Who's Our Creater?

[ricky18]

I've read a lot of these forums.Many of us don't believe in Christianity,ISLAM,Hinduism etc. I Just want to know if that is a bunch lies "What is the truth abouth creation,Is there a God, How were we formed,all the animals"Just want to know the different theories.

[pandora]

Ever heard of evolution?

[ricky18]

no

[pandora]

no

[Antlerman]

Hi Ricky

 

Yes, of course the Scientific Theory of Evolution explains that natural occurrences account for how life on this planet became what it is today. An interesting way for you to look at it is to say in one sense, yes all life on this planet was "designed", but that "design" was a "bottom up", tinkering process of natural processes rather than "designed" from a "top down", intelligent Creator with specific intention and will.

 

All the verifiable evidence (and an overwhelming mountain of evidence) clearly shows a bottom up design of purely natural processes. Zero evidence points to a "top down" intelligent creation of willful intention. Bottom line, we don’t need a God to explain the inexplicable. It is explicable.

 

 

P.S. You may wish to consider a different response on your profile to the question "Any Gods". It really confuses people here where you are at in your beliefs. Maybe try, "unsure" as a response?

[NotBlinded]

Then........there are the people like me that think this "Creator" is a natural part of everything. Bottom-up of natural processes as Antlerman says, yet instilled with a never-ending creation.

[Antlerman]

Then........there are the people like me that think this "Creator" is a natural part of everything. Bottom-up of natural processes as Antlerman says, yet instilled with a never-ending creation.

Ooo boy! Now that's something to ponder on NB I often look at that "nature" or "quality" or "characteristic" of life as existing for the sake of itself. It seems the entire purpose of Life is Life. The energy of Life is Life. That simple, that profound. There is no purpose except to exist, and that is its entire purpose and the whole universe to us. It seems we are on that river of Life's existance, so to speak, along for the ride and yet a part of what makes it - it.

 

Man, what did I have for lunch today??

[Friendly neighborhood atheist]

Hi, please know that I am answering with respect and not trying to come off like a wiseass.

 

The question itself, "Who is our creator" makes an assumption that there is one.

If I simply answer "No one, we did not have a creator", this could sound glib or argumentative.

It would be an easier question for anyone to offer their perception on the answer if it were phrased:

"What force or forces are/were at work in bringing human beings into existence"?

A religious person might answer "god".

A non-religious person might answer "evolution".

But at least both can offer an answer.

 

I am not a religious person, despite the best efforts of my parents.

This pesky thing called intelligence and reason kept getting in the way.

And then exposure to the sciences finally exposed theistic explanations as false to me.

 

My answer to your question has the benefit of being testable and demonstrable,

it is not just my opinion but some factual information that may (or may not) answer your question in totality. Here goes:

 

The force/s behind the existence of the human race can be traced back all the way to the formation of the current incarnation of the physical universe.

The Big Bang is an event that did occur, this is also not opinion, but it's causes and a unifying theory between the subatomic realm - quantum mechanics - and general relativity - the realm of the macro governed largely by gravity - are as yet unclear.

 

Shortly after the Big Bang, the most basic building blocks of all matter facilitated the first atoms,

and they were almost all hydrogen atoms. It's the path of least resistance, the simplest element.

Subatomic particles were not inclined to form complex atoms before simple ones.

 

COBE and subsequent studies of the early universe have confirmed that it was about 98% hydrogen gas. But this was not perfectly distributed, there were denser areas and sparser areas.

Gravity does it's thing, and the denser areas got more dense as hydrogen from the sparser areas gave up what they had due to the weaker gravity there. As hydrogen collects in massive clouds , it's own gravity put the hydrogen at the core under tremendous pressure and atomic stress.

Ultimately this core of each dense spot would reach a point of thermonuclear ignition, giving rise to the first stars.

 

Within stars, both nuclear fission and nuclear fussion happens.

Fission is splitting apart atoms, fusion is building new ones with the leftover part of split atoms from fission. A hydrogen atom has 1 electron orbiting a nucleus of 1 proton and 1 neutron.

When that atom is split, energy is released, but some of the physical building blocks of that atom fly off on their own as free radicals. If a nearby hydrogen atom "catches" a stray electron, it's now an isotope, or heavy hydrogen - but the atom is unbalanced. It "wants" to be balanced, so this isotope is inclined to "catch" another neutron and another proton too. Once it does, it's no longer hydrogen, it's a whole other element - helium - #2 on the periodic table with unique properties all it's own.

