Oldest religion in the world

[Rose Immortal]

How do you know if there really is such an amount of information if it haven't been put into the bible?

If you accept, for the sake of argument, that God is omnipotent, then He must have knowledge of every event, and every interconnection between each event, and every implication of every event. Consider also that, like the area under a curve, this could be subdivided down to an infinite level--and that's a calculation I think God's mind (being infinite) could handle FAR better than a finite computer. (Try putting something divided by zero into your calculator, for instance...KABOOM!) Even if the SPACE in the universe is finite, or the span of time that elapses between creation and destruction, that subdivision I'm talking about would mean an infinite set of interactions and parameters. In other words, LOADS and LOADS of information, way more than any human mind (or even all of the human race) could hope to handle.

The Bible, on the other hand, is finite. That implies a LOT had to be left out, or given to us in Cliffs Notes form.

 

[deafdyke]

In fact: the light from the beginning of the universe still floats around and we can detect it with a telescope (we call it the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation).

Or by watching the "snow" on tvs.....like 1% of that "snow" is remnants of the Big Bang.

 

[Endymion]

Or by watching the "snow" on tvs.....like 1% of that "snow" is remnants of the Big Bang.

Very good mention, Deafdyke!

 

[Endymion]

Consider also that, like the area under a curve, this could be subdivided down to an infinite level

While I can definitely see what you're saying within the framework of Calculus, you might be interested in this:

Physical space has often been regarded as infinitely divisible: it was thought that any region in space, no matter how small, could be further split. Similarly, time was regarded as infinitely divisible.

However, the pioneering work of Max Planck (1858-1947) in the field of quantum physics suggests that there is, in fact, a minimum distance (now called the Planck length, 1.616 × 10−35 metres) and therefore a minimum time interval (the amount of time which light takes to traverse that distance in a vacuum, 5.391 × 10−44 seconds, known as the Planck time) smaller than which meaningful measurement is impossible.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_divisibility

 

[MorriganTait]

Endymion - do you get the impression we have some very smart cookies hanging around this board?

I have a good freind who is a mathmatical savant, and he and I have settled on this idea that God resides in that space between where nothing becomes something - between 0 and something measurable. That's a comforting thought for him. I like the thought that infinity is both an incredibly large thing, and also an imeasurably small thing.

Have you ever read about Bucky Fuller? The number PI infuriated him. He looked at perfect spheres in the gurgling waves at the sea shore and wondered to which derivation of PI God stopped calculating and just formed a perfect sphere of his own volition.

 

[Rose Immortal]

While I can definitely see what you're saying within the framework of Calculus, you might be interested in this...

As to how that works, does that mean that there are no smaller units of time and space, or just that they aren't useful to our kinds of scientific measurements?

By mentioning one of the universal constants, that raises an interesting question...had any of the values of those been off even slightly, just imagine how different the universe would look and act--and life would very likely not be possible. Even a tiny tweak would potentially have catastrophic effects. Which is why I suspect each of the constants was very carefully set, knowing exactly down to the furthest decimal place what was necessary for us. Which is pretty impressive.

 

[deafdyke]

The Bible, on the other hand, is finite. That implies a LOT had to be left out, or given to us in Cliffs Notes form.

Precisely...... Man himself is sinful......they cannot transmit the Holy Word in its entirity.... it would be like using a single nuclear reactor to power one lightbulb. Plus, the Bible itself is basicly Cliff Notes or censored for political reasons. Way back when Christianity was first starting out, there were all these books that made up the Bible. A commitee decided which books would remain in the Bible, and which books wouldn't be a part of the Bible. So much of what evalingcal Christians believe, was motivated by what a commitee of MEN (who are sinful and imperfect by nature) believed that believers should beleive.

 

[RedFox]

If you accept, for the sake of argument, that God is omnipotent, then He must have knowledge of every event, and every interconnection between each event, and every implication of every event. ...

The Bible, on the other hand, is finite. That implies a LOT had to be left out, or given to us in Cliffs Notes form.

The bible having everything minus its contents left out of it by such a god is implied only if there really is an omniscientist god.

