TRUTH, A GRADUAL AWAKENING

[◊ Weezer ◊]

21 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Damn, Weezer, you want me to just pin it for you?

 

If you think it would be worthwhile, then pin it. I think it pretty well sums up a lot of the issues many people face in the "deconversion" process.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I hear ya.

[Follower]

On 2/25/2018 at 4:37 PM, Singular40 said:

I had no idea that atheists were just normal people - people who could be sitting next to you in the pew every Sunday.

I’m one of them! 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Bump

[pantheory]

Hey Weez,

Thought you or someone else might be interested in the theoretical ideas related to your 'Miscellaneous Thoughts:'

"Where did the “stuff” (matter, energy, process, etc) come from to produce the “big bang”, that , according to theory, evolved into consciousness and mankind?  I have practically no knowledge of physics, but it seems more logical that consciousness, energy, spirit, god, what ever you want to call it, could “create” things, rather than vice versa.  And when you look at the endless galaxies I can't help but think there is something (a lot) “out there” (energy, force, creator?) we have yet to grasp.  Robert Wright, author of The Evolution of God also leaves that door open."

As you may know,  physics has nothing at all to do with evolution theory. Darwin's 'Evolution' is the theory of natural selection involving biology, only living things. The beginning of the universe is not referred to as a process of evolution in science, but it could be called that in common language since changes occur over time. 

But in a Big Bang beginning, according to its founding concepts, there was nothing before the Big Bang. In this theory the universe is of a finite age. This means there was a beginning to it.

This concept of its beginning involves the understanding and meaning of the word 'time' as an interval of change. So there would be no such thing as time zero. The first time and change would have been 0-1, the second change would be 1-2, the third change would be 2-3, the forth would be 3-4 etc. Time would be like a motion picture. The integers 1,2,3,4 would represent time-frames, which are like photos. points within the intervals of time where no changes occur.

So would time zero be a beginning of time where no changes occurred? No, the beginning of time again was time 0-1, as explained above, when time began. in the same way time zero would have no meaning to it concerning time itself since no changes would be involved. There would have been no such thing as time zero, but there would have been a time-frame zero. 

This concept  simply means that there was something that existed in the very beginning at time-frame zero that had the potential to change into something a little different by time frame 1. We can call the cause of this change to be the potential energy within the beginning entity. The first time again would have been the changes that occurred within the beginning entity between time frames  0 to 1.  Those that can understand this concept can realize that the universe did not have to come from something else, or have come from nothing. And why time is a necessary dimension of reality, because without it nothing would ever change.

In answering the question, what existed before the universe? In common language for students first learning this concept, it has been explained as the same answer to the question, what is north of the north pole? The same answer would apply. There is no such thing as north of the north pole, and no change (time) before the first change of the universe (if time is finite).

This concept also does not suggest or imply that the Big Bang model is the correct theory of the universe, only that this concept must be involved for any model of the universe that proposes a finite age to it, but not one coming from something else, or one infinite in time or extension.

As to the quote "... evolved into consciousness and mankind." Again this is not Darwin's evolution theory. According to modern theory of evolution consciousness evolved in animals long before humans. Levels of consciousness for an animal is related to their senses and perceptions in a woken state, and from their abstract reasoning. Any intelligent animal can have abstract reasoning, problem solving ability that is not learned. Since mankind has the greatest reasoning ability, we could say that we have a higher level of consciousness, in that our thinking, awareness, and self-awareness can be  more complex and "deeper."

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Perhaps I should have said, "the results of the big bang EVENTUALLY evolved into mankind and consciousness."  A chain of events.  Or am I missing what you are saying?

 

It is mind boggleing stuff, and I'm not sure we will ever have the answer to where it all came from.  It is hard to wrap my mind around the thought that "something" has always existed, so I decided several years ago to quit worrying my redneck Okie brain, and just focus on what to do with what we already got.  And maybe we simply haven't evolved to the point of being able to understand it all.

 

HA!  Except the question occured to me that, in my way of thinking, time will be infinite in the future, so maybe it has been infinite in the past??   Mind boggleing stuff!  At least it is for me.  Isn't it strange how we humans have a hard time admitting we don't know everything?  HA! again.  I just thought of this.  Human nature??  Like Adam and Eve, wanting to be like the all knowing god!!

[pantheory]

19 hours ago, Weezer said:

Perhaps I should have said, "the results of the big bang EVENTUALLY evolved into mankind and consciousness."  A chain of events.  Or am I missing what you are saying?

 

It is mind boggleing stuff, and I'm not sure we will ever have the answer to where it all came from.  It is hard to wrap my mind around the thought that "something" has always existed, so I decided several years ago to quit worrying my redneck Okie brain, and just focus on what to do with what we already got.  And maybe we simply haven't evolved to the point of being able to understand it all.

 

HA!  Except the question occured to me that, in my way of thinking, time will be infinite in the future, so maybe it has been infinite in the past??   Mind boggleing stuff!  At least it is for me.  Isn't it strange how we humans have a hard time admitting we don't know everything?  HA! again.  I just thought of this.  Human nature??  Like Adam and Eve, wanting to be like the all knowing god!!

 

One of the points here is that the word evolution does not relate to the Big Bang (BB) theory or cosmology. The universe changes but does not evolve in BB cosmology. Evolution is a biological term in science. In common language one might say that the universe evolves (changes) over time. I Think one could say that animal consciousness evolved, in a scientific sense.  

 

If the universe is finite in time, then the beginning of the universe is totally explained above; the above is not conjecture or theory, it's just common logic.  If the universe is infinite, then the above would not apply. Yes, something has existed for all the time that has existed, but time itself would be limited in a universe of finite age. The hangup here mentally is the word 'always' since it does not mean infinite, it means 'for all time.' English, and any language, can sometimes be a barrier to understanding.

 

Another problem in thinking is that the universe must have come from something else. Here the word 'universe' is the hangup in understanding. In cosmology, the word universe means everything that exists. And the word 'time' itself would have no meaning to it if nothing existed, or if nothing ever changed. Time must be defined by change. If there was, is, or could be anything outside of the universe, then they would call it a multi-verse, more than one universe and the above explanations would not apply since time would have been infinite, including all forms of universes. Yes, a finite universe did have a cause, but that cause was a part of itself which we call potential energy, the potential to change its beginning or existing form or internal relative motion. Of course there is a religious answer to this question if there is a spiritual world.

 

For religious scientists, they would say there is a physical universe, and a separate spiritual world. It's a matter of belief.

 

Yes, you were raised in a redneck environment, but the bad news is that as an educated agnostic you're no longer a redneck semantically  

 

What we think we know today scientifically, or otherwise, is just a perspective of reality. Some of it will change over time, not just from new discoveries, but when we start considering different subjects from different points of view; there is not just one valid perspective of reality, as long as they are not conflicting. This is also hard for many scientists to understand.

 

Most people want to have a better understanding of the world, so it is not hard to understand the same human-nature knowledge quest concerning the book of Genesis, the biblical children's-story equivalent of Adam & Eve and the apple (knowledge), and the universe-creation story.

                 

 

Cheers Weez

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Thanks!  I've also been following the discussion on consciousness. Interesting stuff.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

On 3/31/2022 at 4:00 PM, Weezer said:

Thanks!  I've also been following the discussion on consciousness. Interesting stuff.

The more I consider the idea of some "spirit", energy, force, consciousness, etc that is separate from our physical being, the more I think it may be true.