If it happens again, helium can catch free radicals and become lithium, #3 on the periodic table.

And so on, up to about iron (Fe).

 

This process of making elements within a star is called neucleosynthesis.

It's a known and confirmed property of stars, they all do it.

 

The earliest stars were supermassive however, and had short lives compared to most stars we know today, like our own. Some of these early stars existed only 20 million years.

When they went through their supply of hydrogen, helium and so on up to iron

(a star's nuclear fire can not use elemental atoms heavier than iron as fuel)

it explodes as a supernova, or in the case of the universe's first stars, meganovas.

But whenever any star explodes, the energy released in that explosion

(which can be as bright as a whole galaxy) breaks the "iron barrier".

That explosion, a nova, can and does create every other element in the known universe,

all the way up the periodic table.

 

Stars, during their "lives" and even moreso in their "deaths", create all the other elements after hydrogen, and OUT of hydrogen.

 

If this process repeats often enough with billions of stars, the result is a broth (if you will) of elemental soup. When new stars are born of the resulting heavy element nebulae, they can have planetery systems in orbit, comprised of the heavy elements originally within that nebulae made from the death of older stars.

 

One you have planets in orbit around a stable star, the next step towards life as we know it is water. It's a super simple compound, a simple molecule that wants to form.

(It's chemically likely). Oxygen and hydrogen, two very common elements in the universe.

But for the chemistry of life as we know it to get going, that water must exist as a liquid somewhere. So the temperature on that planet has to SOMEWHERE in or on it be between 0 and 100 degres centegrade. (32 and 212 farenheight).

 

From that point, if there is energy available (lightning, solar energy, etc)

life is a matter of chemistry.

All those other materials laying around must (and likely will) include carbon, and carbon is the key for life as we know it. So many elements react to it, and it quickly forms long complex strings.

If the dance of chemistry has enough raw materials and time enough,

carbon strings can reach a point where the molecules self-replicate.

RNA and the more complex DNA are such carbon-based molecules.

 

A chain of DNA may or may not quality as "alive" anymore than fire does,

because fire self-replicates, feeds, grows, uses and creates energy, and dies.

But DNA is the most basic expression of all known life, and in it's slight variations come the myriad organisms on this planet from the microscopic to blue whales 100+ feet long.

 

So how does evolution work, anyway??

Life itself is the FIRST thing to change the conditions of it's arising in the first place.

Think about this for a moment...

The conditions right before the existence of the first life are inherently changed forever once that life exists; a new factor - LIFE - is now part of the surrounding conditions.

Life itself changes and affects it's own environment just by being there.

As life consumes energy from it's environment, it must find more and adapt.

 

As a side note here, I'd like to point out that no "loving" god would have created life this way, where every living thing on the planet (with the exception of the most basic photosynthetic plants and hydrogen-sulfide fueled organisms on the sea floor near volcanic vents) is utterly dependant on the DEATH of other living things so that it may continue living itself.

 

The competition for fuel (food) creates an arena for evolution, because if one competitor for food has an advantage over another, that advantage will likely cause that form of life to survive and reproduce faster, better and more often than competetors at a disadvantage.

And just when you think one form of life has all the advantages, random mutations that can and do happen in complex DNA or RNA chains can and do result in a version of life than has a better advantage. (As well as a shitload of failures and VERY disadvantaged lifeforms that go extinct).

 

Dance this dance on one planet orbiting a very stable star for about half a billion years,

and you can come up with what we have here on Earth, a varied mixed bag of wildly different creatures big and small. As amazing as all living life is, just remember that 99% of all the species of Earth life ever to have existed is now extinct.

 

*

 

Asking if all the religious explanations available now within the multicultural stew of humanity and all the religious explanations available in the past are "lies" could also be rephrased.

Perhaps I could say they were "hopeful assumptions", in lieu of a better explanation.

Human beings like to know what's going on, and if we can't understand something,

we tend to invent an explnation. What I typed above is all scientifically sound,

but this picture of the origins of life wasn't always available, and it may not yet be complete.

 

When human beings had NO awareness however of things like atoms, germs, what stars actually were, the nature of the universe, gravity, what orbits what, etc, we still wanted to know.

