Who's Our Creater?

[NotBlinded]

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.

I don't deny that our sense of self comes from the brain. What I say is that who we are is not who we identify with. These people that 'see' their arms on other people are still the awareness that is observing this happening. I say we are consciousness or awareness before any form of identity at all.

 

Thank you though, but that doesn't change my intuitions about what I am. I don't equate 'being' with any form of self-concepts or identity. So, when I die, I go back to this 'being-ness' without any sense of who I was before because I am not my form, IMO. So yes, one can say that when the brain dies, their identity dies also. I believe this too.

[Friendly neighborhood atheist]

Nice to meet you too! *virtual handshake*

 

Ok, looks we simply had a bit of an "inadequate language" moment there.

Now that I think I understand your comment better,

I'll try and respond to it again. Hopefully by doing so, you'll understand my itty bitty objection to that line of reasoning.

(This is small potatoes stuff, I just want to make my point clear since I failed to do so the first time).

 

Yes, the atoms have a "purpose" even without being structured into the component parts of my computer, but I wouldn't use the word "purpose". I would say "property".

Each element has unique properties, as I'm sure you know.

If you break the human body down into it's component compound molecules,

or further still to our component atoms that make those compounds,

you get some hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, iron, nitrogen, calcium, zinc, and a few others.

I can go get exactly the same stuff and in the exact same amounts, but nothing I can do will make it a person. This is where a religious person says that "god breathes life into the dust".

This is where a rationalist says "given enough time, evolution can, from the bottom up, evolve creatures leading to us using the chemical properties of these elements".

 

One view assumes magic.

The other strives to gather, understand and combine facts.

 

While the atoms in my computer have properties, ("purposes") forming complex compounds, (some of which are human creations like plastic) it is the structure, the way in which they are arranged, that allows them to be a functioning computer. As such, the SUM of their totality has a NEW property ("purpose") that was not there before.

Life can be viewed in exactly the same way.

 

But this is the point, the matter provides the structure through which that energy can facilitate, in the case of our computer model, software; and in the case of a sentient being, consciousness.

From there, we can argue what consciousness is - after all, you and I would probably agree that a squirrel isn't sentient, but I guarantee you they have emotions.

So do parakeets, dogs, cats, etc etc. But then what are emotions? What is emotional awareness?

Certainly chemical on some level, and instinctual on another. Drawing the line between chemical reaction and instinct and sentient emotional awareness is probably impossible.

It's like trying to draw the line in a rainbow between red and orange.

 

All materials, all elements, have properties, but ascribing a "purpose" to them,

unless they were directly created by us, or other known sentient beings, (none known so far!) is linguistic assumption.

These unique elemental properties are functions of the universe and how it formed,

and the structure of the atom or up from there the molecule.

Of course, quantum mechanics would be the tool to probe the properties of the subatomic.

But how specific do I have to get? LOL

 

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).

 

Where did I ever say that atomic properties are "random"?

The properties of each are fixed and immutable, without changing the atom itself or the laws of physics. "Forming forms" as you put it, is called atomic chemistry.

Think about this for a minute:

EVERYTHING in the universe works on three simple concepts.

YES, NO, NEUTRAL.

Rephrased: "Positive, Negative, Neural".

Things both galactic and quantum either attract, repel, or don't notice eachother.

 

Everything else is just degrees of the above.

Within the unique properties of each atom are how it will react to other elements.

If that is what you mean by their "purpose", then you must identify who or what gave them that purpose. I hope you see my objection; the language you employed makes an assumption that is quasi-religious. Speaking of quasi-religious language...

 

So, when I die, I go back to this 'being-ness' without any sense of who I was before because I am not my form, IMO.

 

How about this non-spooky rephrasing of the same sentiment?

(Tell me if you approve)

 

"So, when I die, all the stuff that makes my body will return to the universe from which it came.

I will go back to being just the stuff that made me, the atoms and molecules, and they will disperse.

I will not have any consciousness, I will not be aware of anything, AKA oblivion, as the matter that made my body will lose the structure and ability to use biochemical energy to facilitate life and consciousness. I will be without any sense of anything because I am not _______"

 

I have NO idea what to do with the "I am not my form" line. LOL

If you're not your form, what the hell are you??

FREAK!! KILL IT!! KILL IT!!! AAAA!!!! (J/K)

 

Yes, Yes, I know what you meant - you're trying to say you're more than what I would see before me if we met. But at least recognize this is a religious comment.

Agreed?

[NotBlinded]

funny and smart stuff here...

HA! I like you!

 

You know language is nothing but forms used to express the formless and in the process, the understanding gets lost.

 

I am not my form anymore than what the words (forms) used to describe what I am is what I am. Chew on that one for awhile!

 

I will never, ever, ever, ever admit to being religious. I am spiritual...and don't forget it! Well, I may admit it if you will. Doesn't it take a leap of faith to assume that something comes from nothing? Consciousness from unconsciousness? I'm just poking at ya here. No need to answer because we all have faith that who we are is based on the stories of our lives. Okay...okay...I'll stop!

[Antlerman]

Doesn't it take a leap of faith to assume that something comes from nothing? Consciousness from unconsciousness? I'm just poking at ya here. No need to answer because we all have faith that who we are is based on the stories of our lives. Okay...okay...I'll stop!

Ok, I'm jumping in again. This appears to be getting at the heart of what my knee-jerk has been all along. I'm with you in experiencing the grander sense of meaning on an emotional/spiritual level that seems to require a leap of faith into the transcendent, so to speak. But the language being used has always caused me problems. It sounds like you are saying almost the same thing as the Christian with a different language, that we "assume that something comes from nothing," or "consciousness from unconsciousness". This is the classic Watchmaker argument:

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there.

____________________________

 

Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.

 

I do not view accepting what science can demonstrate as requiring any leap of faith whatsoever. The term leap of faith means to leap beyond reason into the upper story experience of non-reason. That is the meaning of faith. "Something from nothing" is a false argument with no basis in science, to make science appear equally based on faith. It's an invalid argument.

 

Is a "leap of faith" for religious experience wrong, I've rhetorically asked a million times. No, except when it tries to pawn itself off as equally as tangible as science on a scientific level, or tries to equate itself with how science operates in the human experience. Why does it feel this need to compete??

[Friendly neighborhood atheist]

You're spiritual, but not religious.

 

(Smiling as I type this, poking back)

I NEVER said that something can come from nothing.

I don't believe that because it's illogical. (Stop picturing me with Spock ears dammit)

Give me an example of where you assumed that I stated or implied that something came from nothing and I'll address it.

 

Consciousness from unconsciousness is no problem for me however, because it happens every time a brain is formed in utero. (No test tube brains or sentient computers so far).

Complex patterns come from simpler ones all the time.

Snowflakes are nothing more than water freezing as it's passing through atmosphere & dust. And snowflakes are AMAZINGLY intricate, no two are exactly alike.

Crystals form with amazing complexity from the cooling of various elements and compounds.

Two STUPID people can fuck and produce a genius. LOL

 

Some creationists have tried to use the second law of thermal dynamics to argue that evolution couldn't have happend, bottom up increasing complexity because (as the law states) all things within a closed system are in decline [sic: breaking down].

