God Talk

[Ciaran]

so it came from nothing, and has the same "I don't need an origin! fuck you!" nature of God?

I think you're missing the point. Every concept we know or can think of was created with the big bang. Theres no way would could speculate what there was before.

 

[ChurchedAtheist]

oh, ok. I still say science should try to figure it out though. scientific curiosity and whatnot.

 

[Terra]

If there is one thing that limits a persons capacity learn, it's the necessity to accept one answer.
It's a bit like "You can have the Bible or the Theory of Evolution, but you can't have both"
But even if you find your answer, when you turn it back onto the question, how compatible is it?

I.E."Thought travels at the speed of an electric current"
"Electric current travels at the speed of thought"
So,, an identifiable substance (Electricity) that has a known content & has a relative pattern to our concept of time & distance can be strictly applied/compared to something that has no substance, it's contents are not known, & is nothing more than a non-physical extension of our mental capacity, & you believe someone has timed it?

We don't even know the limitations of thought. We may accept what we do know for now, but it may well be far from the limit.
&
"What if the soul was a blueprint of a unique species"
"You're talking about DNA"
No I wasn't. That was you finding a question for your answer.

You have flippantly ripped though posts like a latter day sophist throwing "answers" at them as though they are done & dusted, & all it has shown is that you need to have all your ducks in a row.

You had better not be satisfied with today's answers mate, we've got a long way to go.

Serious question.
How do you categorize the non-physical, like imagination, thought, fear, happiness etc.?
Are the just chemical explosion to you, or do you see them as something else?

 

[FreePlay]

oh, ok. I still say science should try to figure it out though. scientific curiosity and whatnot.

There's nothing to figure out. Time began at the big bang. The concept of 'before time' has no meaning in anything but a religious sense.

If there is one thing that limits a persons capacity learn, it's the necessity to accept one answer.

If there's one thing that limits reality, it's the necessity for there to be one answer. There is no question of fact that has more than one.

It's a bit like "You can have the Bible or the Theory of Evolution, but you can't have both"

Sure, you can, if you're willing to accept the Bible as non-literal. But if you do that, why accept it as holy?

But even if you find your answer, when you turn it back onto the question, how compatible is it?

I.E."Thought travels at the speed of an electric current"
"Electric current travels at the speed of thought"
So,, an identifiable substance (Electricity) that has a known content & has a relative pattern to our concept of time & distance can be strictly applied/compared to something that has no substance, it's contents are not known, & is nothing more than a non-physical extension of our mental capacity, & you believe someone has timed it?

Thoughts are physical interactions of synapses in the brain. They can be timed, just like any electrical signal. In fact, you can even determine when a person has consciously decided to move a certain part of their body. Interestingly enough, they figured out that our subconscious is already transmitting the signals several milliseconds before we actually consciously claim to decide to.

You have flippantly ripped though posts like a latter day sophist throwing "answers" at them as though they are done & dusted, & all it has shown is that you need to have all your ducks in a row.

Better to have answers than to profess being open-minded and simply accept ignorance.

You had better not be satisfied with today's answers mate, we've got a long way to go.

I am only as satisfied with them as any skeptic. If something more plausible comes along, I move with the knowledge. I don't simply stick with a 2,000-year-old explanation that willfully ignores new information.

How do you categorize the non-physical, like imagination, thought, fear, happiness etc.?
Are the just chemical explosion to you, or do you see them as something else?

Seeing how we can measure the chemical responses and cause those things by administering chemicals, yes, they absolutely are. Seriously. We can even measure the biological responses our bodies perform when we're doing math problems.

 

[ChurchedAtheist]

There's nothing to figure out. Time began at the big bang. The concept of 'before time' has no meaning in anything but a religious sense.

I agree about the before time thing. Im just saying maybe the big bang WASN'T the start, and maybe there was something before it. Im not saying there is or isn't, but if there is, i'd sure as hell like to know, because it'd be damn cool.

 

[FreePlay]

Cool, sure. But it wouldn't be scientifically useful information. If we go with the bang/crunch theory - that it explodes outward, eventually slows and then collapses, only to explode again - everything that existed in the universe would be destroyed in the crunch.

 

[Terra]

"I don't simply stick with a 2,000-year-old explanation that willfully ignores new information."

I accept your interpretation of this when it's applied to the run-of-the-mill church goer, but mate, I can assure you, I acknowledge science & all the "ology's" & I do not question their hard & fast facts.

That said, the difference between you & I is that my search is spirited by extraordinary evidence that I have experienced.
I initially made the point that I have no intention of converting anyone, & that is because it's a work in progress & I don't really care if anyone wants to share my curiosity.

We can continue discovering different species, Different reactions to equations, & more proof of our origin, but people like me, who harm no one, nor ourselves, are simply not satisfied with "It's prolly a coincidence" or "Your mind is playing tricks".

Skeptics are black & white people whose mindset keeps them comfortable, & that's fine, I neither ridicule or question this, but being condescending toward me & my "Wizard in the sky" does not reflect well.

Perhaps if we reflect that when the disintegration that produced this planet, that produced a swamp & we crawled out of it, another piece of shrapnel produced a similar scenario that realized out state a 100,000 years earlier, turned up here & tried to teach us not to make their mistakes.

Like I said, we've got a long way to go.

