being wrong.

These basic rules are not weakened by the exceptions and complications which can be easily found.

As an alternative should I accept the fundamentalist unthinking approach that every one of the 613 laws given in the Old Testament is fixed, applicable now, necessary and to-be-obeyed; even though so many involve a punishment of death or exile.

For this who are interested – here is a sample :-

Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle ........... Lev 19:19
Don't have a variety of crops on the same field. ........... Lev 19:19
Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric ........... Lev 19:19
Don't cut your hair nor shave. ...........Lev 19:27

Anyone who curses father or mother ........... death ........... Lev 20:9
If mother and son have sexual relations ........... death for both ........... Lev 20:11
If father and daughter-in-law have sex ...........death for both ...........Lev 20:12
There is no punishment listed for father and daughter having sex !!!

If two men have sexual relations – ........... death for both ........... Lev 20:13
If a man marries mother and daughter ........... burn in fire ........... Lev 20:14
If a man has sex with an animal ........... death for both ........... Lev 20:15
If woman has sex with an animal ........... death for both ........... Lev 20:16
If a man has sex with a menstruating woman ...........exile for both ........... Lev 20:18

If a priest's daughter is a whore ........... burnt at the stake. ........... Lev 21:9
People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God ...........Lev 21:17

If a man is uncircumcised ........... exile ...........Gen 17:14
If a man attacks mother or father ........... death ........... Ex 21:15
Stubborn or rebellious son ........... stone to death ........... Deut
Murder ........... death ........... Lev 24:17
Adultery ...........death ........... Deut 22:22
Perjury ........... death ........... Deut 19:18-19
Kidnapping ........... death ........... Ex 21:16
Anyone who disobeys a priest or judge ........... death ........... Deut 17:12
Anyone who works on the Sabbath ........... death ........... Ex 35:2

There are a number of additional constraints in the New Testament too which seem to be out of step with modern Christian belief. And some seem to have little validity then or now. For example, A woman should not wear jewellery (1 Peter 3:2-6).

If one is startlingly benign in one’s view of the Abrahamic God, one can forget or at least set aside how many times (six) God punished his Chosen People for worshipping other gods. But I fail to be benign. And this god does so many things that appear to be very unattractive. Was what he let happen to Job reasonable or decent - oh no, but of course, the motives of god are beyond our understanding.

If one has any doubt that the Old Testament god, be it JHVH or Adonai, is kind of over-the-top then look at Deuteronomy 29 :-

However, if you do not obey the LORD your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come on you and overtake you: You will be cursed in the city and cursed in the country. Your basket and your kneading trough will be cursed. The fruit of your womb will be cursed, and the crops of your land, and the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks. You will be cursed when you come in and cursed when you go out. The LORD will send on you curses, confusion and rebuke in everything you put your hand to, until you are destroyed and come to sudden ruin because of the evil you have done in forsaking him
And on and on for another 68 verses of thorough condemnation.
------------------------

At the beginning I said that I wanted a mistake to be corrected. Most people on this planet have the fortune to have a mind and body which fit tidily into the demands of society. That is to say, they are male or female in physique with masculine or feminine patterns of behaviour. That is in simple terms that their gender agrees with the sexuality.

There are those who do not fit so accurately into the spectrum of gender nor into the spectrum of sexuality. From these we get the lesbian and the homosexual, the butch and the femme.

I am one of these unfortunates. And it is sad to say but it is unfortunate to have a life that is different, so different that the multitude can easily take the opportunity to be unkind, cruel, nasty and intolerant.

I am a boy who has no understanding of boykind. I am a boy who does have an often demonstrated and completely accepted understanding of girlkind. This has been the case since I was a young person of about 6 at primary school.

So I stand here waiting. I know that I have the body of a weak and feeble man – I also know that I have the soul and the heart and the attitudes and desires and beliefs and feelings of a woman. I do not understand men or man. I do not behave like them. I do not think like them.

Society does not cope well with things it does not understand. My preference for wearing the clothes of the female is discrepant from my official gender and my usual physical appearance. With considerable effort, I can look less masculine but I have neither the physical shape nor knowledge nor the skill nor the practice to look successfully feminine. This means that when I exercise my right to dress as I wish I give easy cause for others to dislike, despise, harass and attack and harm me if that is their desire.