Trouble is, the Earth isn't a closed system, it's part of a larger dynamic system,

fueled by solar radiation, it's own geological forces, the moon's gravity, and even our solar system isn't a closed system, nor is our galaxy. The only true "closed system" is the universe itself,

and it's lifespan is SO huge and it's properties SO vast that we can not measure whether it is in ascension or decline, though we can speculate.

 

I've already explained how (without any "leap of faith") life can arise from lifelessness.

As for the Big Bang being "something from nothing", something caused it, not nothing.

But there is nothing to observe, nothing to test or experiment upon from "before" the Big Bang (a meaningless phrase because time itself is a dimentional property of this universe and began with the Big Bang).

So discusing the cause of the Big Bang really can't happen unitl there is a working T.O.E.

(Theory of Everything, unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics).

Saying "it was God" is a cop out, an assumption, religion at it's most basic expression;

it's ascribing what we don't know to magic and gods. What these people don't seem to grasp is that it's ONE step to explain the universe and Big Bang, but it's TWO steps to explain the "God" that they think caused it.

 

If they can say "God was always there", why not asy the universe was always there?

(In some form or other, even if it were as small as an atom).

For 20 years I've held the view that the Big Bang was a re-arrangement on the quantum level of the entire universe in one instant- and for everything to be rearranged (or affected in ANY way) , there can be no distance beteen anything. Distance creates time lag, even at the speed of light, one thing may only affect another limited to the distance between them.

 

If the sun were to vanish right this second, we wouldn't know it for 8 minutes.

Earth would still orbit the sun that wan't there for 8 more minutes.

We'd see it in the sky for 8 more minutes.

And that's just the distance between one star and it's 3rd planet.

For everything in this solar system to be affected by one event instantaneously, there can be NO SPACE between things. Not even across the surface of ONE planet.

So nothing can have structure, nothing can have unique properties.

There can be no elements, no atoms, no differentiation between anything.

The Big Bang was, therefore, everything that is, affected by a singular event simultaneously, and thus occupied ONE point in space-time, if only for an instant.

 

This is not a leap of faith, this is a process of logic.

Ok, I'm going to toot my own horn and share something I never intended to.

I can't type worth a shit, I make tons of typos.

But I'm one of the guys who will continue the work of men like Carl Sagan and Dr. Hawking.

I've met Sagan and conversed with Hawking. The above comments about the Big Bang are my own, I say that now because if you ever read Hawking's next paper, it will sound like I plagiarized him.

 

The truth is I shared this with him about 6 years ago and he had never thought of that before.

I shit you not, something that I said was news to Dr. Stephen Hawking.

He's been batting it around for awhile with the other well-known in the field,

and I told him to run with it.

My IQ is 146. His is well over 200. I'm 36 years old, he's about 65.

I'm an unknown, enthusiastic amateur, he's... well... Dr. Stephen Hawking.

I'm not the guy to carry that thought to fruition, he is.

I'm a thinker, a lateral-thinker, big-picture guy. Math is NOT my strongsuit. LOL

You'll never see me on the 20 foot chalkboard.

But it looks like little ol' me may have been the first human being ever to, as you said,

"scratch the surface" a little depper than before regarding the Big Bang theory.

One litte piece of the puzzle, found by me. You bet your ass I'm proud of that.

 

SSsshhhh.. I'm not saying any more on that subject or dropping any more names! LOL

[All Gods Fail]

I do not view accepting what science can demonstrate as requiring any leap of faith whatsoever. The term leap of faith means to leap beyond reason into the upper story experience of non-reason. That is the meaning of faith. "Something from nothing" is a false argument with no basis in science, to make science appear equally based on faith. It's an invalid argument.

 

Is a "leap of faith" for religious experience wrong, I've rhetorically asked a million times. No, except when it tries to pawn itself off as equally as tangible as science on a scientific level, or tries to equate itself with how science operates in the human experience. Why does it feel this need to compete??

 

Right on, Antlerman! I'm with you 110% on this.

 

Faith is faith, and reason is reason. It's 2 different things. If faith doesn't discount (or completely ignore) reason, it isn't faith!

 

Reason depends on facts, evidence and logic. Ex: if the Earth is actually billions of years old, and we evolved from lower life forms, then the literal story of creation in Genesis cannot be true.

 

If you still believe literally in Genesis, then you believe because of faith. Reality is unimportant.

 

And if you feel a need to 'prove' your faith by way of reason, you have no faith. You're letting reason dictate terms of faith to you.

[NotBlinded]

Yes, the atoms have a "purpose" even without being structured into the component parts of my computer, but I wouldn't use the word "purpose". I would say "property".

Each element has unique properties, as I'm sure you know.

If you break the human body down into it's component compound molecules,

or further still to our component atoms that make those compounds,

you get some hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, iron, nitrogen, calcium, zinc, and a few others.

I can go get exactly the same stuff and in the exact same amounts, but nothing I can do will make it a person. This is where a religious person says that "god breathes life into the dust".

This is where a rationalist says "given enough time, evolution can, from the bottom up, evolve creatures leading to us using the chemical properties of these elements".

 

One view assumes magic.

The other strives to gather, understand and combine facts.

 

While the atoms in my computer have properties, ("purposes") forming complex compounds, (some of which are human creations like plastic) it is the structure, the way in which they are arranged, that allows them to be a functioning computer. As such, the SUM of their totality has a NEW property ("purpose") that was not there before.

Life can be viewed in exactly the same way.

Oh yeah...I did want to address your post more.

 

Why stop at "the SUM of their totality has a NEW property ("purpose") that was not there before."? Is it because we can't understand the GREATER purpose of totality? Can it not be understood as everything that exists is arranged in such a way to serve this GREATER purpose? Is it because we can't see the cause? I believe in the TOE. I believe in the laws of nature. But, I also understand that the laws of nature are studied by observing their effects. We can never observe their cause. What is the cause of chemicals having unique properties? Don't tell me they just are, because that is the religious person's excuse for god...he just is. hehehe

 

All materials, all elements, have properties, but ascribing a "purpose" to them,

unless they were directly created by us, or other known sentient beings, (none known so far!) is linguistic assumption.

These unique elemental properties are functions of the universe and how it formed,

and the structure of the atom or up from there the molecule.

Of course, quantum mechanics would be the tool to probe the properties of the subatomic.

But how specific do I have to get? LOL

 

Where did I ever say that atomic properties are "random"?

The properties of each are fixed and immutable, without changing the atom itself or the laws of physics. "Forming forms" as you put it, is called atomic chemistry.

Think about this for a minute:

EVERYTHING in the universe works on three simple concepts.

YES, NO, NEUTRAL.

Rephrased: "Positive, Negative, Neural".

Things both galactic and quantum either attract, repel, or don't notice eachother.

 

Everything else is just degrees of the above.

Within the unique properties of each atom are how it will react to other elements.

If that is what you mean by their "purpose", then you must identify who or what gave them that purpose. I hope you see my objection; the language you employed makes an assumption that is quasi-religious.

I see your objection...can you see mine? What is the cause of the laws of the universe? You are telling me the effects, so I think it is up to you to tell me who or what is the cause, don't you think? Is the universe the cause behind every form? I have no problem with calling it "The Universe".

 

Speaking of quasi-religious language...

 

So, when I die, I go back to this 'being-ness' without any sense of who I was before because I am not my form, IMO.