Our brains were just as complex as they are now, but the information wasn't there.

So... instead of settling for ignorance, the gods came into existence for us.

EVERYTHING that wasn't understood was attributed to the god/s or demon/s.

Thunder and lightning, birth, growth, disease, death, stars, the seasons, heat, everything.

But now, we know - not everything, we never will. But we know enough to answer your original question, and I hope I just did.

 

Peace , -Greg FNA

[Antlerman]

So how does evolution work, anyway??

Life itself is the FIRST thing to change the conditions of it's arising in the first place.

Think about this for a moment...

The conditions right before the existence of the first life are inherently changed forever once that life exists; a new factor - LIFE - is now part of the surrounding conditions.

Life itself changes and affects it's own environment just by being there.

As life consumes energy from it's environment, it must find more and adapt.

Great post FNA!

 

You know, I don't know what's with my mind today but I had this strange thought as I read the above: If the processes of the universe follows this sequence: Big Bang (explode) > creates simple elements> Stars form out of elements > Stars consume surrounding energy > Nova (explode)> Creates more complex Elements > Life Forms out of new Elements > Life consumes surrounding energy....

 

What follows? Will Life at some point also explode and create something new in this chain? Something to ponder in those mystic moments

[BuddhistCommunist]

There is no comprehensible creator. If there is a creator, its energy. Everything is energy, Energy is what makes everything possible. Without energy nothing would hold together, there would just be nothing so matter would be pointless. Energy is thought, movement, change... and everything. Energy is invaluable to everythings existence. Science is basically the study of everything?... energy is even your comprehension. PRAISE ENERGY!!! lol

peace,

BC

[Friendly neighborhood atheist]

Great post FNA!

 

You know, I don't know what's with my mind today but I had this strange thought as I read the above: If the processes of the universe follows this sequence: Big Bang (explode) > creates simple elements> Stars form out of elements > Stars consume surrounding energy > Nova (explode)> Creates more complex Elements > Life Forms out of new Elements > Life consumes surrounding energy....

 

What follows? Will Life at some point also explode and create something new in this chain? Something to ponder in those mystic moments.

 

Thank you Antlerman!

Ah, but there HAS BEEN an explosion of life on Earth! LOL

About 550 million years ago, the cambrian explosion.

Life as simple bacteria or mold or fungus or whatever

existed for about 3 billion years before that, but never developed much beyond that stage.

The, all of a sudden, inexplicably, 550 million years ago life exploded into

all kids of multicellular creatures from trilobites to eurpterids and even simple chordates.

There's your "explosion of life"!

[NotBlinded]

Then........there are the people like me that think this "Creator" is a natural part of everything. Bottom-up of natural processes as Antlerman says, yet instilled with a never-ending creation.

Ooo boy! Now that's something to ponder on NB I often look at that "nature" or "quality" or "characteristic" of life as existing for the sake of itself. It seems the entire purpose of Life is Life. The energy of Life is Life. That simple, that profound. There is no purpose except to exist, and that is its entire purpose and the whole universe to us. It seems we are on that river of Life's existance, so to speak, along for the ride and yet a part of what makes it - it.

 

Man, what did I have for lunch today??

YES!

 

It's wierd you just said that because spooch (I think) in the eithics thread just said that purpose and ethics can't be separated. I said the only purpose in life is the dance (of life) and to interfer with another person's dance that causes them to fall makes life a little less fun for both. I paraphrased myself...I didn't want to go back and see what I really said.

 

So, I think this person is right, profoundly right in the simplest terms. I don't know what s/he will makes of 'purpose' though.

 

Good munchies!

[Antlerman]

Thank you Antlerman!

Ah, but there HAS BEEN an explosion of life on Earth! LOL

About 550 million years ago, the cambrian explosion.

Life as simple bacteria or mold or fungus or whatever

existed for about 3 billion years before that, but never developed much beyond that stage.

The, all of a sudden, inexplicably, 550 million years ago life exploded into

all kids of multicellular creatures from trilobites to eurpterids and even simple chordates.

There's your "explosion of life"!

To clarify so as not get our creationist friends all excited here: There were simple animal life forms during the Precambrian period like sponges, flat worms, simple cnidarians, etc, which are identified by trails in the mud, rather that fossilized remains. But definitely there was an abrupt explosion of new animal life forms in the Cambrian period (abrupt in geological terms = 30 million years), where most of the basic body plans of modern life suddenly evolved. Theories about what sparked this "sudden" burst of evolution vary, such as higher oxygen levels, radiation, etc. but it's all very cool anyway. Life is cool.

