You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
For those who don't believe in a god, where exactly do you think science is leading you to?
Meaning, if you don't believe God or a god created the universe, what do you think science is trying to achieve by studying the past of the universe?
(I'm by no means challenging anyone, nor do I have an answer, just want to see what are people's views)
You would figure out the origin of "everything" (cause of big bang to the eventual creation of life from inorganic components). That's why mainstream science is trying to figure out the origins of the perceivable universe.
lol science just helps you adapt to your current environment faster than evolution does.
you can say science is hyper evolution.
it will lead us to goddom. we ourselves will become gods over whatever is below us that we oversee.
in some ways, hyper evolution also helps you control the direction you wish to evolve in. you can create your own image and destiny, or at least try to.
science detaches our dependency from mother nature. I would like to think the more technologically advance something is, the more independent it is from nature. the less it relies on nature for anything. at some point you become an independent being, separated from nature in all ways... "god".
i mean, that is the inherent definition of technology right? every step you take up in the tree of technological advancement, is one less thing in that stands in our way that nature has put there.
come to think of it, a master of technology, would be the master of mother nature.
technology will make nature our bitch. With but a stroke of a pen, or push of a button, or a thought, we will be able to manipulate nature like an artist does an empty canvas.
I think I understand what you are saying and agree with you. But over the course of studying science, there will be some who study for the sake of studying, they just want to know more.
Scientists study the universe because they didn't believe it just came into existence. They believe there's a reason to it. Scientists are still studying because there are more to uncover. However, can we say that there can only be two outcomes of this path? Either there is indefinite amount of things to uncover, or we've uncovered everything. It's saying, either an infinite reason, or a reason without a reason.
Wouldn't both in this case be equally unscientific?
You would figure out the origin of "everything" (cause of big bang to the eventual creation of life from inorganic components). That's why mainstream science is trying to figure out the origins of the perceivable universe.
My question would be, what defines to be an "origin"?
Believe what you want to believe, but I'm also assuming you didn't watch it. Believing in science and creationism are not mutually exclusive.
It takes more faith for an atheist to believe that we came from nothing, through random events that lined up perfectly over billions of years than it does to believe in a Divine Creator.
That's the thing about religion, it's a man made concept that has everything to do with ego. It is written by people to give people a reason to think they are the center of everything. God created earth for us to live on. It is all about us.
It doesn't take "faith" to accept that we're nothing more than a collection of species living on a planet. There are a seemingly infinite number of possible planets with an infinite number of possible species living on those planets. They were possibly created the same way we were... like you say "random events". These random events gave us earth, just as they gave all these other planets to these other species.
That's not "faith" that is simply detaching myself from my ego. I don't need to be the center of everything. I am fine with just being me for 80 years or whatever it is. Then I'll go back into the earth, and be part of whatever else is comprised of my matter.
My question would be, what defines to be an "origin"?
Well, for us mainstream scientists/humans, that would be the big bang (or rather how it came about).
If you're a creationist, the origin is the 6 days that God spent creating the heavens and cosmos.
If you're looking for a deeper answer- that's the point of my reply to you. Mainstream scientists are trying to use the tools at hand (it's up to you whether you believe they are "usable" enough to provide answers that are good enough) to figure out the origins of the universe which is believed to be the Big Bang.
It's very easy for us to theorize that something/someone created the Big Bang event, or just straight-up created everything at once because we don't/can't understand the "cause". Mainstream scientists are basically using their finite time on what we call Earth to figure out the many mysteries of the universe using the (possibly flawed) tools at hand.
Well, for us mainstream scientists/humans, that would be the big bang (or rather how it came about).
If you're a creationist, the origin is the 6 days that God spent creating the heavens and cosmos.
If you're looking for a deeper answer- that's the point of my reply to you. Mainstream scientists are trying to use the tools at hand (it's up to you whether you believe they are "usable" enough to provide answers that are good enough) to figure out the origins of the universe which is believed to be the Big Bang.
It's very easy for us to theorize that something/someone created the Big Bang event, or just straight-up created everything at once because we don't/can't understand the "cause". Mainstream scientists are basically using their finite time on what we call Earth to figure out the many mysteries of the universe using the (possibly flawed) tools at hand.
I guess my question would be, what cause the cause, that cause the cause that cause the cause.....
At what point do we say, this is "The Cause", or is it an infinite cause?
However, can we say that there can only be two outcomes of this path? Either there is indefinite amount of things to uncover, or we've uncovered everything. It's saying, either an infinite reason, or a reason without a reason.