 

How about this non-spooky rephrasing of the same sentiment?

(Tell me if you approve)

 

"So, when I die, all the stuff that makes my body will return to the universe from which it came.

I will go back to being just the stuff that made me, the atoms and molecules, and they will disperse.

I will not have any recollection, I will not be aware of any prior form, AKA oblivion to identification with form, as the matter that made my body will lose the structure and ability to use biochemical energy to facilitate my form. I will be the formless being of pure energy.

Almost....I made a few changes to your quote.

 

 

 

Doesn't it take a leap of faith to assume that something comes from nothing? Consciousness from unconsciousness? I'm just poking at ya here. No need to answer because we all have faith that who we are is based on the stories of our lives. Okay...okay...I'll stop!

Ok, I'm jumping in again. This appears to be getting at the heart of what my knee-jerk has been all along. I'm with you in experiencing the grander sense of meaning on an emotional/spiritual level that seems to require a leap of faith into the transcendent, so to speak. But the language being used has always caused me problems. It sounds like you are saying almost the same thing as the Christian with a different language, that we "assume that something comes from nothing," or "consciousness from unconsciousness". This is the classic Watchmaker argument:

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there.

____________________________

 

Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.

 

I do not view accepting what science can demonstrate as requiring any leap of faith whatsoever. The term leap of faith means to leap beyond reason into the upper story experience of non-reason. That is the meaning of faith. "Something from nothing" is a false argument with no basis in science, to make science appear equally based on faith. It's an invalid argument.

 

Is a "leap of faith" for religious experience wrong, I've rhetorically asked a million times. No, except when it tries to pawn itself off as equally as tangible as science on a scientific level, or tries to equate itself with how science operates in the human experience. Why does it feel this need to compete??

Antlerman...I understand the arguement. I was poking fun at my new friend is all. I'm glad I did...I just looked below while I was posting this and read what he tooted....ummm....I mean said!

[Antlerman]

I knew there was a reason you grabbed my attention! So, does Hawking give any credit to you anwhere, or is this not something that he would attribute to others without there having been papers, etc? Just curious. Wow, if you think about it, you may have been the pebble that, for one thing, brings an end to yet one more fallaciaous arguement the Creationists try to stick God into. The gaps for the God of the Gaps are closing fast!

 

Footnote: This converstation originally started by Ricky18 asking the question about origins and God. He seemed unaware of Evolution, as I believe he for some reason has never been exposed to this in his home somewhere in Africa? (Shocking, actually - thank you so much Church)! So Ricky, if you're still reading this, is this shedding some new light to the question for you? Kind of more than you bargined for, I'm assuming!

[Friendly neighborhood atheist]

notblindedbytheblight:

 

I like you and enjoy swapping thoughts with you here.

I say this next part with all due respect;

you're barking up the wrong tree trying to convince me that there is ANY validity whatsoever to "spirituality" in any form.

All the perception we have about the universe around is is dependant on a living brain,

no matter how diseased, dysfunctional, injured or drugged it is. It still has to be alive.

Your comments are putting my bullshit meter into the red (I still love you),

and smacks of reincarnation. Were you a hindu in another life? LOL

 

You prove my point when you altered my alteration of your original quote to read, in part:

 

I will be the formless being of pure energy

 

No, you will not be a "being" by any descrition of "being" that can be accepted bya rational person.

This is pure religion, spirituality, belief without basis in any fact or property of the universe.

If it gets you through your life happier, I wish you a happy delusion.

I don't mean to be insulting, sorry I know it's coming off that way,

but suddenly talking to you is reminding me of all the times I've tried to talk sense into a christian zealot. They have their comforting delusional fantasy, and it's starting to look like you have yours.

If i had to choose between your mostly rational non-christian magic and theirs,

I'd spend my eternity as pure energy with you anyday bro.

 

Antlerman:

Will I get credit if Hawking ever feels that idea is worthy of publication? Maybe, but it's not an agreement. I literally turned everything I had over to him and told him to run with it. My exact words. My interest is in advancing human understanding, not being famous or raised socially to some status of approval. (But I admit to having pride in my work).

I'm bigtime small potatoes, a background player.

But my ideas are getting some attention, and that's cool.

Some of the stuff I've come up with has been completely shot down, LOL, so I'm a work in progress.

 

The best part of my brainstorm was about the necessity of zero distance and no unique properties for the Big Bang to happen. Gravity is a function of the universe in it's current arrangement, so this singularity (the "seed" of the Big Bang) had no gravity so it was NOT a black hole, despite having all the totality of the universe in a single point of both space and at the beginning of time.

Without gravity it could inflate like a bubble,

but shortly thereafter gravity would come about as matter differentiated from energy.

The exact instant where gravity comes into play could be the explanation of how our universe expanded at JUST the right speed. To the 15th decimal place in either direction faster and galaxies would never form, matter could not coalesce, and if to the 15th decimal place slower and everything would have collapsed back in on itself.

As things expanded away from eachother, the lag time of interaction became a factor too,

that lag time being the speed of light as alluded to above.

[NotBlinded]

You're spiritual, but not religious.

 

(Smiling as I type this, poking back)

I NEVER said that something can come from nothing.

I don't believe that because it's illogical. (Stop picturing me with Spock ears dammit)

Give me an example of where you assumed that I stated or implied that something came from nothing and I'll address it.

Would you please stop assuming that I am assuming? I just assumed that this was the case because of your lack of desire to see life in the 'lifeless'.

 

Consciousness from unconsciousness is no problem for me however, because it happens every time a brain is formed in utero. (No test tube brains or sentient computers so far).

Complex patterns come from simpler ones all the time.

Yes, they do. In my understanding, I just happen to see parts of this complex pattern in the simpler ones. Such as a rudementary form of consciousness in minerals that forms a more complex form of consciousness. This ranges from the simplest form to the greatest form, whatever that may be. I don't want to remove anything that makes the totality from it's parts. This would be like removing carbon from a diamond, IMO.

 

Snowflakes are nothing more than water freezing as it's passing through atmosphere & dust. And snowflakes are AMAZINGLY intricate, no two are exactly alike.

Crystals form with amazing complexity from the cooling of various elements and compounds.

Two STUPID people can fuck and produce a genius. LOL

And yet the little sperms swim all by themselves.

 

Some creationists have tried to use the second law of thermal dynamics to argue that evolution couldn't have happend, bottom up increasing complexity because (as the law states) all things within a closed system are in decline [sic: breaking down].

Trouble is, the Earth isn't a closed system, it's part of a larger dynamic system,

fueled by solar radiation, it's own geological forces, the moon's gravity, and even our solar system isn't a closed system, nor is our galaxy. The only true "closed system" is the universe itself,

and it's lifespan is SO huge and it's properties SO vast that we can not measure whether it is in ascension or decline, though we can speculate.

Yes, I am familiar with the old 2nd law they use. I studied that to see if they have any leg to stand on and then I noticed a bunch of them hopping around on one leg!

 

I've already explained how (without any "leap of faith") life can arise from lifelessness.

See...my assumptions are going off again!

 

As for the Big Bang being "something from nothing", something caused it, not nothing.

But there is nothing to observe, nothing to test or experiment upon from "before" the Big Bang (a meaningless phrase because time itself is a dimentional property of this universe and began with the Big Bang).