But, in order to avoid regular and immense difficulty in how I am treated by people in general, I must dress like a man, pretend to be a man, pretend to be unloving, uncaring, unemotional and man-like, even at times harsh or rude or misogynist. I know that there are men who are not like that. I know that there are caring, kind, thoughtful men – but these men are at their best when given the love and support of others.

I do not want to have their support in that way. I want to be one of the others. I want to have a person who is loveable, and who is loved and who is allowed to love. To my surprise, I do not know if I am homosexual or heterosexual. I think I love women – but my experience of intimacy is so minimal that I cannot be sure. I love to receive hugs from people – whether male or female. I love rugby and I love satins and silks. I love computers and being creative. I love doing hard work as well as sitting by a fire, wrapped and cosy. I love huge bits of me that are masculine and I love my feminine side when I dare let it out. I love loving people but I am so scared to let it out in day to day life.

If I were to become fully female then I absolutely do not know who I would then love – because at the moment I mostly love people who love me.

If I were to become fully female then I absolutely do not know who would still love me and accept me. I know that some of my friends and even relations will not accept me. I hope that I will find some new friends. I can hope, with perhaps less chance of success, that I will find someone to love me. I would miss some of the joy of being a man when things have gone ‘just right’. But – who am I – and how do I find out for certain.

Over the years, I have reached for some certainties. I now believe that my situation is therefore that I am a boy by nurture but not by nature. I believe that I am a girl and much of my own self feels female and feminine. I wish to be not-different. I wish to be no longer different between my heart-soul and in my body.

I wait here and pray – hoping before the Alter of God.

I do not want to die. I do not want to remain as I am. I would accept removal of my feminine feelings and becoming male in every aspect. I would accept the removal of my apparent maleness and becoming female in every aspect. I cannot remain happy or even content with the discrepancy that an allegedly omnipotent god had forced upon me.

I have asked for guidance from theologists, philosophers and clerics. None have given me enough help to change my belief that if there is an omnipotent all-knowing god then he sometimes seems to make mistakes. I cannot accept an all loving god who somehow makes such mistakes. Nor can I accept an ever vengeful god who demonstrates such grotesque behaviour in page after page of the old testament.

Which god do I believe in? I want to believe in a god who cares, in a god who loves, in a god who notices and corrects mistakes – and I am sad, so sad that I can look at myself and believe that part of me is a ‘mistake’.

No, I am not a freak. No, I am not a deviation. No, I am not a perversion against the laws of god.

Yes. I am different. Yes I deviate from what society says is acceptable. Yes, I differ from what some people who say they know the mind of god say is god’s law. Can I accuse them of being wrong. I am not so arrogant. Can I accuse god of not caring – I am not that arrogant. Can I ask this possibility of a supreme being so far beyond my comprehension to correct what I see as a ‘discrepancy’ – yes I can ask. But I do not know what answer I will get.

Can I accuse them of being prejudiced, of accepting stereotypes without looking at the person, can I accuse them of saying that different is wrong? Yes – that I can say. Can I say that some of the things they say and do demonstrate intolerance, unkindness, stereotyping, discrimination, malevolence, bigotry and straightforward nastiness. I can say it but they would deny it with all the fervour possible to the grubbily righteous. Can I say they are actually wrong – I would not be so arrogant. I can say what I know and I can say what I believe. It is beyond my scope and responsibility to say I understand the mind and beliefs of other people. I will stop at saying I believe they are unkind – at least.

So I wait here hoping – before the Alter of God.

How would I want the change to happen – in brief I want to have my body and soul in agreement. I want to no longer be different and the object of scorn, derision or unkindness. As to the details, do I want to be the same height of 5 ft 7 but with reasonable size, say 34 C breasts and perhaps a reduction of weight from 11 stone to say 9 and a half. I would need female hips and waist – and smaller feet would be neat. A feminising of my face would help and my small adam’s apple should go. I want to be comfortable with who I am.

Hair grows and I would hope for a general overhaul towards the feminine. But I had never thought about this happening by a miracle. I had read all the options, the castration or orchidectomy; the reduction and blocking of testosterone, the addition of the oestrogen and other feminising hormones, the eventual inversion and invagination to give the appearance of labia and clitoris. Then the dilation and waiting. Do miracles happen?