Wouldn't both in this case be equally unscientific?
you're going to have to elaborate more... i don't really get your question kinda... I don't understand how an infinite reason or a reason without reason (you cant find the reason because it's infinite)... how is that unscientific?
you can look at fractals, fractals were discovered by humans and we were able to recreate them with mathematical formulas. they are infinite, but are they unscientific? the math explains why they are infinite, but there still is no origin or end. fractals are very mathematical and sciency if you will.
why is it if something is infinite or point of "ultimate" origin unreachable, then it is unscientific?
perhaps it is particular ideologies within science that are flawed. lol.
which leads me to below...
Quote:
Originally Posted by reamemiya
My question would be, what defines to be an "origin"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by m3thods
Well, for us mainstream scientists/humans, that would be the big bang (or rather how it came about).
If you're a creationist, the origin is the 6 days that God spent creating the heavens and cosmos.
I would think that... once you uncover an "origin", you immediately realise that is not the origin. lol.
like anything in life. once you get to the bottom of it, and open that last door, you only realise that your discoveries have added another layer of complexity. another door is waiting to be opened.
it's like tracing a path back... take you for example... where did you originate from? your mothers womb... that's the origin... is it? but what about your mother? and we can do this infinitely, till the "big bang".
But really, where did the big bang come from?
science is trying to trace our steps back to the big bang and confirm the big bang for certain. I'm sure when that happens, it won't be a very satisfying answer, because they'll have some component of the theory or law, that begs us to ask where that component came from, and then the recursive pattern continues.
religion "understands" that there is no beginning or end to eternity, and just accepts it. (edit: actually i should say, religion accepts that there is no beginning or end, without needing to understand it... religion accepts the fact that there is no end all understanding of it).
a shitty analogy can be an infinite mountain to climb... one group of people choose to climb the mountain and trace and figure out every step of the way, ever climbing, forever... they see a top of a mountain, and they want to reach it.
another group of people claim that top of the mountain is a false top, beyond that top there are an infinite amount of tops... they accept that they can never get to the end, and just leave it be.
of course they have different views, and different ideologies. but i mean... yah... u get my drift?
sure one satisfies curiosity more than the other. but really at the end, who's more right? lol, i can't say either are.
I just understand within the short reaches of mankind, both ideologies have existed to pave a "balanced" path for us to advance forward.
one could not possibly exist without the other. Even if we have mastered our "observable" universe, and ponder what lays beyond, there will always be room for imagination and religion. those things won't ever go away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reamemiya
I guess my question would be, what cause the cause, that cause the cause that cause the cause.....
At what point do we say, this is "The Cause", or is it an infinite cause?
What does it mean to understand the "cause"?
I don't think there will be any point we say this is the absolute cause... or infinite cause. because there will always be doubters on both sides of the battle.
there is no meaning to understand the cause (well, you are wiser? lol). you can only understand the cause so far as you can see. but there's always more to see. it's up to you to choose when to stop looking.
Last edited by Ulic Qel-Droma; 02-06-2014 at 11:08 PM.
To the mainstream scientists, the origin is the Big Bang, period-stop. The more they "find out" about it's origin, they more they can deduce whether it was a single random event, or if something caused it. If something caused it, it would be reasonable to suggest that there was something before the Big Bang.
Edit: Ugh I wish I can thank more than once. Thanks Ulic for explaining in depth what I could never explain even in a rudimentary form.
you're going to have to elaborate more... i don't really get your question kinda... I don't understand how an infinite reason or a reason without reason (you cant find the reason because it's infinite)... how is that unscientific?
you can look at fractals, fractals were discovered by humans and we were able to recreate them with mathematical formulas. they are infinite, but are they unscientific? the math explains why they are infinite, but there still is no origin or end. fractals are very mathematical and sciency if you will.
why is it if something is infinite or point of "ultimate" origin unreachable, then it is unscientific?
Fractals is beyond the scope of my knowledge, so unfortunately, I have no comment regarding that. I would assume you were referring to something like a mathematical formula that goes toward infinity, like 1/x ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulic Qel-Droma
science is trying to trace our steps back to the big bang and confirm the big bang for certain. I'm sure when that happens, it won't be a very satisfying answer, because they'll have some component of the theory or law, that begs us to ask where that component came from, and then the recursive pattern continues.
Yup, the recursive pattern continues. But at some point, would we not wonder whether this recursive pattern will end, or does it keep going forever?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulic Qel-Droma
religion "understands" that there is no beginning or end to eternity, and just accepts it.
Hmm.. from my understanding religion understands God as the beginning. But that's another topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulic Qel-Droma
a shitty analogy can be an infinite mountain to climb... one group of people choose to climb the mountain and trace and figure out every step of the way, ever climbing, forever... they see a top of a mountain, and they want to reach it.
another group of people claim that top of the mountain is a false top, beyond that top there are an infinite amount of tops... they accept that they can never get to the end, and just leave it be.
of course they have different views, and different ideologies. but i mean... yah... u get my drift?