I read a lot of Quentin Smith's papers and essays and I think that he would agree with you.

 

So discusing the cause of the Big Bang really can't happen unitl there is a working T.O.E.

(Theory of Everything, unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics).

Saying "it was God" is a cop out, an assumption, religion at it's most basic expression;

it's ascribing what we don't know to magic and gods. What these people don't seem to grasp is that it's ONE step to explain the universe and Big Bang, but it's TWO steps to explain the "God" that they think caused it.

 

If they can say "God was always there", why not asy the universe was always there?

(In some form or other, even if it were as small as an atom).

For 20 years I've held the view that the Big Bang was a re-arrangement on the quantum level of the entire universe in one instant- and for everything to be rearranged (or affected in ANY way) , there can be no distance beteen anything. Distance creates time lag, even at the speed of light, one thing may only affect another limited to the distance between them.

 

If the sun were to vanish right this second, we wouldn't know it for 8 minutes.

Earth would still orbit the sun that wan't there for 8 more minutes.

We'd see it in the sky for 8 more minutes.

And that's just the distance between one star and it's 3rd planet.

For everything in this solar system to be affected by one event instantaneously, there can be NO SPACE between things. Not even across the surface of ONE planet.

So nothing can have structure, nothing can have unique properties.

There can be no elements, no atoms, no differentiation between anything.

The Big Bang was, therefore, everything that is, affected by a singular event simultaneously, and thus occupied ONE point in space-time, if only for an instant.

 

This is not a leap of faith, this is a process of logic.

I agree. But why is it a leap of faith for me to say basically what you are saying? When you say this, "So nothing can have structure, nothing can have unique properties.

There can be no elements, no atoms, no differentiation between anything.

The Big Bang was, therefore, everything that is, affected by a singular event simultaneously, and thus occupied ONE point in space-time, if only for an instant." Can this be the Cause, the Formless, the Totality of the parts? Where is my leap? In case you were wondering...I don't worship that from which I was formed.

 

Ok, I'm going to toot my own horn and share something I never intended to.

I can't type worth a shit, I make tons of typos.

But I'm one of the guys who will continue the work of men like Carl Sagan and Dr. Hawking.

I've met Sagan and conversed with Hawking. The above comments about the Big Bang are my own, I say that now because if you ever read Hawking's next paper, it will sound like I plagiarized him.

 

The truth is I shared this with him about 6 years ago and he had never thought of that before.

I shit you not, something that I said was news to Dr. Stephen Hawking.

He's been batting it around for awhile with the other well-known in the field,

and I told him to run with it.

My IQ is 146. His is well over 200. I'm 36 years old, he's about 65.

I'm an unknown, enthusiastic amateur, he's... well... Dr. Stephen Hawking.

I'm not the guy to carry that thought to fruition, he is.

I'm a thinker, a lateral-thinker, big-picture guy. Math is NOT my strongsuit. LOL

You'll never see me on the 20 foot chalkboard.

But it looks like little ol' me may have been the first human being ever to, as you said,

"scratch the surface" a little depper than before regarding the Big Bang theory.

One litte piece of the puzzle, found by me. You bet your ass I'm proud of that.

 

SSsshhhh.. I'm not saying any more on that subject or dropping any more names! LOL

Toot all you want! My IQ is only 138 so indeed there is a lot I can learn to. But, there is more to intelligence than understanding forms and the logic involved with differentiation, IMO.

 

I have had fun and I do look forward to learning much more about you.

 

I hope I haven't pissed anyone off too much in these forums because I see many of you as friends in cyberspace. But, I learn a great deal from interactions such as these. I apologize to you Antlerman...I really don't want to cause you any stress.

 

 

notblindedbytheblight:

 

I like you and enjoy swapping thoughts with you here.

I say this next part with all due respect;

you're barking up the wrong tree trying to convince me that there is ANY validity whatsoever to "spirituality" in any form.

All the perception we have about the universe around is is dependant on a living brain,

no matter how diseased, dysfunctional, injured or drugged it is. It still has to be alive.

Your comments are putting my bullshit meter into the red (I still love you),

and smacks of reincarnation. Were you a hindu in another life? LOL

 

You prove my point when you altered my alteration of your original quote to read, in part:

 

I will be the formless being of pure energy

 

No, you will not be a "being" by any descrition of "being" that can be accepted bya rational person.

This is pure religion, spirituality, belief without basis in any fact or property of the universe.

If it gets you through your life happier, I wish you a happy delusion.

I don't mean to be insulting, sorry I know it's coming off that way,

but suddenly talking to you is reminding me of all the times I've tried to talk sense into a christian zealot. They have their comforting delusional fantasy, and it's starting to look like you have yours.

If i had to choose between your mostly rational non-christian magic and theirs,

I'd spend my eternity as pure energy with you anyday bro.

Sweetheart...I am not trying to convince you of anything anymore than you are trying to convince me of anything.

 

Please, don't look down on me because of what one word reminds you of. You see being as being a being, whereas I see being as the essence, energy, or what-the-fuck-ever word. I don't see it as a grand ole sky daddy that is all knowing and all powerful. It is the freakin' energy of the universe. I am not religious:

 

Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.

Of, concerned with, or teaching religion: a religious text.

 

By the way...I'm more of a sis.

[NotBlinded]

I went and read a little more on Quentin Smith's site and found this article. I have posted an excerpt in hopes that what I am saying will be revealed a little better.

 

Given that a case can be made along the above lines for the thesis that existence is itself something that exists, the next task is to explain why being identical with existence is a property of the supreme existent, This is mediately entailed by the defining property of the metaphysically holy, viz., supremacy in the class of existents. Since supremacy means being the highest that is logically possible in a class, it entails perfection in that class. This is manifest, since if it is not logically possible for anything to be higher or more excellent in that class, then the supreme item is the perfect member (or a perfect member) of that class. Now perfection entails purity, freedom from admixture with any foreign, inferior or contaminating elements. If something purely is P, it wholly is P, and is not "diluted" with a foreign element by being in part non-P. A pure member of a class is pure relative to the defining property of the class. It is true of a pure member of a class that it "wholly is P", where "P" stands for the defining property of the class, and it is true of each impure member of the class that it "partly is P". The sentence "Each pure member wholly is P and each impure member partly is P" admits of a twofold interpretation, depending on the sense given to "is P". On the first interpretation, the "is" in "is P" is the "is" of predication and the "P" is an adjective (e.g. "good"). On this interpretation, the sentence asserts that each pure member wholly possesses the property P and that each impure member partly possesses this property. On the second interpretation, the "is" is the "is" of identity and the "P" is an abstract noun (e.g. "goodness"). Given this interpretation, the above sentence asserts that each pure member wholly is identical with the property P and that each impure member partly is identical with the property P. Both of these interpretations of the sentence are relevant to defining the purity or impurity of the members of a class in that the sentence must be true of the members of the class on at least one of its interpretations. If it were not, it would be false that the perfect member is pure and the imperfect members impure, which contradicts the notions of perfection and imperfection. Take as an instance the class of moral phenomena, whose defining property is goodness. (Note that this class includes only perfectly or imperfectly good phenomena, and does not include wholly evil or neutral phenomena. The latter are included instead in the class of immoral or amoral phenomena.) It is false of each purely good action (to use one example) that "the action wholly is goodness" and of each impurely good action that "the action partly is goodness", since these actions are not wholly or in part identical with the property of goodness (taken in intension). The identifying interpretation of 'wholly or partly is P' is not the one relevant to these actions. This requires the predicative interpretation to be true of them. We find this is in fact the case, for actions possess rather than are identical with the property of goodness. It is true of each purely good action that 'the action wholly is good' and of each impurely good action that 'the action partly is good'.