But I did not want that even the best that the medical profession could do. I did not want to demand or even ask for medical techniques. As I was now, I didn’t want breasts of my own. I didn’t want to take hormones because if I was a male then I wanted the potential to give babies as I would not be able to have babies. I knew that there was a deep need to create and offer love – but I saw no benefit to me in being a created woman. I knew there were others who felt differently; the actual visible appearance of looking like a woman was crucial to them. They knew their body image was discrepant and their brain image was the driving influence.

So even though I did not believe in the God I had been taught about – neither the vengeful monster of the Old Testament nor the allegedly ever-loving god of the New Testament, nor indeed almost any others of the pantheons past and recent. I definitely did not believe in the created religions or created gods of the recent years – the faked-up God of Mormon, the self-created self-fabulist L Ron Hubbard, the various Maharishi-type cults and the others of that ilk – no I didn’t believe in any of them,

I still felt that belief in the Balance was viable and valid. I had lived enough years to experience events of god and of evil. I did believe that Good and Evil existed and that a key choice for any human every day and at every event to choose whether to lean to the Black or the White.

So I stood waiting – waiting so that my god to perform a miracle if it was within his-her power and if his-her passing whim took note of my need and became determined to do something about it.

For me after much thinking about my gender and my sexuality I preferred to be one or the other – being discrepant was the key difficulty. I knew a great deal about being different and being seen to be different and being treated as being ‘too different’. I knew that I wanted to be a man or a woman. I would be able to cope being a man who could enjoy dressing up provided that I could pass easily – but my least favourite desire was to continue as I was – a male who enjoyed dressing up but was too obviously male.

So I stood alone – waiting before the Alter of God.

Was I praying while I waited – I don’t really know. I stood there with my mind as empty as possible so that if there were deep thoughts then god, if the right sort of god existed for me, so that god could make some sort of change happen to me.

As I stood there I felt a surge of energy pass through me followed by a huge relaxation. I knew that something had happened and I did not dare to look.

I stood wondering at the Alter of God.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After several comments about the use of 'alter' versus altar. I have to say that altEr is a deliberate choice because the character wants to be altered. Alys P

up
128 users have voted.
If you liked this post, you can leave a comment and/or a kudos! Click the "Thumbs Up!" button above to leave a Kudos

Comments

The Bible

was written by many! Could it be that the Bible was written to fit the needs or wants of men who wished to have control over others? I do believe so myself!

Fact, the bible was written by men or humans. Fact two: Many of the stories are hundreds of years apart! Found, buried or hidden away from view. Were those stories actually words from God or were they just, stories written with the imagination that went wild?

Can anyone truly show us proof?

I am not saying that there is no such thing as God because I truly do not know! There must be something I would think but is it really that person in the Old Testament and the New Testament that once was cruel and then suddenly nice later on? Or was those Testaments written only to gain control over people so those who have control would have plenty of riches from Tithing and Political Control?

Fact three: Every now and then it seems that Churches tend to switch things around such as accepting certain things so as to be able to keep a flock of people or should I call them Sheeeple? It used to be that women were not allowed to wear pants, period but now it is okay. Women were also not allowed to vote, smoke or work along side men such as with carpenters or electricians or plumbers because according to not just Church but by everyone that it was Man's work!

To me Religion seems to be abused daily by most everyone. Pastors, Preachers, the Church's flock all seem to be able to justify everything and everything by saying that "It is the work of God".

Good Grief!

I have noticed that the Bible is very contradictive! Just like the Pastors, Preachers and the flock that follow!

Me, I try to keep life simple! Live, be as good as possible, help others if I can as long as those I help try to help themselves along the way as well!

Life can be very simple if we all just allow it to be!

You wanted feed back so there it is.

Vivien

Agreement

We sound remarkably close in what we think and say (I think). Was there anything you did NOT like in what I said?

I wait for the first email saying 'You must believe because I do' - potential yuk.