Yup, but the climbers don't know it though. Had they knew the mountain was infinite, I don't think anyone sane would climb it. So the mountain could be infinite or finite. But no one knows.
So why did they climb the mountain? To find out if the mountain was infinite or finite? But they can't prove the mountain is infinite, because the definition of infinite is that it keeps going forever and ever.
It's like an infinite reason vs the finite reason. An infinite reason never ends, because there's always going to be a reason. A finite reason will end, but unfortunately we'll have to accept the fact that "the reason" is there in the first place, meaning a reason without a reason.
In this case, wouldn't both be unprovable? You can't prove an infinite reason, nor can you prove a definite reason.
edit: I meant to say infinity is unscientific because it's unprovable, at least I can't figure out how to. But on the other hand, isn't that the defintion of infinity?
I am not familiar with fractals, so I can't comment well on that area. But in the realm of the infinite, it is impossible to have an actual infinite. There are potential infinites, and actual infinites. The world is full of potential infinites. Actual infinites just cannot be. They create contradictions with themselves. Just look up a thought experiment called Hilbert's Hotel. It is just one of the justifications that is used, and defended by William Craig in defending the Kalam Cosmological Argument (an argument that leads to a higher power using modern day science). At the moment, the Kalam is the most written about theory for the existence of a creator in natural theology. There are brilliant minds who try to take it down, but they just cannot.
One of my favourite examples that show the contradictions of actual infinites is Hilbert's Hotel. Say you have an infinite # of rooms in a hotel, all occupied. And every single infinite person wants to check out. They do, and the hotel is now vacant.
Now, say you have the same hotel, all rooms occupied again. The people in rooms 1,2, and 3 are staying, but from 4 to infinity check out.
Infinite - infinite = 0
Infinite - infinte = 3
Now I'm not claiming to know everything, but just a few of the points that I have learned.
^ I forgot who said it maybe napoleon but he said:"Religion is the only thing stopping poor people from rioting and killing the rich as it gives them hope"
crude examples of fractals in nature are like... branches of a tree, forks of a river, fork of lightning, icicles, snow flakes, etc the list goes on forever.
examples of "pragmatic" fractals (i duno what else to call em), are like...
one example:
are cells in a body, forming a system.
people in a society (cells), forming a system.
err atoms that make up molecules, that make up planets that make up solar systems that make up galaxies, that make up super clusters that...etc etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reamemiya
^(not directed at you, just the video)
An eternal universe, as in it has always existed, or eternal as it keeps going forever and ever?
If it has always existed, shouldn't that mean our future has existed as well?
If it is going forever, then how do we prove whether it has an infinite past or not?
yes, i get what you mean. and there's plenty of research trying to figure out what you just asked. quantum physics, multiverse, holographic universe, reading the surfaces of black holes... all those point to the fact that our future already exists. or some version of our future.
your question begs me to ask the question... how do we know fractals are infinite? how can we prove it? we know because of the mathematical formula. the concept of it.
nothing is provable... this falls back on one of the threads i started a while ago saying religion and science rely on the same axioms.
eventually all proof rely on some axiom within a system. those axioms basically state that for the structure or system to work, there are a few things that just have to "be" without solid proof. mathematical axioms are the most common.
your ultimate proof that you are looking for, is the same as the "ultimate" origin that others are looking... good luck lol!
Quote:
Originally Posted by reamemiya
Yup, the recursive pattern continues. But at some point, would we not wonder whether this recursive pattern will end, or does it keep going forever?
don't you already wonder that now? LOL. I already wonder that even knowing fractals never end or never start.
i mean, lets just think of the mathematical equation. i, ulic, stick that equation into a computer and simulate it. the computer whirs and boom. the fractal appears. now i can zoom in step by step, or zoom out step by step... and i can hold onto forward or backwards button for the rest of my life and I will never find a beginning or end.
i can put in a number to zoom into any point of any time, and it will appear instantly.
now... when did the fractal appear? and how is it eternal, even though I started it? did me putting the equation into the computer give birth to some eternal entity? but how can that be? there was a beginning, i put it in, i started it... yet, after it exists, the beginning is no where to be found.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reamemiya
Hmm.. from my understanding religion understands God as the beginning. But that's another topic.