 

When we come to the class of existents, however, we find that the identifying interpretation of 'Each pure member wholly is P and each impure member partly is P' is the interpretation that applies the predicative interpretation does not apply, for with this interpretation the conjunct (of the relevant sentence) that is about each impure member of the class of existents is false. It is true of the pure existent that it wholly possesses existence, but it is false of each impure existent that it partly possesses existence. Indeed, it is nonsense to say of something that it partly is existing, for that implies it has some parts that exist and other parts that do not exist! To say that something has parts that do not exist (if it makes sense at all) is just to say that it does not have these parts. If the predicative interpretation of the sentence is false, the identifying interpretation must be true. The pure existent is wholly identical with existence, and each tree, person, number, etc., that exists is partly identical with existence. But this assertion is ambiguous and two senses of M (wholly or partly) is identical with P, must be distinguished. In one sense, this expression means "the concrete M is identical with P", where "the concrete M" refers to the state of affairs, M-as exemplifying-all-of-its-properties. In a second sense, it means "the abstract M is identical with P", where "the abstract M" refers to M alone, considered in distinction from the properties it possesses. It is the abstract sense of that is relevant to the assertion that the pure existent is wholly identical with existence, for what possesses the properties of existing permanently, independently, reflexively, etc., is the property of existence. Manifestly, the state of affairs of existence-as-exemplifying-existing-permanently-and-independently-and reflexively, etc. is not wholly identical with the property of existence. On the other hand, it is "M" in the concrete sense that is relevant to the assertion that each impure existent is partly identical with existence. Surely it is incoherent to say that the abstract John, that which possesses all the properties of John, is partly identical with the property of existence. It is rather the case that John-as-exemplifying-all-his-properties is partly identical with existence. Existence is a property of John and thus is a part of the state of affairs, John-as-exemplifying-existence-and-humanity-and-whiteness, etc. "John is partly existence" means that one of the parts of this state of affairs is the property of existence.

 

The above reflections provide a way of substantiating and articulating the metaphysical intuition that the pure existent is existence itself, and thus that one of the properties of the existence of the supreme existent is reflexivity. These reflections, as well as our explications of the permanence, independence, logical necessity and indispensability of the existence of the supreme existent, can be deepened if we contrast our conception of the supreme existent with historical accounts of "the supreme existent". This contrast is important, since historically the supreme existent was frequently confused with the supreme person and the categories of metaphysical and religious holiness were conflated with each other. This confusion is due mainly to the predominance of monotheistic religions, principally the Jewish, Christian, Islamic and Hindu religions and their influence upon philosophical thinking and spiritual attitudes and experiences. In Western culture, the Christian influence has been decisive; its confusion of the two categories crystalized in the Anselm-inspired "perfect being theology", which defines God as the perfect being.

 

A recent and lucid expression of this theological tradition can be found in Thomas Morris' essay "Perfect Being Theology",[11] in which metaphysical greatness is identified with religious greatness. Morris lists (in ascending order of greatness) the following "great-making properties": (a) consciousness, (b ) conscious agency, (c ) benevolent conscious agency, (d) benevolent conscious agency with significant knowledge, (e) benevolent conscious agency with significant knowledge and power... and so on until we arrive at the perfect personal properties, omniscience, omnipotence, omni benevolence, etc. This provides us, Morris avers, with the concept of "a greatest possible or maximally perfect being".[12] But I suggest that the expression "maximally perfect being" is ambiguous between its existential and quidditative senses and that these two senses have not been clearly distinguished or not been distinguished at all by Morris and others in the tradition of "perfect being theology". "Being" in the existential sense relates to the existence of something, to the fact that it is at all, rather than is not. "Being" in the quidditative sense relates to the nature of something, to what it is (i.e. to the necessary and accidental qualitative properties of some thing.) The maximally perfect being in the existential sense is the perfect existent, but the maximally perfect being in the quidditative sense is the item which has a perfect nature, the best possible qualitative properties. Existential perfection is a property of the existence of something, whereas quidditative perfection is a property of the thing itself and constitutes the nature of the thing. Manifestly, the principal "great-making" properties listed by Morris and others in the Anselmian tradition are not properties of the existence of something but constitute the nature of something. It is simply nonsense to assert of something that the existence of the thing is conscious, that the existence of the thing has conscious agency, that the existence of the thing is benevolent and that its existence possesses significant knowledge. The existence of something is not the "sort of thing" that can be benevolent or cruel or wise or ignorant. If God exists, his existence is not benevolent and all-knowing; rather God himself is benevolent and all-knowing.

 

Omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, perfect happiness, etc., are the perfect quidditative properties and comprise the nature of the "perfect being" in the quidditative sense of "being". On the other hand, permanence, independence, logical necessity, indispensability and reflexivity are the perfect existential properties and comprise the manner of existing of the "perfect being" in the existential sense of "being". It is the existential properties alone that are properties of the existence of something. While it is senseless to say that the existence of something is all-knowing, it makes sense to say that its existence is permanent, necessary, independent, indispensable and reflexive.

I hope this explains a little when I say that I think consciousness is a part of everything and maybe clear up the misunderstandings on the word 'being'.

 

AN ANALYSIS OF HOLINESS

 

Of course, it is entirely possible that I have misunderstood this.

 

Dang...I really hate it when I edit my posts and it replaces all the " with squares. Sorry. (I think I fixed it)

[Friendly neighborhood atheist]

I'm going to surprise you and keep this one short (!),

IQ's of "only" 138 are well above average, and you obviously have high intelligence and a good grasp of the scientific truths that prohibit belief in the christian god.

That's enough for me to like you right there. LOL

And forgive me for not noticing your gender, sis.

(I'm kinda better at that in person. LOL)

 

As for creating the feeling that I was putting you down, I'm sorry for that,

but I am on a board where I can FINALLY be honest about how I feel about the subject of religion.

I'm not going to kiss anyone's ass (not that you asked me you, just sayin' is all) if my total rejection of religion AND notions of spirituality AND superstition in all thier forms rubs someone the wrong way. I spend enough of my life, as most people here probably do too, tolerating and respecting others until they feel like killing someone.

 

For once, I'm going to be me, shoot from the hip, call 'em like I see 'em.

As far as I'm concerned, there either IS, or IS NOT a god or "higher power".

There either IS or IS NOT a "supernatural realm" or afterlife.

There is no middle of the road, half and half, comfy "maybe" zone.

And I have been lead by my experience and mind to the conclusion that there is not,

none of the above, nope nohow.

 

I know that isn't true of everyone, and you obviously hold certain spiritual views.

That doesn't mean I can't enjoy your company, it does not invalidate your input in my mind on any topic with that one exception (about spirituality being valid in any sense), it does not mean we can't be friends. I meant it when I said I enjoy you. If everyone agreed with me on everything, I could never grow, I'd never be challenged.