Alys P

A Challenging Piece

Challenging, thought provoking and exceptionally well written. This is a difficult issue, and as I've landed myself in hot water more than once for making my feelings known about it I'll refrain from doing so now. All I'll do is postulate that the study of evolutionary biology and cognitive neuroscience - in neither of which fields do I claim more than an educated layman's expertise - are better paths to understanding than those mapped out thousands of years ago.

Ban nothing. Question everything.

I guess, you think, they postulate

I am not adrift from you - but as I state on a mere 6 different issues neither the scientists nor the believers can offer much more than 'out of nothing came something and we don't have a real answer'.

And, thankfully, still nobody has said 'you must believe because I do'
Ta
Alys P

Alys: I don't know how to

Alys:

I don't know how to say this any more gently. If that is your opinion that both science and religion are making the same basic claim, then you clearly do not understand the fundamental natures of either. What is worse, it is the same absurd and baseless claim that apologists for religion make ad nauseum in an effort to confuse the nature of the issue. It is a deliberate lie, an obfuscation, as contemptible for it's dishonesty as it is for deliberately preying on the presupposed ignorance of the targeted victims. This was never more than a simple question of epistemology. When you understand that, you simply can not compare the self-serving connivences of religion, and the mysticism and ignorance of faith based beliefs that become the fodder for just making shit up, with the efforts of those who seek to describe and understand the nature of the actual universe we live in. And more importantly, who admit what they do not know, and can provide actual evidence for what they do.

Even on it's face, the argument you put forth is purely fallacious. Science really does not say that. Something from noting is religions Schtick. The 'nothing' that this argument hangs upon, is a purely philosophical concept. that has no corollary in reality, i.e., in the extant universe. When a scientist, physicist, or cosmologist speaks of a universe from nothing, there really is something there. Quantum fluctuation, boundary conditions, the lowest quantum state... There are always definable conditions and characteristics, and rules that apply to reality... another fundamental difference with religion. Thus, religion and science are are not separable as non-overlapping magisteria, they are purely opposites in meanings, methodologies, and results - even where filtered through the foibles of men.

I think that the other one that goes right up my six, is this acme of ignorance and hubris common to people claiming that religion and philosophy are there for... wait for it... "the big questions." When a scientist spends their life in effort to educe the nature of the universe in which we live, or to cure a disease, or in finding a way to feed a human population, only to find themselves faced by some wholly ignorant ... person... who comes along and demand equal time for a fatuous dissertation regarding 'the big questions.' is as offensive as the lies themselves. The vast majority of questions these people say Science can never answer, science has already answered to significant extent. Other questions, such as "Why are we here," are as ill formed and as meaningless as any that was ever offered to explain the number of angles on the head of a pin... along with all other equally useless sophistry. In the instant you try to go beyond the meaning that we humans imbue with our own acts and reasons, you would have to have some hope that there is a demonstrable 'Why.' Needless to say, that it is at this point, at this most fundamental level, that the conjecture fails simply because the nature of the question assumes facts not in evidence.

I appreciate the work that went into the offering itself, I assure you, and I hope you can understand how profoundly different the object looks from this side.

Nite.

Sarah Lynn

Coooo- it seems you are very cross with my views

I did not think I said that science and religion said the same thing - what I said was that for the six issues I described that, as far as I knew, neither the religious nor the scientific communities were able to say much else than 'from nothing came something'. I do agree that what I wrote can be taken as a simplification.

However, setting to one side the religious view that 'I believe therefore I need no explanation' I will concentrate on what I know of the scientific view of the 6 issues. I am aware as all thinking persons should be that science has to its satisfaction determined what happened from a bare picosecond after the Big Bang. My understanding is that there is at least now some effort to determine what happened before the Big Bang - and to me this has at least a flavour of 'ex nihilo omnia' that is to say 'from nothing comes everything'.

I was also of the belief that at least some quantum physicists do now interact with others including philosophers looking for explanations that stretch their imaginations.

As for 'providing evidence' for the Big Bang and what occurred in the few moments after - there is very little evidence as far as I am aware. There are theories and conjectures which with the current state of data and investigation appear to hang together. Until aberrant data is detected which requires an amendment to the theory - the theory remains as 'the best we have'. Personally, a Big bang Theory that satisfactorily dealt with all the available sub-atomic particles would be an improvement; similarly a Big Bang Theory that explained Dark Matter would be an improvement. Until that occurs, even that theory is unproven.
I have less knowledge about the arrival of Life - and suspect that there is still no well-accepted theory for how life arrived on this planet.
For the other 4 issues - I am short of data but I am therefore unaware of any generally accepted or well known theorem regarding each [let alone any 'evidenced' proof].