[NotBlinded]

So how does evolution work, anyway??

Life itself is the FIRST thing to change the conditions of it's arising in the first place.

Think about this for a moment...

The conditions right before the existence of the first life are inherently changed forever once that life exists; a new factor - LIFE - is now part of the surrounding conditions.

Life itself changes and affects it's own environment just by being there.

As life consumes energy from it's environment, it must find more and adapt.

 

As a side note here, I'd like to point out that no "loving" god would have created life this way, where every living thing on the planet (with the exception of the most basic photosynthetic plants and hydrogen-sulfide fueled organisms on the sea floor near volcanic vents) is utterly dependant on the DEATH of other living things so that it may continue living itself.

I also like your post!

 

I just wanted to comment a little on what I believe. I think there is life in everything that you said. BC called it Energy, I and my daughter call it Life Energy. There is an 'essence' inside everything that IS the very thing itself. I hope that is making sense. It's just Life or Consciousness playing with forms.

 

Please don't take this wrong, but in your next paragraph I see judgements made based on the idea that life is non-continuous. Something that ceases. I don't see it as that. I see Life having no opposite. It is never-ending, IMO, so when something dies, it's Life Energy is not lost, but reused. We only view this 'feeding' on other life forms as bad because we view life as having an ending.

[Friendly neighborhood atheist]

Please don't take this wrong, but in your next paragraph I see judgements made based on the idea that life is non-continuous. Something that ceases. I don't see it as that. I see Life having no opposite. It is never-ending, IMO, so when something dies, it's Life Energy is not lost, but reused. We only view this 'feeding' on other life forms as bad because we view life as having an ending.

 

Hi, no offense taken at all, but please realize this is a belief, akin to religion.

There is a fatal flaw in your stated belief (hope?) that life energy continues on as never-ending.

Let me put it this way... (and this is just friendly respectful discourse)

 

I have a computer.

When powered and functioning, it is greater than the sum of it's parts.

But if it's still intact and assembled as it is now, when NOT functioning,

it is NOT more than the sun of it's parts, it's just a collection of stuf that does nothing

and takes up space.

 

If I smash my computer into tiny bits and spread them about my front lawn,

every single atom that made my functioning computer is still there,

but now there is no organization between it's component parts to facilitate it's function as a computer.

Everything that once made it a functioning computer is still there,

I can even plug in what's left of the power cord, but it's not going to work.

 

Our consciousness is the same way; facilitated by the brain, an organ kept alive by the body.

If the brain ins't powered (body died), the brain dies too, no more fuel or energy.

Even if all the neurons and tendrils and cells are still there that once facilitated awareness,

they are no longer functioning and are no longer greater than their sum.

 

It's very tempting to hope and believe that the complex organized patterns of energy

that are human consciousness will continue after that which made them possible in the first place is gone, but it's pure fantasy - said with the utmost respect.

Without a physical framework of interconnected brain cells,

consciousness can not contine. Perhaps (frighteningly) if we develop computer technology to the point where it can facilitate sentient thought, we *might* be able to transfer a human brain's connective pathways into such a computer, a`la Star Trek.

It's a LONG LONG way off if it ever happens at all,

but I won't say it's impossible.

I WILL however say it is impossible for biologically facillitated consciousness to continue without the biologic component that gave rise to it in the first place. A physical structure is needed.

Complex energy patterns that arise without a physical framework are another matter, but none are sentient that we know of. If a sentient pattern of pure energy comes along,

I'll be delighted (seriously!) to study it honestly and scientifically.

 

Life is precious indeed. I once read it described as a pillar of thought between two bookends of eternal oblivion. I think that about sums it up. Make the most of it!

 

-Greg FNA

 

Oh yeah, one more thing (sorry)...

 

Another flaw in the belief that life energy is never-ending is the fact that

life had a beginning - ALL Earth life.

So we must make an assumption as to where that life energy came from

before it inhabited the first bodies (microscopic or otherwise).

Is the source of life energy "god"? Oops, we're into religion again.

Is the source just other NON-life energy, somehow morphed into "life" energy?

This needs to be explained.

 

As more and more life appeared, where is this energy coming from?