 

While I will never agree with statements that hint at a continuation of our minds or consciousness or energy fields or whatever, I'll always show you the respect you deserve.

Peace - Greg FNA

[pandora]

FNA~

 

You seroiusly got to talk to Hawking and gave him some written record of your ponderings? That's awesome. But what exactly are you talking about? I haven't read all the posts yet.

 

But generally, I am finding that I think similarly to you and Antlerman. Sometimes I get discouraged and see my own view of things as just another attempt at making something out of nothing, like "spiritual" people do with quantum mechanics... deriving something meaningful out of pure science and thus making it pseudoscience. I don't want to fall into that trap. But being a science major (okay, just pharmacology/pharmacy) and a religion major, it is hard for me not to try and combine these two sides of my brain once in a while... this usually happens when I am having a smoke of a certain kind (not padding Phillip Morris' pockets... LOL). I have a great respect and even "religious" awe for that which is... the "thusness" of the universe and our experiences. But at the end of the day, I don't live life like there is something more to experience. I know that my sense of self will die with my body, and I don't see how any sort of "energy" or whatever could emanate from that rotting pile of flesh aside from feeding worms.

 

Whomever posted that bumpersticker that they saw... I love it! I am going to go find one now .

[NotBlinded]

I'm going to surprise you and keep this one short (!),

IQ's of "only" 138 are well above average, and you obviously have high intelligence and a good grasp of the scientific truths that prohibit belief in the christian god.

That's enough for me to like you right there. LOL

And forgive me for not noticing your gender, sis.

(I'm kinda better at that in person. LOL)

 

As for creating the feeling that I was putting you down, I'm sorry for that,

but I am on a board where I can FINALLY be honest about how I feel about the subject of religion.

I'm not going to kiss anyone's ass (not that you asked me you, just sayin' is all) if my total rejection of religion AND notions of spirituality AND superstition in all thier forms rubs someone the wrong way. I spend enough of my life, as most people here probably do too, tolerating and respecting others until they feel like killing someone.

 

For once, I'm going to be me, shoot from the hip, call 'em like I see 'em.

As far as I'm concerned, there either IS, or IS NOT a god or "higher power".

There either IS or IS NOT a "supernatural realm" or afterlife.

There is no middle of the road, half and half, comfy "maybe" zone.

And I have been lead by my experience and mind to the conclusion that there is not,

none of the above, nope nohow.

 

I know that isn't true of everyone, and you obviously hold certain spiritual views.

That doesn't mean I can't enjoy your company, it does not invalidate your input in my mind on any topic with that one exception (about spirituality being valid in any sense), it does not mean we can't be friends. I meant it when I said I enjoy you. If everyone agreed with me on everything, I could never grow, I'd never be challenged.

 

While I will never agree with statements that hint at a continuation of our minds or consciousness or energy fields or whatever, I'll always show you the respect you deserve.

Peace - Greg FNA

Thank you Greg. I sincerely appreciate that.

 

Now, here is your opportunity.... my ! (I'm just kidding of course!)

[Friendly neighborhood atheist]

*smooch!*

 

Mmm! Tastes like strawberries!

 

Pandora; I never met Dr. Hawking in person - my correspondence with him was both electronic and through the mail to England. It was set up by a mutual acquaintance/friend, one of my old professors when I was at college. (I graduated back in '91).

I doubt I could contact him again without another intermediary.

It's not like we're colleagues or even friends or anything.

It's just that he's the #1 guy right now in a field of study that I have great interest in,

and some inspired thoughts that might be unconsidered angles, so I went out on a limb and shared them. Sure enough, it was a new consideration - one among many.

 

The Big Bang theory is well defined and understood back to "just after" the Big Bang itself,

but the actual BANG (or expansion / inflation), how or why it happened is the mystery.

Backwards from this moment in time, the general properties of the universe; time, matter and energy, even dark matter and dark energy, are well understood (well enough anyway),

but there's a wall we hit when we get back to a point before atoms formed.

The earliest stages of the universe, right after the Big Bang, make no sense according to the known laws of physics. The equasions break down.

One possibility that I think is likely is that the universe wrote it's own laws at that moment,

much like how the genome for a new person (baby) is made at fertilization.

That specific genetic pattern never existed before, ever - it's a unique genome.

And when that person reproduces, their offspring will also be unique, and not a copy.

It's amazing when you think about it, that it makes a viable life form; it has instructions to be human, one of billions, but creates a unique creature that's never existed before and never will again (unless cloned).

Unique like a snowflake; one of one but also one of trillions.

It's apples and oranges, but I think the laws of physics within our universe might have been forged in an instant out of the complexity of the goings-on of the Big Bang itself, but once forged were immutable. To change the laws of physics NOW, you'd have to reorganize the entire universe all at once again, another Big Bang - like hitting the reset button.

 

The meeting I had in person with Carl Sagan happened either in my junior or senior year

when he guest lectured there. Didn't last long in real time, but it was one of those "forever" moments in my life. (Oops, did that sound religious? LOL)

Our brief conversation inspired much of the direction I took my life from there.

Then again, he got me started when I was a kid watching his show "COSMOS" on PBS in the early 80's. COSMOS the hardcover book was the first book I ever read cover to cover that didn't have comics in it. (Thankfully I read COSMOS before reading the bible cover to cover.) LOL

 

Oh well, time to eat - Peace!

FNA

[Antlerman]

But generally, I am finding that I think similarly to you and Antlerman. Sometimes I get discouraged and see my own view of things as just another attempt at making something out of nothing, like "spiritual" people do with quantum mechanics... deriving something meaningful out of pure science and thus making it pseudoscience. I don't want to fall into that trap. But being a science major (okay, just pharmacology/pharmacy) and a religion major, it is hard for me not to try and combine these two sides of my brain once in a while... this usually happens when I am having a smoke of a certain kind (not padding Phillip Morris' pockets... LOL). I have a great respect and even "religious" awe for that which is... the "thusness" of the universe and our experiences. But at the end of the day, I don't live life like there is something more to experience. I know that my sense of self will die with my body, and I don't see how any sort of "energy" or whatever could emanate from that rotting pile of flesh aside from feeding worms.

For once, I'm going to be me, shoot from the hip, call 'em like I see 'em.

As far as I'm concerned, there either IS, or IS NOT a god or "higher power".

There either IS or IS NOT a "supernatural realm" or afterlife.

There is no middle of the road, half and half, comfy "maybe" zone.

And I have been lead by my experience and mind to the conclusion that there is not,

none of the above, nope nohow.

I think Pandora expresses well how I feel. It's always that "spiritual" side of me - and I always use that term as a natural human experience with zero connection to some greater external/internal cosmic connection - that responds to the marvel of existence in an experiential sort of way, without getting caught up in either traditional or trendy pseudoscience fad of "finding cosmic consciousness in quantum mechanics".

 

I see "spirituality" as a very real part of the human experience, but it is not supernatural - and let me emphasis more strongly - it is not "supernatural/natural" either. By that I mean calling what is by definition supernatural, something that is part of the natural world. That is what I have knee-jerk reactions against. It's redefining the natural to accommodate something completely beyond its boundaries and trying to make it part of the natural, with nothing beyond conjecture.