I do NOT agree that questions about the 6 issues are 'the acme of hubris and ignorance'. If they were then scientists would not be looking for answers to at least 5 of them ( I would probably exclude 'How does the sperm and ovum (un-sic) combine to create a soul'?

I do agree that it could be argued that it is simplistic and naïve to use mere words to comment on some of these scientific issues - however I stand by the majority of what I wrote.

I am beyond startled that you appear to be saying that I am an apologist for religion when I say frequently and fervently that I am an agnostic.

I hope that I have misunderstood at least some of what you say. Thankyou for the feedback.
Alys P

I spent far too much of my

I spent far too much of my professional life, explaining just such as these to folks. Believe, that what I say now, I say in all good humor.

“… but as I state on a mere 6 different issues neither the scientists nor the believers can offer much more than 'out of nothing came something and we don't have a real answer'” I have many failings as a writer, but my reading comprehension is right up there with the best of them, and I really didn't react to your post, but rather to this comment. The quote not only implicitly states that science says what religion always has, without any 'simplification' required, or being looked as the editorial lusciousness of the simplification, it is just utterly false with respect to science. We know enough about the way that this universe works, that we know that it's beginning was marked by a rapid inflation, and though our models of the nature of matter and energy are anything but free of questions large and small, they hold up very well all the way back to about 1 x 10-47 seconds after that inflation began.

There are, as of this moment, no coherent theories as to how any information might be transmitted through that time. Because it is very likely that we can never know, because of the very nature of the event, i.e. that we observe in this universe, and an infinitesimally small unit of time before that point, Planck time (1 x 10-47 seconds), the very tools and measures that we use to measure and interpret that universe, simply did not exist... as part of this universe. However, that does not imply, or suggest, or ordain, that there was nothing before that time. That is like looking at a post card of the Washington Monument, and considering that the claims that it has another side that we cannot see away from the camera, as a claim that is only as valid as the claims that god reached down and closed the door to Noah's boat, where all the animals with noses were safe... and none of them were gay.

Again, no simplification needed here either. Our, Big Bang, might well have occurred in the middle of another universe. We don't know, and we never will... until perhaps we find that the multivariate model is accurate, and we get to somehow observe the inception of a new universe.

So, I'm not mad or peeved or even slightly annoyed. The statement was just utterly wrong, factually, semantically, and even ethically if you use it to compare the other great genera of pre and post modern fiction, theology, with that which science has educed about the nature of this universe.

I do not give personal information on this form related to my professional endeavors, but I will break that rule this once. I was asked to comment on the following paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658.pdf Because... it was presented by an apologist, trained as a (god help me) an electrical engineer. In a startling proof of exactly why we tell scientists and professors that they have no business debating apologists for any reason, a biologist, a medical doctor, and an anthropologist had no idea how to refute this paper being presented as a proof that science says that scientists believe that the big bang was the creation event. I don't expect you to read the paper, as even to me it was sort of boring, and nothing more that a summary of how we see the nature of our universe as it may extend geometrically into the past. They forgot the answer they should have used in this instance, as of right now We don't know, and neither do apologists.

Right now, it's pretty conclusive that this universe will peter out into a very large and very cold whimper, ever since the deep microwave survey of the sky showed us that the curvature of the universe if flat. We know this. In a perverse instant, however, I entertained my friends with the following possibilities. Perhaps, given that space is both interactive with, and co-phenomenal with matter and energy, that it is exactly that state that allows quantum fluctuations of the type that so many lay people want to interpret as a singularity like a really big black hole... the mass of a universe no less, that popped. When our universe is old enough, and dark enough that space is reached a low enough density... perhaps that itself is the trigger.