The parallel between this and the age-old paradox of "where do babies' souls come from?" is clear.

And if too many babies are born, eventually one will be born without a soul, right?

(I know I'm putting words into your mouth, forgive me but I'm going somewhere with this)

There's the religion thing again, a child born without a soul (AKA "life energy").

Doesn't some sect of christianity believe this condition describes the end of days,

the antichrist, and armegeddon? LOL

I'm just tryingto point out that this is a slippery slope you're starting on,

it soulds all nice and harmless, hopeful and comforting, but these are the motivators of religion,

not of factual truth - which sometimes kicks our ass and isn't comforting at all.

 

Back to you, -Greg FNA

[NotBlinded]

Please don't take this wrong, but in your next paragraph I see judgements made based on the idea that life is non-continuous. Something that ceases. I don't see it as that. I see Life having no opposite. It is never-ending, IMO, so when something dies, it's Life Energy is not lost, but reused. We only view this 'feeding' on other life forms as bad because we view life as having an ending.

 

Hi, no offense taken at all, but please realize this is a belief, akin to religion.

There is a fatal flaw in your stated belief (hope?) that life energy continues on as never-ending.

Let me put it this way... (and this is just friendly respectful discourse)

 

I have a computer.

When powered and functioning, it is greater than the sum of it's parts.

But if it's still intact and assembled as it is now, when NOT functioning,

it is NOT more than the sun of it's parts, it's just a collection of stuf that does nothing

and takes up space.

 

If I smash my computer into tiny bits and spread them about my front lawn,

every single atom that made my functioning computer is still there,

but now there is no organization between it's component parts to facilitate it's function as a computer.

Everything that once made it a functioning computer is still there,

I can even plug in what's left of the power cord, but it's not going to work.

 

Our consciousness is the same way; facilitated by the brain, an organ kept alive by the body.

If the brain ins't powered (body died), the brain dies too, no more fuel or energy.

Even if all the neurons and tendrils and cells are still there that once facilitated awareness,

they are no longer functioning and are no longer greater than their sum.

 

It's very tempting to hope and believe that the complex organized patterns of energy

that are human consciousness will continue after that which made them possible in the first place is gone, but it's pure fantasy - said with the utmost respect.

Without a physical framework of interconnected brain cells,

consciousness can not contine. Perhaps (frighteningly) if we develop computer technology to the point where it can facilitate sentient thought, we *might* be able to transfer a human brain's connective pathways into such a computer, a`la Star Trek.

It's a LONG LONG way off if it ever happens at all,

but I won't say it's impossible.

I WILL however say it is impossible for biologically facillitated consciousness to continue without the biologic component that gave rise to it in the first place. A physical structure is needed.

Complex energy patterns that arise without a physical framework are another matter, but none are sentient that we know of. If a sentient pattern of pure energy comes along,

I'll be delighted (seriously!) to study it honestly and scientifically.

 

Life is precious indeed. I once read it described as a pillar of thought between two bookends of eternal oblivion. I think that about sums it up. Make the most of it!

 

-Greg FNA

I understand what you are saying...really I do. I was once there! But, it is not related to religion at all.

 

You are very educated, I can see that, so when you break your computer apart and claim that it is no longer greater than it's parts, can you see that you are the one ascribing a necessary function to it's parts? Yes, there is one. What is the function of the atoms themselves? Is there one? Yes... You are only looking on the surface of the matter (so to speak ).

 

Now, take consciousness. Yes, you can smash the brain, but are you saying that consciousness comes from the brain? Where did this brain come from? Is consciousness a complicated form of minerals or are minerals a rudimentary form of consciousness (as Alan Watts states)? Can consciousness come from unconscious things? Surely you're not saying that are you?

 

Maybe it's your understanding of consciousness that allows you to claim that it is impossible.

 

No offense of course....

 

Oh...I think we have about as much of a chance to study conscious energy as we do gravity. All we can see are the effects, not the cause.

[Open_Minded]

Ooo boy! Now that's something to ponder on NB I often look at that "nature" or "quality" or "characteristic" of life as existing for the sake of itself. It seems the entire purpose of Life is Life. The energy of Life is Life. That simple, that profound. There is no purpose except to exist, and that is its entire purpose and the whole universe to us. It seems we are on that river of Life's existance, so to speak, along for the ride and yet a part of what makes it - it.