 

Is human propensity toward "spirituality" natural? I believe so. Is there a common spirit among humans, aspiring and responding to love? Yes. Is this an indication of an every present force that binds all life together that precedes us, permeates us, and will live on beyond us? No. Does this diminish the experience of common joy in reaction to our conscious awareness of life? Does it have to???

 

I find viewing our response to love as part of the natural processes of evolution - not the force of love existing beyond it all. If anything, "survival" is the binding force, the energy that drives all life, not "love". In human's, as a social species we find our survival benefits from cooperation. Love is a force that works for us in promoting cooperation, versus greed and selfishness which does not benefit the group. So love in fact is something that binds humans together, and is part of the common experience that has no ideological or cultural boundaries. For humans, love serves survival.

 

Should we then say that Survival is God? No. Because "God" is a symbol of human emotional/spiritual aspirations, and serves to inspire behaviors that promote cooperation, which ensures "survival”. Survival is the essence of Life, and Love is its servant.

 

Just a thought....

[Friendly neighborhood atheist]

In a couple sentences Antlerman, do you mean

that you are using the term "spirituality" to describe

your (our human) emotional response to the universe around us?

The rollercoaster of perception that is life itself?

 

Perhaps this; a machine can test and observe the universe,

but only sentient life can experience it.

 

I'd be down with both of those.

 

Antlerman said:

I find viewing our response to love as part of the natural processes of evolution - not the force of love existing beyond it all. If anything, "survival" is the binding force, the energy that drives all life, not "love". In human's, as a social species we find our survival benefits from cooperation. Love is a force that works for us in promoting cooperation, versus greed and selfishness which does not benefit the group. So love in fact is something that binds humans together, and is part of the common experience that has no ideological or cultural boundaries. For humans, love serves survival.

 

Should we then say that Survival is God? No. Because "God" is a symbol of human emotional/spiritual aspirations, and serves to inspire behaviors that promote cooperation, which ensures "survival”. Survival is the essence of Life, and Love is its servant.

 

Didn't want to glaze over that; it's brilliant.

Eloquently put too. Nice job man.

 

FNA

[BuddhistCommunist]

Just to add... religion and spirituality are two different things. Religion is collective, spirituality is personal.

[pandora]

But generally, I am finding that I think similarly to you and Antlerman. Sometimes I get discouraged and see my own view of things as just another attempt at making something out of nothing, like "spiritual" people do with quantum mechanics... deriving something meaningful out of pure science and thus making it pseudoscience. I don't want to fall into that trap. But being a science major (okay, just pharmacology/pharmacy) and a religion major, it is hard for me not to try and combine these two sides of my brain once in a while... this usually happens when I am having a smoke of a certain kind (not padding Phillip Morris' pockets... LOL). I have a great respect and even "religious" awe for that which is... the "thusness" of the universe and our experiences. But at the end of the day, I don't live life like there is something more to experience. I know that my sense of self will die with my body, and I don't see how any sort of "energy" or whatever could emanate from that rotting pile of flesh aside from feeding worms.

For once, I'm going to be me, shoot from the hip, call 'em like I see 'em.

As far as I'm concerned, there either IS, or IS NOT a god or "higher power".

There either IS or IS NOT a "supernatural realm" or afterlife.

There is no middle of the road, half and half, comfy "maybe" zone.

And I have been lead by my experience and mind to the conclusion that there is not,

none of the above, nope nohow.

I think Pandora expresses well how I feel. It's always that "spiritual" side of me - and I always use that term as a natural human experience with zero connection to some greater external/internal cosmic connection - that responds to the marvel of existence in an experiential sort of way, without getting caught up in either traditional or trendy pseudoscience fad of "finding cosmic consciousness in quantum mechanics".

 

I see "spirituality" as a very real part of the human experience, but it is not supernatural - and let me emphasis more strongly - it is not "supernatural/natural" either. By that I mean calling what is by definition supernatural, something that is part of the natural world. That is what I have knee-jerk reactions against. It's redefining the natural to accommodate something completely beyond its boundaries and trying to make it part of the natural, with nothing beyond conjecture.

 

Is human propensity toward "spirituality" natural? I believe so. Is there a common spirit among humans, aspiring and responding to love? Yes. Is this an indication of an every present force that binds all life together that precedes us, permeates us, and will live on beyond us? No. Does this diminish the experience of common joy in reaction to our conscious awareness of life? Does it have to???

 

I find viewing our response to love as part of the natural processes of evolution - not the force of love existing beyond it all. If anything, "survival" is the binding force, the energy that drives all life, not "love". In human's, as a social species we find our survival benefits from cooperation. Love is a force that works for us in promoting cooperation, versus greed and selfishness which does not benefit the group. So love in fact is something that binds humans together, and is part of the common experience that has no ideological or cultural boundaries. For humans, love serves survival.

 

Should we then say that Survival is God? No. Because "God" is a symbol of human emotional/spiritual aspirations, and serves to inspire behaviors that promote cooperation, which ensures "survival”. Survival is the essence of Life, and Love is its servant.

 

Just a thought....

 

Yep. You expressed it well. FNA... what you responded with was great too. That pretty much describes how I feel/experience my spiritual side (which has no spirits) as well.

 

FNA-- When I ponder the origins of the universe, I often wonder why statistics are so important. "If X had been just this much greater, we wouldn't be here..." Blah blah. You know exactly what I'm talking about. It seems to me that since we are here, and since we do not know the nature of the circumstances that set the Big Bang up, it is N/A. It seems to me that the laws that exist would just be replaced by other laws (like you said, they are dependent on the circusmstances surrounding the BB) that may or may not have garnered intelligent life. We just happened to be the lifeforms lucky enough to experience the current incarnation of whatever it is that is the Big Bang. I am not used to talking about astronomy, so forgive me, but do you get what I am saying? Is this similar to what you were saying? Is it possible that these natural "laws" are not laws at all, but entirely dependent on some variable in the Big Bang?

[Friendly neighborhood atheist]

Just to add... religion and spirituality are two different things. Religion is collective, spirituality is personal.

 

So religion is the shared, mutually agreed upon delusion,

and spirituality is the individual's personal delusion.

Oh ok I get it now.

 

Sorry, couldn't resist. But yeah I understand the distinction as you make it.

But to me, unless the definition of "spirituality" is changed as Antlerman and I were discussing above, rooted in reality and reason (which today it most certainly is not), I reject both the personal and collective versions of afterlifes, gods, magical energy fields, personal escape from physical death, etc etc, and the organized group spiritualality called "religion".

 

My "spirit" is the strength of my character, and my living self's impact on other living people.

Beyond that, it's nonsense and plants the seed of bullshit.

I began, I am, I shall end. There once was no "me", and the universe will again return to this state.

My job is to enjoy the brief period of time between them.

[Friendly neighborhood atheist]

Pandora - (you responded as I was typing, LOL)

Thank you. Yes I do understand what you're saying.

 

Statistics are like watching flies fuck. Boring as hell.

I don't think I put it in this thread, but somewhere o nthis site I typed up a long thing about arguing probability backwards as a fallacy.

 

Some religious people think that because they're here despite the odds against it,

odds that grow larger and larger against your existence the further back in time you go,

it's somehow proof of a god. This is pure nonsense of course, because clearly, you ARE here.