 

[Rose Immortal]

But that's the premise in this thread right now...you're trying to start a whole other thread again.

 

[Endymion]

Endymion - do you get the impression we have some very smart cookies hanging around this board?

I have a good freind who is a mathmatical savant, and he and I have settled on this idea that God resides in that space between where nothing becomes something - between 0 and something measurable. That's a comforting thought for him. I like the thought that infinity is both an incredibly large thing, and also an imeasurably small thing.

Have you ever read about Bucky Fuller? The number PI infuriated him. He looked at perfect spheres in the gurgling waves at the sea shore and wondered to which derivation of PI God stopped calculating and just formed a perfect sphere of his own volition.

Oh we've got sharp people here! I also love R. Buckminster Fuller and am very fond of his geodesic dome.

You mentioned a derivation of Pi, and that gave me an idea. I sent a message off to my bright younger brother with the gist, "Can you have a perfect geometrical shape defined with irrational numbers like Pi and e?

We had an interesting discussion and we used the example of a square with each line segment at the length of e. If you define a square with the length of each side as ".002 inches" you must be accurate to three digits before you can find where two lines at any corner intersect.

If you define it as ".000002 inches" you must be accurate to six digits before you find the corner.

But since irrational numbers have an infinite number of digits after the decimal, you have to be infinitely accurate before you can find the corner.

This seems to pose an interesting contradiction. We are reminded that there may be a limit to how much we can subdivide our universe. Yet, to have a perfect square with sides at a length of any irrational number, we must be infinitely accurate. It also suggests that the square itself must be precise beyond the subdivision limit.

Does this mean that, ultimately, there is no such thing as a completely perfect geometrical shape defined by at least one irrational number? So many other possibilities come to mind too.

 

[Endymion]

As to how that works, does that mean that there are no smaller units of time and space, or just that they aren't useful to our kinds of scientific measurements?

What I understand of the limited divisibility of the universe is that things are just quantitized. If something does not fit the minimum "quantity" it simply does not exist.

I can see huge ramifications for the idea of higher powers. Though, I think that perhaps some hypotheses about a higher form would also consider that a creator may not need to exist within the creation, much like a computer programmer creates a video game, but does not live within its myriad logical structures.

By mentioning one of the universal constants, that raises an interesting question...had any of the values of those been off even slightly, just imagine how different the universe would look and act--and life would very likely not be possible. Even a tiny tweak would potentially have catastrophic effects. Which is why I suspect each of the constants was very carefully set, knowing exactly down to the furthest decimal place what was necessary for us. Which is pretty impressive.

Oh it's amazing. I just spend my time wondering how different the universe would be right now if the Gravitational constant (G = 6.6742*10^-11) changed by just one tiny bit to 6.6743*10^-11. Would the universe be more bound? Would the average temperature per volume of space be higher? Would stars be brighter and shorter-lived (gravity plays a huge role in determining the consumption of Hydrogen and other fuel in stars)?

 

[Rose Immortal]

What I understand of the limited divisibility of the universe is that things are just quantitized. If something does not fit the minimum "quantity" it simply does not exist.

That or we just haven't become sufficiently advanced to get past it. People thought the sound barrier was unbreakable for a long time...

I can see huge ramifications for the idea of higher powers. Though, I think that perhaps some hypotheses about a higher form would also consider that a creator may not need to exist within the creation, much like a computer programmer creates a video game, but does not live within its myriad logical structures.

Some do believe that Heaven is a separate "plane" from this reality--a plane that would interact with this one even if not a measurable part of it.

Oh it's amazing. I just spend my time wondering how different the universe would be right now if the Gravitational constant (G = 6.6742*10^-11) changed by just one tiny bit to 6.6743*10^-11. Would the universe be more bound? Would the average temperature per volume of space be higher? Would stars be brighter and shorter-lived (gravity plays a huge role in determining the consumption of Hydrogen and other fuel in stars)?

I've heard that even a tiny tweak like that would be enough to make life impossible...I'd love to see more about that.