 

Man, what did I have for lunch today??

 

......

 

(BuddhistCommunist) There is no comprehensible creator. If there is a creator, its energy. Everything is energy, Energy is what makes everything possible. Without energy nothing would hold together, there would just be nothing so matter would be pointless. Energy is thought, movement, change... and everything. Energy is invaluable to everythings existence. Science is basically the study of everything?... energy is even your comprehension. PRAISE ENERGY!!! lol

peace,

 

------

 

(NotBlinded...) I just wanted to comment a little on what I believe. I think there is life in everything that you said. BC called it Energy, I and my daughter call it Life Energy. There is an 'essence' inside everything that IS the very thing itself. I hope that is making sense. It's just Life or Consciousness playing with forms.

 

All of it together ... in the wonderous dance of consciousness, life, and LOVE/WISDOM.

 

LOVE is energy

 

Energy is thought .... Wisdom is energy

 

Yes ... all of your thoughts on this are right on target ... and yet .. none of us have a clue.

 

And the dance goes on.

[Friendly neighborhood atheist]

Where did the brain come from? Do you really want me to answer that? LOL

While I'm enjoying this, I have to state here and now that I'm sensing a very quasi-religious path that you're trying to take this discussion, and I respectfully won't start swapping "what if's".

Philosophy can be very valuable in a person's searce for his or her self,

and better understanding the perceptual awareness of others around them who hold different beliefs. But it can amount to mental masterbation as well.

I fear that's the direction it would take here, as both of us would quickly get off the facts and into the realm of mystical energy fields, their untestable origins as described only by logic (based on shaky ground at that) and you attempting to support how they go on intact or improved after the body's death, with me trying to debunk it.

 

Instead of going in that direction, how about if I ask you to provide something concrete as evidence that supports your contention that "life energy" goes on without the body.

I'm not trying to be argumentative or combative, really I'm not,

but this idea flies in the face of everything I know.

If you can put a thought in my head that's not there now that makes sense,

and is not in contradiction to what's i nthere now, and actually support that claim with logic or facts that I can understand, then truthfully I'll admit that you did!

[jrmarlin]

Really, to be honest, asking who 'our' creator is is like asking seventy different people who their favorite rock band is - and then expecting to get only one answer. The creator - so to speak - is subjective - and it is all based on your own personal belief system. I agree with FNA and Antlerman because I believe the big bang, then evolution -- But you may have different beliefs.

 

There is always a chance that some entity did start the big bang which led to evolution and so on. But who really knows. That's where faith comes in. And that's a prickly pringly thing here.

 

I do not believe in any of the Xian beliefs because they simply do not make any sense. We were born of incest? Yeah, right. We only came from 2 people period. Fat chance.

 

Really, you have to go within and search out what you believe. To put it to a public poll is a bit of a short cut to thinking for yourself. And really when it comes to questions like this, it's What Do You Believe that counts the most.

 

[Friendly neighborhood atheist]

Also, about this:

 

...when you break your computer apart and claim that it is no longer greater than it's parts, can you see that you are the one ascribing a necessary function to it's parts? Yes, there is one. What is the function of the atoms themselves? Is there one? Yes... You are only looking on the surface of the matter (so to speak ).

 

I don't see how the fact that I am the observer invalidates the observation.

A functioning computer, automobile or living organism is greater than the sum of it's parts, true or false? I say true. Are you saying false?

I say true, but this is based on MY ability to perceive that greater value than the sum of it's parts.

I doubt my parrot would think my computer is greater than the sum of it's parts,

nor would anyone who's never seen a computer or used one or is aware of it's abilities.

The computer itself doesn't care or know, whether it's a bunch of shattered parts on my lawn, sitting on my desk with the power off, or posting my thoughts as expressed in text typed by me on a keyboard on a virtual messageboard for you to read them.

Yes, I ascribe the value of a functioning computer, and deem it worthless (save some recyclable parts and materials) if it can not function.

 

But.. how does that have any bearing on what I said?

And how am I just "scratching the surface"?

This implies a deeper factual reality of which I am unaware.

So enlighten me!

FNA

[Antlerman]

FNA, I find a genuine kinship with you in looking at these questions in this light. Yet at the same time, there is and has been this strange dichotomy in myself between a rationalist materialist, and a pious atheist/romantic idealist. A part of me fully recognizes and highly values the rational breakdown of all the components of what makes things what they are, yet there is that side of me that reacts to life as a greater whole on a non-rational level.