It's like winning the lottery. Imagine a lottery winner standing there with the giant novelty check and accurately statting that the odds against him winning this lottery were 50 million to one.

So far he's right. But then imagine him saying that because the odds were so against him winning, that he did not in fact win - and arriving at this conclusion AFTER winning.

 

Five thousand years ago, imagine the odds against my birth in 1969.

Longer ago than that, the odds against me were even higher.

More recently than that, my odds get better.

Why? Because each successive ancestor had to meet and have sex with each other ancestor until their children and their children's children and so on and so forth would meet and likewise have sex at just the right time, and that ONE sperm out of millions is the one that fertilizes that egg at just the right time to produce the necessary genome to BE one of my ancestors in the chain of ancestors leading to my birth. If you take even ONE of my ancestors out of the equasion, I am never born. And that includes taking ANY of my most distant ancestors out, including proto-humans, the primates that evolved into humans, the lemur like mammals they evolved from, and back and back to the first life on Earth. Just to make little old me. Ain't I special? LOL

 

This illustrates the difference between highly improbable and impossible.

70 million years ago, my existence was extremely unlikely, but yet here I am.

My existence was ALWAYS highly improbable, even when my own parents were living but had not yet met. (Though more likely than 70 million years ago). But clearly, since I exist, it was never impossible.

 

Arguing probability backwards is a fallacy as demonstrated above.

A lot of people make the same mistake when talking aout the Big Bang.

But going "backwards" is precisely how we have to approach it, since it happened in the past.

We just have to be careful not to apply the results of what happened after it to the properties of HOW it happened, which do not necessarilly have anything to do with what came next.

 

It seems to me that the laws that exist would just be replaced by other laws (like you said, they are dependent on the circusmstances surrounding the BB) that may or may not have garnered intelligent life.

 

The laws of physics are indeed laws, or the universe wouldn't work.

Intelligent life is, I think, inevitable. Life almost certainly is.

To presume that we are the only sentient life on this one little planet in all the universe is astoundingly arrogant but very human. Our perception is limited to our solitude in the universe, and how linear most peoples' thinking is. It's a BIG universe. Shit it's a BIG galaxy.

If there are 10,000 equidistantly spaced technological civilizations in the Milky Way RIGHT NOW, the nearest one is no closer than 10 light years away.

 

But consider if the nearest one is 100 light years away...

There is a bubble of artificial radio waves surrounding Earth in all directions going out since 1935 or so. (Our radio and TV transmissions with enough strength to reach neighboring star systems have been going out since about 1935). That's a radius of about 71 light years in each direction from Earth, with a spherical bubble of radio signals 142 light years in diameter with the Earth at the center. But if the nearest technological civilization is 100 light years away, they won't be getting our 1935 tranmissions for another 29 years. If they DO get them, recognize them for what they are, and determine that our star system is the source, and direct a response to us immediately, WE will not get THAT for 129 years from now. Sucks, huh?

 

Imagine that there WAS a technological civilization "only" 100 light years away, next door in galactic terms, but they all died out 500 years ago. Or for that matter, 25 years from NOW.

Either way, they'll never get our signal.

 

Now imagine that the nearest technological civilization is 500 or 5000 light years away.

STILL relatively close in this 100,000 diameter galaxy of ours.

Imagine how that would affect the chances of ever noticing eachother...

The distances are just so great, and for both civilizations to exist long enough that both would be there to send and receive messages at the speed of light still leaves centuries if not millenia of waiting in silence...

[Vigile]

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.

 

Every heard of Oscam's Razor NB?

 

Why is it that I feel like I'm always breaking your balls? Sorry.

[Eponymic]

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.

 

Every heard of Oscam's Razor NB?

 

Why is it that I feel like I'm always breaking your balls? Sorry.

 

Actually, it's Ockham's Razor (for William of Ockham).

 

Now who's breaking the balls.

[Lycorth]

To me, our Creator may be more than one, so Creator(s) is more suitable.

 

Our Creator(s) are obviously not all-knowing or all-present or all-powerful, as gods are typically portrayed, or else we'd actually see some real proof of them aside from some of their devoted fans. And especially if they were also possessed of any moral fiber, there'd simply be no evil in the world, since no decent creature can allow evil to exist if he or she or it has the power to rid us of it.

 

Our Creator(s) don't require worship or that we know anything about them. Otherwise, there would be an irrefutable and always-understood message left for us, backed up by the necessary regular visits to make sure we humans don't forget, as is our wont.

 

Our Creator(s) may not even exist anymore, because we haven't yet found evidence for the existence of any Creator(s). Who says a creator or a god has to be immortal? If we are ever to understand anything about the origins of the universe or fine-tune our idea of what a god really is, we need to start thinking outside of the box. Our Creator(s) could very well have died by now, and could be part of a greater race of such beings, living and dying in their own little world somewhere, undoubtedly far removed from ours.

 

Our Creator(s) don't require that we behave a certain way, or else there would've been left for us an unmistakable and easily understood compendium of ethics and rules to guide ourselves by, again backed up by regular visits or other easily observed phenomena to remind us. Every code and treastise on morality can be traced to human hands, and also to human minds when one considers how they all ultimately do not agree with each other and seem more as products of their times rather than remarks on timeless truths.

 

To me, as a Deist, a Creator or Creators must have existed to create the basic elements of the universe, give these elements their "push" to get started, and then either left the scene or were removed in some form from it as it developed according to what science can discover. To me, that's it. It's the only real thing that keeps me from being an Agnostic or an Atheist, the conviction that there is or was a Creator or Creators of some kind, whether or not said beings are still even alive today.

[Friendly neighborhood atheist]

To me, that's it. It's the only real thing that keeps me from being an Agnostic or an Atheist, the conviction that there is or was a Creator or Creators of some kind, whether or not said beings are still even alive today.

 

Ok, here we go.

 

What is your motivation for your "conviction" there there must have been a "Creator" or "Creators"? You also typed:

 

...a Creator or Creators must have existed to create the basic elements of the universe, give these elements their "push" to get started...

 

There's a problem here. This line sure reads to me that the universe itself and the elements within it, and the physical law of how they interact was created by your Creator/s.

That leads to the old argument, "Who created the Creator?" We're back in the realm of faith...

But if that's true, and these assumed "Creator/s" of yours gave the "push" (as you said) to create the basic elements of the universe, then that means they were there prior to the Big Bang, even though time is a function of this universe it created. There WAS no "before" the Big Bang.

Worse for your position is that these "Creators" (if not immortal as you suggest) could not have survived the Big Bang anymore than we could survive at ground zero in a themonuclear explosion.

Their creation would have meant suicide. If intelligent and capable enough to cause the Big Bang, why would they proceed? This also means they were dead and extinct, subatomically vaporized, long before any sentient life evolved in THIS universe, so any knowledge of them would be impossible as they would have left no traces.

 

I have also heard some people structure a religion around the idea that an alien race that evolved naturally, somewhere else in this universe, long before we did, found Earth suitable for seeding of their genetic forms of life, and did so. So to these people our "Creator/s" means a natural, mortal, technologically advanced alien race giving some level of direction to evolution of life on Earth, if not altogether responsible for it. It's an interesting idea, but it too has it's own set of flaws and assumptions, only some of which I inadvertently addressed in one of my posts above this one in this thread. Back to you.

 

-FNA