 

[Mast3r_Shak3]

Reminds me of an article I saw in a magazine regarding the "Big Bounce". Made me wonder about the concept and idea of "origin" and the beginning of time. Although the theory of it is still a bit young, seems to make sense.

 

[ChurchedAtheist]

I don't like the "it just happened" thing, as that is very unscientific. the goal of science is to find out how. IE - How a ball of gas appeared out of nowhere.

 

[Mast3r_Shak3]

The Big Bounce can potentially explain it.

But then again if you look at it from a religious standpoint, where did "God" come from? How did he just "make" the universe?

 

[ChurchedAtheist]

But then again if you look at it from a religious standpoint, where did "God" come from? How did he just "make" the universe?

religion completely ignores that question with "he's eternal"

 

[FreePlay]

That said, the difference between you & I is that my search is spirited by extraordinary evidence that I have experienced.

And, thus, it's not scientific, since your evidence is entirely subjective and entirely insubstantive. Our minds play tricks on us all the time. Why would you trust evidence that exists only in your mind?

We can continue discovering different species, Different reactions to equations, & more proof of our origin, but people like me, who harm no one, nor ourselves, are simply not satisfied with "It's prolly a coincidence" or "Your mind is playing tricks".

Why not? Why is it that when something is coincidental or your brain - a biological organ influenced in a myriad of ways by outside stimuli - plays tricks on you, you have to ascribe some greater meaning and divine source to it? Why would you say that it has to be a God doing it, when all that does is create MORE questions?

Skeptics are black & white people whose mindset keeps them comfortable, & that's fine, I neither ridicule or question this, but being condescending toward me & my "Wizard in the sky" does not reflect well.

My mindset doesn't keep me comfortable, are you joking? My mindset is just realistic. I just refuse to allow my personal misunderstandings to lead me down a path of thinking that what I don't understand must somehow be magical.

And it's not black and white or there wouldn't be science.

Perhaps if we reflect that when the disintegration that produced this planet, that produced a swamp & we crawled out of it, another piece of shrapnel produced a similar scenario that realized out state a 100,000 years earlier, turned up here & tried to teach us not to make their mistakes.

I have no idea what you're talking about nor any idea how it's related...

Like I said, we've got a long way to go.

Yes, we do.

I don't like the "it just happened" thing, as that is very unscientific. the goal of science is to find out how. IE - How a ball of gas appeared out of nowhere.

First of all, "it just happened" is the only explanation you can have when there was no time when it happened. No time means no causality, which means it can't have been caused, which means it just happened.

Second, where has anyone claimed a ball of gas appeared out of nowhere?

Third of all, I need to go to bed.

 

[ChurchedAtheist]

Second, where has anyone claimed a ball of gas appeared out of nowhere?

sorry, by ball of gas, I meant the ball of matter the big bang came from

 

[madsoul]

i love this flash film

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySBaYMESb8o&feature=channel

 

[Slasher]

That was waaaay to confusing lol

 

[Darth Budd]

sorry, by ball of gas, I meant the ball of matter the big bang came from

the matter that previously existed condensed into a ball, then it exploded. before you ask where that matter came from, we haven't discovered it yet. thats what science is all about, finding answers, if we don't have one, we just say so then go looking for it

 

[Terra]

Originally Posted by Terra
Perhaps if we reflect that when the disintegration that produced this planet, that produced a swamp & we crawled out of it, another piece of shrapnel produced a similar scenario that realized out state a 100,000 years earlier, turned up here & tried to teach us not to make their mistakes.

Posted byFreeplay
I have no idea what you're talking about nor any idea how it's related...

I am saying that if earth was a particle of a larger planet that disintegrated & shot bits all over the void. Do you think it not possible that another bit (Planet) had a swamp that produced life & they matured 100,000 years before us, & they decided to try & give us some guidance, suggesting that there is more to life than possessions & power.

 

[Darth Budd]

Originally Posted by Terra
Perhaps if we reflect that when the disintegration that produced this planet, that produced a swamp & we crawled out of it, another piece of shrapnel produced a similar scenario that realized out state a 100,000 years earlier, turned up here & tried to teach us not to make their mistakes.

Posted byFreeplay
I have no idea what you're talking about nor any idea how it's related...

I am saying that if earth was a particle of a larger planet that disintegrated & shot bits all over the void. Do you think it not possible that another bit (Planet) had a swamp that produced life & they matured 100,000 years before us, & they decided to try & give us some guidance, suggesting that there is more to life than possessions & power.

matured?

if life evolved on another planed that was mostly swamp there is almost zero chance that they would evolve the same way we did. why would they give us guidance?

also, http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

 

[Slasher]

Regardless of what you say, Terra's point still stands and is certainly a possibility. There's endless possibilities to what the big bang created, and who's to say that another duplicate earth wasn't created in the midst of the big bang, and bearing life for example 100,000 years previous to us? It's just something to think about

 

[Darth Budd]

Regardless of what you say, Terra's point still stands and is certainly a possibility.

ok, so let me get this straight.

he said that the earth was part of another planet.

i disproved that.

he said that humans evolved on another part, made mostly of swamp.

humans are suited to open savanna with sparse trees (like in africa), so anything that evolved there would likely be amphibious, and thus not humanoid.

he said that they might have given us guidance.

whose to say that life on other planets has evolved past bacterial form? we may be the first.

and yet, his point is valid?