Do you believe in past lives?

[bluebyrd35]

Yes. The cosmos is not expanding out from a central location and you can not have seen photos of it doing so.

From Wiki.....

"
History of the Universe


According to the prevailing scientific model of the universe, known as the Big Bang, the universe expanded from an extremely hot, dense phase called the Planck epoch, in which all the matter and energy of the observable universe was concentrated. Since the Planck epoch, the universe has been expanding to its present form, possibly with a brief period (less than 10−32 seconds) of cosmic inflation. Several independent experimental measurements support this theoretical expansion and, more generally, the Big Bang theory. Recent observations indicate that this expansion is accelerating because of dark energy, and that most of the matter in the universe may be in a form which cannot be detected by present instruments, called dark matter[6]. The common use of the "dark matter" and "dark energy" placeholder names for the unknown entities purported to account for about 95% of the mass-energy density of the universe demonstrates the present observational and conceptual shortcomings and uncertainties concerning the nature and ultimate fate of the universe.[7]

Current interpretations of astronomical observations indicate that the age of the universe is 13.75 ± 0.17 billion years,[8] (whereas the decoupling of light and matter, see CMBR, happened already 380,000 years after the Big Bang), and that the diameter of the observable universe is at least 93 billion light years or 8.80×1026 metres.[9] According to general relativity, space can expand faster than the speed of light, although we can view only a small portion of the universe due to the limitation imposed by light speed. Since we cannot observe space beyond the limitations of light (or any electromagnetic radiation), it is uncertain whether the size of the universe is finite or infinite.

If I could find the time photos I saw, I would post them.

 

[bluebyrd35]

From Wiki.....

"
History of the Universe


According to the prevailing scientific model of the universe, known as the Big Bang, the universe expanded from an extremely hot, dense phase called the Planck epoch, in which all the matter and energy of the observable universe was concentrated. Since the Planck epoch, the universe has been expanding to its present form, possibly with a brief period (less than 10−32 seconds) of cosmic inflation. Several independent experimental measurements support this theoretical expansion and, more generally, the Big Bang theory. Recent observations indicate that this expansion is accelerating because of dark energy, and that most of the matter in the universe may be in a form which cannot be detected by present instruments, called dark matter[6]. The common use of the "dark matter" and "dark energy" placeholder names for the unknown entities purported to account for about 95% of the mass-energy density of the universe demonstrates the present observational and conceptual shortcomings and uncertainties concerning the nature and ultimate fate of the universe.[7]

Current interpretations of astronomical observations indicate that the age of the universe is 13.75 ± 0.17 billion years,[8] (whereas the decoupling of light and matter, see CMBR, happened already 380,000 years after the Big Bang), and that the diameter of the observable universe is at least 93 billion light years or 8.80×1026 metres.[9] According to general relativity, space can expand faster than the speed of light, although we can view only a small portion of the universe due to the limitation imposed by light speed. Since we cannot observe space beyond the limitations of light (or any electromagnetic radiation), it is uncertain whether the size of the universe is finite or infinite.

If I could find the time photos I saw, I would post them.

Since the Hubble telescope can take pictures as far back in time as 100 million years after the commencement of expansion, and certain stars's brightness is predictable, it is possible to calculate the rate of expansion. There is a Hubble.org site where you can see how scientists were able to determine that central point.

Now, since that side-tracking attempt at highjacking has been dealt with, how about dealing with the topic in the same manner. Look at the research, and what doctors, parents, and ordinary people have claimed as their experiences.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Those references in no way support your claim. Neither does any information you've provided on reincarnation support your claims about it. Anecdotes are not evidence, and personal testimony is one of the least reliable sources of information, because of the many ways people fool themselves into believing what they want to believe. You didn't read any of that stuff at The Skeptic's Dictionary link I gave you, or if you did your mind just went cancel.. cancel...cancel. You've committed many of the errors in logic and perception discussed there. Most people do, and there's a lot of it in this thread and the proof of PSI thread, it's not just you. Good critical thinking is hard, it's a learned skill that needs practice, it's not something anyone's born knowing how to do, and it's only in the last few centuries, since the Enlightenment and the scientific revolution that followed, that anyone's known how to do it. What we're born equipped to do is magical thinking, and most people never get past it.