 

[Beowulf]

Or, tweaks could have their own seperate Realities. Why do concepts have to fit within our human consciousness?

 

[Rose Immortal]

As in a multiverse structure? I don't see any problem with there being multiple universes created by God--I've actually played with that idea in my writing, although the particular universe is much more similar to ours than that.

 

[Beowulf]

As in a multiverse structure? I don't see any problem with there being multiple universes created by God--I've actually played with that idea in my writing, although the particular universe is much more similar to ours than that.

Lol, same here. I am still working on a story where I am linked to an Amazon thru the computer and I feel each blow she takes, so it is in my best interest to keep her alive.

 

[Beowulf]

Oh we've got sharp people here! I also love R. Buckminster Fuller and am very fond of his geodesic dome.

You mentioned a derivation of Pi, and that gave me an idea. I sent a message off to my bright younger brother with the gist, "Can you have a perfect geometrical shape defined with irrational numbers like Pi and e?

We had an interesting discussion and we used the example of a square with each line segment at the length of e. If you define a square with the length of each side as ".002 inches" you must be accurate to three digits before you can find where two lines at any corner intersect.

If you define it as ".000002 inches" you must be accurate to six digits before you find the corner.

But since irrational numbers have an infinite number of digits after the decimal, you have to be infinitely accurate before you can find the corner.

This seems to pose an interesting contradiction. We are reminded that there may be a limit to how much we can subdivide our universe. Yet, to have a perfect square with sides at a length of any irrational number, we must be infinitely accurate. It also suggests that the square itself must be precise beyond the subdivision limit.

Does this mean that, ultimately, there is no such thing as a completely perfect geometrical shape defined by at least one irrational number? So many other possibilities come to mind too.

Fascinating. In 1855 pi was thought to have 500 decimal places. 500,000 in 1967. Today pi is known to have at least ten billion decimal places.
http://mathforum.org/isaac/problems/pi2.html

You can try to square a circle at
http://mathforum.org/isaac/problems/pi3.html
but you will need Applet for the latter.

 

[RedFox]

I've heard that even a tiny tweak like that would be enough to make life impossible...I'd love to see more about that.

Making gravity a little stronger won't matter with stars because there are plenty of low mass stars like M dwarves in this universe. Making gravity stronger would make them hoter. The higher mass stars made unsuitable by this tweak would be replaced by the lower mass stars made suitable.

The same would happen for planets with lower mass worlds being more able to keep their atmospheres, but they'd still lose their internal heat to where any plate tectonics would stop leading to any inorganic carbon cycles stopping.

If gravity was tweaked to be weaker, then the opposite would happen with stars. Some higher mass stars would become suitable. Some massive planets would become more suitable because they won't collect too much atmosphere and become gas giants or giant ocean planets and hold in their internal heat for longer times, allowing plate tectonics and inorganic carbon cycles to operate for longer times, making life as we know it able to live on those planets for longer.

 

[Aryan]

Concept Of God In Hinduism

CONCEPT OF GOD IN HINDUISM

1. Common Concept of God in Hinduism:


Hinduism is commonly perceived as a polytheistic religion. Indeed, most Hindus would attest to this, by professing belief in multiple Gods. While some Hindus believe in the existence of three gods, some believe in thousands of gods, and some others in thirty three crore i.e. 330 million Gods. However, learned Hindus, who are well versed in their scriptures, insist that a Hindu should believe in and worship only one God.

The major difference between the Hindu and the Muslim perception of God is the common Hindus’ belief in the philosophy of Pantheism. Pantheism considers everything, living and non-living, to be Divine and Sacred. The common Hindu, therefore, considers everything as God. He considers the trees as God, the sun as God, the moon as God, the monkey as God, the snake as God and even human beings as manifestations of God!

Islam, on the contrary, exhorts man to consider himself and his surroundings as examples of Divine Creation rather than as divinity itself. Muslims therefore believe that everything is God’s i.e. the word ‘God’ with an apostrophe ‘s’. In other words the Muslims believe that everything belongs to God. The trees belong to God, the sun belongs to God, the moon belongs to God, the monkey belongs to God, the snake belongs to God, the human beings belong to God and everything in this universe belongs to God.