 

My struggles have been in finding a way to both understand realistically and rationally the world around me, yet to experience the world as full of wonder – not just being amazed by its grandeur, but to breathe it into the very essence of who I am.

 

I abhor religious theology. I am deeply skeptical of quasi-scientific religious thought. I distrust any system of higher consciousness, whether justly or admittedly unjustly so. Cynically put, my “fool’s quest” is to find the synthesis of rational thought and what I call metaphysically – Life.

 

I value rational, scientific understanding in the pursuit of philosophical thought as a tool to dispense of all manner of fanciful pink-unicorn notions. I value rational, scientific thought to deepen my appreciation of what makes everything what it is: If I wish to love someone, knowing them for who they are it makes it a meaningful relationship. How many times have all of us in the past “loved” someone because we saw them for what we wanted them to be, and not who they really were? This is how I see the ignorance of religion, the blindness of quasi-scientific new age rhetoric, and the baseless, wishful thinking of magic pink-unicorns and leprechauns.

 

So what am I saying? I continue to say that “faith” or in other terms “our desire for meaning” is driven by our reaction to life. It is in fact based in a rational understanding of why we desire meaning, but this does not address the experience of it. I guess the question is as I have brought up many times in the past, do we need to divorce ourselves from rational thought to experience life? I have come to accept that, yes; sometimes we just have to choose to experience Life beyond the rational. But where I close ranks with how I’m assuming how you feel, is that trying to explain these things using the language of science and rationality fails to inspire. They are not quantifiable, and to attempt to do so only serves to distract from its value.

 

I’ll leave it at that for now, as this day has been an odd one and I have no idea how cohesive that all was….

[Friendly neighborhood atheist]

Hi Antlerman,

Wow that's a post I really want to respond to, and do it justice.

 

I can sense right away you and I have a lot in common,

though we've only begun to know eachother and even then only as text on a screen.

 

Choosinge to experience life beyond the rational is FUN if done right!

My MAN, you're speaking my language!

That's why we fantasize about the cute blonde we never got to boink in the 12th grade.

That's why we go to the movies and watch TV (most of the time).

That's why we like to have a drink or a smoke now and then...

and I'm not necessarilly talking about putting cash in Phillip Morris' pockets. LOL

That's why we play video games.

Etc, etc.

 

If cold hard reality strikes you as cold and hard, (it sure does me that way sometimes),

any failure to be inspired is on YOU. And on ME. And anyone else who is unsatisfied

by the reality of our existence, which is at least a little up to us!

I saw a bumper sticker once that said

"THE MEANING OF LIFE IS TO GET ONE".

It made a big impression.

 

Sure, not all of us humans (or other critters too) are lucky enough to have a degree of control over our reality, but I would assume on solid ground that youand I do.

As the faggy actor says, "What's my motivation"?

You and I have to ask that question, so does everyone.

Christians, in my firmest of opinions, are motivated out of ignornace, hope and fear.

(Superstition to the Nth degree).

If you want to be inspired, be inspired!!

But don't turn your back on facts or think there has to be more,

MAKE the "more" and enjoy it. One does not have to delude themselves to be an atheist, agnostic, or even a general deist and enjoy life, and feel they've lived a rich full one when it's over.

 

"Non-rational" is GREAT, if we do it right, and stay grounded enough to always remember it IS non-rational, recognizing it apart and opposite to rational, which has it's place too.

Damn man, I'm no Mr. Spock - all logic, science, reason, blah blah blah.

Believe me, I've got a healthy fantasy life and enjoy good fiction of many genres.

 

So in a nutshell, when it gets too real, calm down - have some dip. (George Carlin)

Life isn't about death my friend, it's about LIFE. So live it without worrying too much about what happens when it's over, because once we reach that point, you won't know it anyways.

 

 

Back to the inspiration (watching "24", but i HAD to respond man!) -Greg FNA

[cathuria]

'scuse me for buttin' in... but I read an article recently that FNA might be interested in...

In Science News (Feb 11, '06; vol 169 #6), the article "Self-Serve Brains" by Bruce Bower relates some pertinent studies in the brain and our sense of self.