 

[talloola]

I'm certainly not an expert in scientific thinking at all, but I do have a very logical mind, and scientific explanations that I can understand make sense to me, so I continue to learn along those lines, I was
born with that, and when I was 12 or so I sent that magical thinking out the window, i'm so glad I wasn't
the type that hung onto that concept, so glad.

So the idea that there has been past lives also goes out the window.

 

[bluebyrd35]

Those references in no way support your claim.




Neither does any information you've provided on reincarnation support your claims about it. Anecdotes are not evidence, and personal testimony is one of the least reliable sources of information, because of the many ways people fool themselves into believing what they want to believe. You didn't read any of that stuff at The Skeptic's Dictionary link I gave you, or if you did your mind just went cancel.. cancel...cancel. You've committed many of the errors in logic and perception discussed there. Most people do, and there's a lot of it in this thread and the proof of PSI thread, it's not just you. Good critical thinking is hard, it's a learned skill that needs practice, it's not something anyone's born knowing how to do, and it's only in the last few centuries, since the Enlightenment and the scientific revolution that followed, that anyone's known how to do it. What we're born equipped to do is magical thinking, and most people never get past it.

Well, for sure, the most recent conclusions regarding of the "big bang theory", by the scientlsts who's major study is the origin of the universe, appear to you as a wild belief .

That Skeptical Directory site is in my favourites and has been for many years. Metaphysical beliefs are not pseudoscience. Until a scientific theory or conclusion becomes fact, it falls into the category of either pseudoscience or metaphysical belief. So far, it seems by that criteria the big bang theory has the same value as those of reincarnation. At least by your arguments.

Here is a quote from that Skeptics site, that illustrates my thinking. ie The personal experiences of millions of persons, without, so far, a scientifc method of proving them. But hey science is still in it's infancy, so I will continue to keep an open mind.





"Of course, not all wild beliefs are equally wild. Furthermore, not all wild beliefs claim to be supported by

empirical evidence. When we refer topseudoscientific beliefs, we are not referring to every wild belief
imaginable. We are referring only to those that falsely claim to have scientific or empirical validity. Thus

, we do

not classify metaphysical or religious beliefs as pseudoscientific, no matter how wild those beliefs may be, as long

as they are not claimed to be scientific beliefs.


If a person’s religion requires her to believe that the souls of

women are inferior to the souls of men, we do not call that belief

pseudoscientific unless the believer claims it is a

scientific fact. If he believes it on

faith in some text he holds sacred, it is a metaphysical belief, not a

pseudoscientific belief. In any case, it is not really the

beliefs we should be interested in so much as the methods

of arriving at and supporting those beliefs


. After all, there are some wild beliefs that are generally accepted by the

scientific community as having very strong probability, such as

the theory of evolution of species and the Big

Bang Theory


. We should not disconnect beliefs from how they were acquired and how they are supported.

Scientific methods of testing and evaluating claims are an integral part of scientific claims."

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Until a scientific theory or conclusion becomes fact, it falls into the category of either pseudoscience or metaphysical belief.

That's a preposterous statement. I don't think you have the slightest understanding of what you're talking about. It shouldn't surprise you that I have a hard time taking you seriously when you make statements like that. Anything that deserves to be called a scientific theory cannot possibly fall into either of those categories. If indeed you've read The Skeptic's Dictionary, you haven't assimilated much of it.

 

[bluebyrd35]

That's a preposterous statement. I don't think you have the slightest understanding of what you're talking about. It shouldn't surprise you that I have a hard time taking you seriously when you make statements like that. Anything that deserves to be called a scientific theory cannot possibly fall into either of those categories. If indeed you've read The Skeptic's Dictionary, you haven't assimilated much of it.

LOL.....YOU made it so with non-acceptance of an expanding universe starting at central point. Not me. You either accept as reasonable the latesst scientific theory or it falls into pseudoscience, in your opinion.