Thus the major difference between the Hindu and the Muslim beliefs is the difference of the apostrophe ‘s’. The Hindu says everything is God. The Muslim says everything is God’s.


2.


Concept of God according to Hindu Scriptures:


We can gain a better understanding of the concept of God in Hinduism by analysing Hindu scriptures.

BHAGAVAD GITA

The most popular amongst all the Hindu scriptures is the Bhagavad Gita.

Consider the following verse from the Gita:

"Those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own natures."
[Bhagavad Gita 7:20]

The Gita states that people who are materialistic worship demigods i.e. ‘gods’ besides the True God.




UPANISHADS:

The Upanishads are considered sacred scriptures by the Hindus.

The following verses from the Upanishads refer to the Concept of God:

1.

"Ekam evadvitiyam"
"He is One only without a second."
[Chandogya Upanishad 6:2:1]1
2.

"Na casya kascij janita na cadhipah."
"Of Him there are neither parents nor lord."
[Svetasvatara Upanishad 6:9]2
3.

"Na tasya pratima asti"
"There is no likeness of Him."
[Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:19]3
4.

The following verses from the Upanishad allude to the inability of man to imagine God in a particular form:

"Na samdrse tisthati rupam asya, na caksusa pasyati kas canainam."

"His form is not to be seen; no one sees Him with the eye."
[Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:20]4

1[The Principal Upanishad by S. Radhakrishnan page 447 and 448]
[Sacred Books of the East, volume 1 ‘The Upanishads part I’ page 93]

2[The Principal Upanishad by S. Radhakrishnan page 745]
[Sacred Books of the East, volume 15, ‘The Upanishads part II’ page 263.]

3[The Principal Upanishad by S. Radhakrishnan page 736 & 737]
[Sacred Books of the East, volume 15, ‘The Upanishads part II’ page no 253]

4[The Principal Upanishad by S. Radhakrishnan page 737]
[Sacred Books of the East, volume 15, ‘The Upanishads part II’ page no 253]







THE VEDAS
Vedas are considered the most sacred of all the Hindu scriptures. There are four principal Vedas: Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samveda and Atharvaveda.



1. Yajurveda
The following verses from the Yajurveda echo a similar concept of God:

1.

"na tasya pratima asti
"There is no image of Him."
[Yajurveda 32:3]5
2.

"shudhama poapvidham"
"He is bodyless and pure."
[Yajurveda 40:8]6
3.

"Andhatama pravishanti ye asambhuti mupaste"
"They enter darkness, those who worship the natural elements" (Air, Water, Fire, etc.). "They sink deeper in darkness, those who worship sambhuti."
[Yajurveda 40:9]7

Sambhuti means created things, for example table, chair, idol, etc.
4.

The Yajurveda contains the following prayer:
"Lead us to the good path and remove the sin that makes us stray and wander."
[Yajurveda 40:16]8

5[Yajurveda by Devi Chand M.A. page 377]

6[Yajurveda Samhita by Ralph T. H. Giffith page 538]

7[Yajurveda Samhita by Ralph T. H. Giffith page 538]

8[Yajurveda Samhita by Ralph T. H. Griffith page 541]


2. Atharvaveda
The Atharvaveda praises God in Book 20, hymn 58 and verse 3:
1. "Dev maha osi"
"God is verily great"
[Atharvaveda 20:58:3]9


3. Rigveda
1.

The oldest of all the vedas is Rigveda. It is also the one considered most sacred by the Hindus. The Rigveda states in Book 1, hymn 164 and verse 46:
"Sages (learned Priests) call one God by many names."
[Rigveda 1:164:46]
2.

The Rigveda gives several different attributes to Almighty God. Many of these are mentioned in Rigveda Book 2 hymn 1.

Among the various attributes of God, one of the beautiful attributes mentioned in the Rigveda Book II hymn 1 verse 3, is Brahma. Brahma means ‘The Creator’. Translated into Arabic it means Khaaliq. Muslims can have no objection if Almighty God is referred to as Khaaliq or ‘Creator’ or Brahma. However if it is said that Brahma is Almighty God who has four heads with each head having a crown, Muslims take strong exception to it.