Consider also, that all of these theories that were presented, depend on the understanding of our physics, or how physics works within this universe. The bald truth is, that within this universe the perpetual motion machine is thermodynamically impossible. However, that reasoning may not apply to a universe as a whole. If in the future this universe, or another universe, or universes, that are not really flat, and that some unforeseen ramification of string conjecture, or looped quantum gravity comes into play, it may yet be possible that something we don't understand, like dark energy or dark matter might not be constant, will come into play. Then if as the universe expands, this attractive force actually grows. If nothing of this universe is lost, which it cannot be, then the collapse of the universe, or big bounce if you will, might be the only thing in nature that is infinite, and perfect. Perhaps, in this one cycle, you cannot lose anything, or in any way alter the actual sum of entropy/enthalpy in the universe, because it's always equal to a sum of zero. ... And you lose nothing, because there is literally nowhere to lose it to. That means that the big bounce could be construed as the only possible perpetual motion machine, thermodynamically perfect, and perpetual.

Those, are just two off the cuff ideas, but I can tell you, that no credible scientist is going to give you an answer to this question, other than some conjecture of possibilities which we cannot as yet entertain, as I have, but they will not say that it came from nothing. In forty years as a scientist, I have never heard a colleague or another academic state that as an unsupported conclusion. That, is an apologists trick, spawned from the philosopher's misconceptions of the universe, and their inability to conceive of anything like how it seems to function... and it is a lie.

Now, It's late, and that was just the first point about mine being the simplified view of your statement, or that the statement was just a simplification. In fact it was just wrong, and you shouldn't say that anymore. Like picoseconds, or 1 x 10-12th seconds, can contain about a Ten-Million, Billion, Billion, Billion... Planck Time units, which is not a trivial error.

'ex nihilo omnia' in this case, is actually spelled Argumentum ad ignorantiam. And yes, Philosophers do talk to Quantum physicists, but not to deduce the nature of the universe. That path was exhausted and meaningless thousands of years ago. Your belief, and remember that a belief is something that anthropologists, sociologists, and psychologists use for something that a person or group holds to be true, not as a truth statement, is also a misconception. A careful philosopher might be able to help a cosmologist refine the questions he is trying to ask. They really do understand the laws of logic, and how to make the most of our minds. They know absolutely nothing about the nature of the universe. Philosophy is a good and enjoyable workout for the brain, and it gave us rules on how we should think clearly... but it is a stationary bike. It builds stamina, but it gets you exactly nowhere. So, some scientists who have trouble formulating questions clearly, might just benefit from some help there. Most of the conversations, however, pretty much flirt with the limits of academic courtesy, in that its hard to believe we get paid by the same board of regents, and no university of any stripe should be allowed to have a theologist on the faculty. LoL. Other than that, we leave it as self evident, the reason why they accomplished so little, until the scientific method came along; and, all philosophers have ever contributed, beyond some clear definitions and some rules of logic, are seemingly meaningless though sometimes internally consistent conjectures, that make them giggle a little under their breaths when they recount them.

This is a very rare interaction, however. Most physicists don't need them, as they follow questions that present themselves in the data; and, far too many philosophers fall to the most common human foible of all, believing their own bullshit, and favoring it above all others, for only the reason that it is theirs. It is an extremely rare philosopher, and a particularly confused cosmologist who would pair productively in this way.

Evidence, as far as you are aware. Well. It's all evidence. You, me, the table, the warm glow of the sun, the fainter glows of the most distant galaxies. It's all evidence, and it is all compelling, and completely consistent. No doubt, when you understand one of those definitions that philosophers gave us - a type of knowledge called empiricism - the evidence does tend to point toward more things that you don't know, but that does not abrogate what you do know. That is the nature of it, that more knowledge always does this; but, but the vastness of what we do know, even after only a few hundreds of years of the supremacy of the scientific method, is all evidence for exactly that, or as I like to say, how it all works. The big bang theory is consistent with the fundamental particles, and it is the nature of those species that we are running backwards to understand the structure and makeup of the universe we see in those very early moments.