 

The article examines several people who suffered damage to certain portions of the right hemisphere of their brain; all these people suffered various fractures in their self-awareness. Some of them classically identified themselves as other people, or believed family members to be strangers, or identified strangers as family members. But much more interesting were the people who lost only parts of their sense of self. Some lost the ability to recognize their own control of their arms, believing them to be controlled by someone else, for they were unable to recognize their movements as something they had in fact decided upon.

 

In other cases, people thought their limbs were actually part of other people, or in some cases thought they were not any living thing at all and merely inexplicably attached to the rest of the body.

 

Although the article does not speak of the more transcendant issues, the conclusion seems unavoidable: our very sense of self is a mere electrochemical function of the brain. Our identities and our self-awareness are a matter of neurons and chemical balances.

 

Which also suggests an answer to NBBTB:

 

Can consciousness come from unconscious things?

 

The answer seems clear to me, and it is a resounding "yes".

Consciousness is a biological function. Like seeing, feeling, breathing, and farting, it is all part of the same package... some parts just have better publicists.

[NotBlinded]

Where did the brain come from? Do you really want me to answer that? LOL

While I'm enjoying this, I have to state here and now that I'm sensing a very quasi-religious path that you're trying to take this discussion, and I respectfully won't start swapping "what if's".

Philosophy can be very valuable in a person's searce for his or her self,

and better understanding the perceptual awareness of others around them who hold different beliefs. But it can amount to mental masterbation as well.

I fear that's the direction it would take here, as both of us would quickly get off the facts and into the realm of mystical energy fields, their untestable origins as described only by logic (based on shaky ground at that) and you attempting to support how they go on intact or improved after the body's death, with me trying to debunk it.

 

Instead of going in that direction, how about if I ask you to provide something concrete as evidence that supports your contention that "life energy" goes on without the body.

I'm not trying to be argumentative or combative, really I'm not,

but this idea flies in the face of everything I know.

If you can put a thought in my head that's not there now that makes sense,

and is not in contradiction to what's i nthere now, and actually support that claim with logic or facts that I can understand, then truthfully I'll admit that you did!

I agree and I really don't want to argue. I can respect what you believe (or understand or whatever you want to call it). It's fine with me.

 

The only evidence I can provide is that 'life energy' is transformed every time you take a bite of food. Blame Eienstien, not me.

 

Oh...I don't ever recall saying that they go on improved or intact. That is an assumption made on your part and probably what you are accustomed to hearing from the 'religious'. I can understand that because I do it too.

 

Maybe we can get to know each other?

[NotBlinded]

Also, about this:

 

...when you break your computer apart and claim that it is no longer greater than it's parts, can you see that you are the one ascribing a necessary function to it's parts? Yes, there is one. What is the function of the atoms themselves? Is there one? Yes... You are only looking on the surface of the matter (so to speak ).

 

I don't see how the fact that I am the observer invalidates the observation.

A functioning computer, automobile or living organism is greater than the sum of it's parts, true or false? I say true. Are you saying false?

I say true, but this is based on MY ability to perceive that greater value than the sum of it's parts.

I doubt my parrot would think my computer is greater than the sum of it's parts,

nor would anyone who's never seen a computer or used one or is aware of it's abilities.

The computer itself doesn't care or know, whether it's a bunch of shattered parts on my lawn, sitting on my desk with the power off, or posting my thoughts as expressed in text typed by me on a keyboard on a virtual messageboard for you to read them.

Yes, I ascribe the value of a functioning computer, and deem it worthless (save some recyclable parts and materials) if it can not function.

 

But.. how does that have any bearing on what I said?

And how am I just "scratching the surface"?

This implies a deeper factual reality of which I am unaware.

So enlighten me!

FNA

No...it doesn't invalidate what you said at all. I say true indeed. I didn't state that very well...I apologize. What I meant was that the atoms of the broken pieces of the computer have a function too. They form and bond together in order to form the plastic or metal or whatever element is there. This is what I meant by my pun of "scratching the surface of the matter." I know, it was pretty corny! It may appear random to you, and that is fine, but to me, it appears that molecules have a definite function...to form forms (or what appear to be forms). This is what I meant by observing only the effects, not the cause when I equated it to gravity. I also think that all these parts, from the atoms to the greatest forms in the universe are all "parts" and that there is something that is greater than its parts. I don't know what it is other than life energy, laws of nature, or whatever. But we are a part of it, IMO.

 

Oh by the way...nice to meet ya!