Describing Almighty God in anthropomorphic terms also goes against the following verse of Yajurveda:

"Na tasya Pratima asti"
"There is no image of Him."
[Yajurveda 32:3]

Another beautiful attribute of God mentioned in the Rigveda Book II hymn 1 verse 3 is Vishnu. Vishnu means ‘The Sustainer’. Translated into Arabic it means Rabb. Again, Muslims can have no objection if Almighty God is referred to as Rabb or 'Sustainer' or Vishnu. But the popular image of

9[Atharveda Samhita vol 2 William Dwight Whitney page 910]



Vishnu among Hindus, is that of a God who has four arms, with one of the right arms holding the Chakra, i.e. a discus and one of the left arms holding a ‘conch shell’, or riding a bird or reclining on a snake couch. Muslims can never accept any image of God. As mentioned earlier this also goes against Svetasvatara Upanishad Chapter 4 verse 19.

"Na tasya pratima asti"
"There is no likeness of Him"

The following verse from the Rigveda Book 8, hymn 1, verse 1 refer to the Unity and Glory of the Supreme Being:
3.

"Ma cid anyad vi sansata sakhayo ma rishanyata"
"O friends, do not worship anybody but Him, the Divine One. Praise Him alone."
[Rigveda 8:1:1]10
4.

"Devasya samituk parishtutih"
"Verily, great is the glory of the Divine Creator."
[Rigveda 5:1:81]11



Brahma Sutra of Hinduism:

The Brahma Sutra of Hinduism is:

"Ekam Brahm, dvitiya naste neh na naste kinchan"

"There is only one God, not the second; not at all, not at all, not in the least bit."

Thus only a dispassionate study of the Hindu scriptures can help one understand the concept of God in Hinduism.

0[Rigveda Samhita vol. 9, pages 2810 and 2811 by Swami Satya Prakash Sarasvati and Satyakam Vidyalankar]

11[Rigveda Samhita vol. 6, pages 1802 and 1803 by Swami Satya Prakash Saraswati and Satyakam Vidyalankar]



as from the sun." The Prophecy confirms:

1.

The name of the Prophet as Ahmed since Ahmed is an Arabic name. Many translators misunderstood it to be ‘Ahm at hi’ and translated the mantra as "I alone have acquired the real wisdom of my father".
2.

Prophet was given eternal law, i.e. the Shariah.
3.

The Rishi was enlightened by the Shariah of Prophet Muhammad. The Qur’an says in Surah Saba Chapter 34 verse 28 (34:28):



"We have not sent thee but as a universal (Messenger) to men, giving them glad tidings and warning them (against sin), but most men understand not."

 

[sillycat]

The oldest known religions is paganism and worship of animals and nature. The earliest humans were practicing all of this before the next oldest religions--hinduism and buddhaism--which are being practiced by some of the largest numbers of people today.

I believe the very early humans worshipped what they see around them in the natural world. When the humans started building civilizations, thats when the religions became more sophiscated and more legalistic plus started moving away from the natural world to imaginary gods and beliefs. I will not comment on the Bible and God since I am not interested in long arguments--done that before.

 

[Teresh]

The oldest known religions is paganism and worship of animals and nature. The earliest humans were practicing all of this before the next oldest religions--hinduism and buddhaism--which are being practiced by some of the largest numbers of people today.

I believe the very early humans worshipped what they see around them in the natural world. When the humans started building civilizations, thats when the religions became more sophiscated and more legalistic plus started moving away from the natural world to imaginary gods and beliefs. I will not comment on the Bible and God since I am not interested in long arguments--done that before.

Paganism isn't a religion, it's a very vague term indicating nothing with regards to theology, world outlook, ritual or practice.

Hinduism is the oldest living religion, also the oldest religion we really know anything about.

After Hinduism came Zorastrianism, after which came Judaism and then Buddhism after that.