AS for Dark matter, I see no reason why you think that theory of the internal combustion engine is incomplete unless it includes the theories of glass, windshield wipers, and paint, because they occur on the same vehicle. It's like saying that evolution isn't valid, because it does not explain abiogenesis. The big bang need not explain it, per say, but it must be consistent with what we learn of Dark matter and energy. You can not construe what we do not know to likely refute or undermine what we do know, as this is illogical. In the final analysis; however, you may be assured that science has a method for handling this eventuality as well. When the empirical information contradicts an hypothesis, we throw it out. You must also not construe, that what we learn in the future will somehow alter the nature of the universe so much that gravity will no longer work. Our interpretations and theories will be revised and amended, but our fundamental understanding will not be overturned. Sorry. This is just another apologist viewpoint. How can you believe science, it changes... a silly argument and an invalid world view.

Rules of logic again. No theory is ever proven. Not one, none, in no field; we merely build confidence in our theories as we build and mesh our understanding with other actual observations... and the big bang theory is not somehow dependent on explaining dark matter, any more than it must maintain consistency with reality in every part and time of this universe. Chemists will give us better fuels for the internal combustion engine, but they need only be ignored, if the offer no opinion as to why it was driven straight into a wall, by the Easter Bunny. Again, the explanations merely have to be consistent with the nature of matter and energy, and the nature of the universe as a whole. That chemist should not say that fairies pushed the car at high speed into the wall, until such car-fairies are in evidence. And! When we do understand dark matter and energy, they will be consistent. That is the part that we do know, from the one universe we can observe.

I do not say that you are an apologist for religion, but your thinking and understanding of science, and the accomplishments that it must achieve to meet your standard of approval, are so heavily influenced/contaminated by their arguments as to be indistinguishable, and fatally flawed. AS one whom you would recognize, Dr W. L Craig, once said to me, that I have a pre conceptual bias as to the nature of evidence I'll admit to the argument. To which I responded, Absolutely Fucking correct! I absolutely insist that there will be some reality in the evidence I accept to explain the nature of the reality I exist in. Even if science has a contingency for even that eventuality, as we wait for him (Craig) to provide any proof of the obverse, that silly stories carry any weight, or mass, or energy... magnetic charge...

Wisdome and maturity, and maturity of intellect do not depend on being able to meld the ideas of divergent views. They more often hinge on being able to recognize and discard the garbage.

As for hubris... I was not talking about your questions but rather questions that apologists and philosophers spend their lives asking. What is the meaning of life is an example, and it is only a 'big question' in their apologist/philosopher little minds... until such point that someone demonstrates that there is a meaning, or that any meaning could possibly exist. Science can outline why we are here, but only in terms of how our environment came to be, and how we evolved. The why question I'm referring to is not a scientific question, and no serious scientist is working on it anywhere. I was only pointing out that when one of these guys says something like this, to someone who has spent a lifetime mapping the nature of the universe with some good and measurable success, in any other endeavor beyond academic courtesy and religion, it is a rankly stupid kind of statement.

Likewise, and in response to your claim, you should reconsider that Every person on this planet, who has ever lived and who will ever live, is an "Agnostic." on this issue. Every single one. There are no exceptions, and it does not matter about what they say or call themselves, only what they can and cannot know. No one "knows" anything about anything that does not follow the rules of this universe. I knew you were an agnostic, before ever you typed a word; and, I understand what your position must be. I am not attacking you, Alys, I'm just trying to explain what the state of the science actually is, because so many, thanks to the utter failure of our educational systems, don't have a very accurate picture. It also goes to the fact that the way that most people reason, or the way that your brain evolved to intuit the nature of the universe around us, may work very well at the level of our physical experience at keeping us alive, but unless you are trained as s physicist to think about things in a completely different paradigm, it fails to lead to useful conclusions in consideration of the sub-nuclear and the cosmic scales.

Your 'agnostic' ideas, however, don't seem so much agnostic, as they seem all over the board. I will read your piece very carefully again tomorrow, as I'm too tired to do so right now, but that is my current impression.

"I hope that I have misunderstood at least some of what you say" Probably, but again, don't ever even suspect that it wasn't said out of love. Wouldn't things be so much better if people assumed that as easily as they construe that when one tries to correct an error, that their motive must surely be petulance, pedagogy, pedantry, puffery, or prick-ery... LOL. Clearly, the way that I examine these issues is different than some ninety-five percent of living people, and with excellent reason. Just understand that I respect and admire you, and that in your comments you simply got everything about the conclusions of science completely wrong. That's a lot more common than not, actually. The truth isn't the melding of ideas from all sides, it is in tossing out that which is demonstrably incorrect. This is the biggest failing of apologetics, debated, and among the very greatest strengths of Science.

Nite, Alys. I'm very tired, and am headed to bed.

Sarah Lynn

Wrong - not wrong - perhaps agree to disagree

I THINK that we are not as far apart as the messages between us say. I will easily accept that I should not have used the simplistic wording but I do not and did not think I was being pro-religion nor that I was apologising for any group of people. I did think that my statement was not appallingly inept.

I was trying to say that science and religion are and always will be miles apart. I was trying to say that neither has a satisfactory explanation for my 6 issues. You do give good scientific data about the effects of the Big Bang and the slide of Entropy (of which I was aware) but still no 'explanation' or 'proof' as to cause of the Big bang which is what I commented on.

I will continue to think, if you don't mind, that the 6 issues are still unproven and despite your comments about scientists having good explanations since 10-47 seconds after Big Bang does not to my mind explain the cause or precursor to the Big Bang. In y9our terms, would proper scientific conclusion deal with both cause and results.

I am a strong believer in tossing out 'what is demonstrably incorrect'. The story I wrote did go off at tangents and perhaps I should have trimmed some of it.
Thanks
AP

Hi, Alys; Cool Blog

Just my old demented humble opinions here:

On the mystical/advanced/superior being; I think being semi-agnostic is only reasonable, but, given reality, being atheist is also reasonable. I say semi-agnostic because you seem not-knowing about some things, but you reason that somethings are impossible like the horror and OCD behavior of the Torah god or the all knowing, all loving, but does nothing about all the suffering, death and extinction, self-contradiction of the Jesus god. I think one could believe in a good, loving, invisible, supremer being, but, rationally, one with little or no physical power now. It could have caused the universe(s) to happen, but that power waned or was used up. It could have determined the laws of nature then let everything go on without interference. Maybe there was magic, maybe heroes of 'the book' used it, but it's extremely weak or gone now and may or may not come back.

About TS philosophy, I believe TSism is a low incidence, but natural occurrence of gestation. If it were always bad, like cleft palette, it would be called a birth defect, but that's dependent on the society it's in. To some traditional Native American's, being two-spirit would be a blessing or a normal event. In yesterday's Western society it caused much pain and anguish.

In any event, medicine has a treatment, as for other birth defects, and the treatment continues to improve. For pre-puberty trans kids in treatment the external sound and appearance result is about as good as cis-kids. Replacement of proper gender sex organs seems possible in the future. For the post puberty T people, there is the same treatment as the pre puberty kids get, hormones and (probably more) surgery, but the results depend on the body of the pre-HRT individual. For an adult M2F wanting kids with their genes, the thing to do seems to be sperm banking. For the F2M, try to get a pregnancy before the T stops the fem organs from working. If these alternatives don't or can't happen, the T people are just in the same place as sterile cis people.

Hugs and Bright Blessings,
Renee

Religion.

My life story is well known on this site. I have no time for religion or faith or superstition. Over fifty years ago I concluded religion had no part in my life for it served only to destroy me and frighten me. There was NO way I could ever fulfil the demands made of me by a belief that gender was rigidly binary and those genders were accorded fixed functions and responsibilities.

I finally escaped the oppression of religion by deciding there were no such things as gods or spirits or fairies at the bottom of the garden. I became a confirmed atheist and have ever since found peace and comfort outside of superstition and fear.

It was a blatantly pragmatic decision and it has served me well. I don't get into arguments about religion, what's the point? I do however discuss it at length but it is purely an academic exercise.

For me there is no such thing as a god.

bev_1.jpg

Atheism -

Atheism is the only logical deduction to be derived from any of the Monotheist texts or Polytheist texts. There are so many downright contradictions and thoroughly impossible conditions to obey or fulfil that compliance reduces the devotee to a paranoid, sociopathic wreck.

It's simple. THERE IS NO SUCH THING OR ENTITY OR SPIRIT AS GOD!

When a sentient individual arrives at that logical conclusion, life's pathway becomes clear and properly illuminated.

Treat all others as you would wish to be treated and never forget your humanity.

Simple,
Beverly.

bev_1.jpg