Yes, god is the beginning of most if not all religions. but all stories have beginnings... you can't start a story without a beginning, it would make a pretty bad story
I would think when they say god is the beginning, they don't mean definitive ultimate beginning. they kinda mean it like in the fractal sense. as long as you keep looking upwards, god is always at the next level. so in some sense, he is the beginning of every level below "him". but when looking up, he is infinite.
don't think of "god" as some dude, or being... if you take "god" as some conceptual mathematical formula, it all makes sense... or it makes better sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reamemiya
So why did they climb the mountain? To find out if the mountain was infinite or finite? But they can't prove the mountain is infinite, because the definition of infinite is that it keeps going forever and ever.
they climbed it for the same reason you choose to stare at a girls cleavage when she bends over. curiosity. even if it's super familiar or you KNOW the result. you still gotta do it.
k bad example. lol. but yeah curiosity. you just wanna experience it first hand. even if they never reach the top of the mountain, they'll find lots of exciting things along the way, and those things more than make up for the effort of the trip.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reamemiya
It's like an infinite reason vs the finite reason. An infinite reason never ends, because there's always going to be a reason. A finite reason will end, but unfortunately we'll have to accept the fact that "the reason" is there in the first place, meaning a reason without a reason.
In this case, wouldn't both be unprovable? You can't prove an infinite reason, nor can you prove a definite reason.
yeah, it's unprovable in that sense.
but then this goes back to my fractal example... i think some point in time, perhaps a fractal equation for how the universe or cosmos is structured will emerge... that will be all the proof you need. you won't need to search or look in every crevasse across the span of the cosmos to prove anything or disprove anything. it will all be simply laid out to you in some formula.
i mean, when i tell you there's a song that never ends, and i sing part of it to you... you're not gonna keep singing it just to prove there's no end, or find an end right? you just know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wykydtron
I am not familiar with fractals, so I can't comment well on that area. But in the realm of the infinite, it is impossible to have an actual infinite. There are potential infinites, and actual infinites. The world is full of potential infinites. Actual infinites just cannot be. They create contradictions with themselves. Just look up a thought experiment called Hilbert's Hotel. It is just one of the justifications that is used, and defended by William Craig in defending the Kalam Cosmological Argument (an argument that leads to a higher power using modern day science). At the moment, the Kalam is the most written about theory for the existence of a creator in natural theology. There are brilliant minds who try to take it down, but they just cannot.
One of my favourite examples that show the contradictions of actual infinites is Hilbert's Hotel. Say you have an infinite # of rooms in a hotel, all occupied. And every single infinite person wants to check out. They do, and the hotel is now vacant.
Now, say you have the same hotel, all rooms occupied again. The people in rooms 1,2, and 3 are staying, but from 4 to infinity check out.
Infinite - infinite = 0
Infinite - infinte = 3
Now I'm not claiming to know everything, but just a few of the points that I have learned.
I see a flaw, which i'm not sure if anyone has ever addressed.
in the hotel, they say it is infinite, rooms 1 to infinity. but... that means there's a start... room 1.
shouldn't the rooms be 0 to infinity, and then 0 to negative infinity. there's no... "start" otherwise it wouldn't make sense. if there's a start, then there's an end, because the start of something, is just the end of something if you look backwards. and direction is subjective.
also, numbers don't always "work" or define the same things in every system.
this again is a crude example:
in rudimentary math, 24+24=48 right?
but in time, 24hours into a cycle, +another 24 hours, equals 48 hours, but the result is the 24th hour of the next cycle... so if you just single out the result, you get the same thing. there's more than one axis in this scenario.
or 60 seconds into a minute, plus 1 second, is not 61, but 1. it restarts at it's own level, but adds another to some other level.
where as in basic math, you can keep adding and it just keeps going higher. or keep subtracting and it keeps going lower, and you'll never see the same number again (although you see the same pattern repeat).
these examples seem kinda stupid, but i can't really think of how else i can explain it.
but if you take into account that numbers don't define the same things in different systems, then... it really depends if you know which system you're counting in lol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noclue
^ I forgot who said it maybe napoleon but he said:"Religion is the only thing stopping poor people from rioting and killing the rich as it gives them hope"
napoleon was also a very pragmatic man. i would hire him to lead my armies into battle, but i'd never hire him to teach philosophy.
Last edited by Ulic Qel-Droma; 02-07-2014 at 12:20 AM.
^ I forgot who said it maybe napoleon but he said:"Religion is the only thing stopping poor people from rioting and killing the rich as it gives them hope"
I think this is completely wrong. Religion makes people complacent with where they are, there is loopholes in almost every religion to justify committing a crime (or murder) in one way or another and still get into heaven.
Lets say i told you after 50 years i would give you immortality,all the gold, riches you could ever want. Think what you would spend those 50 years doing? Are you going to purse being rich? Probably not. Then take someone who thinks this is the only life they will live, would they not take life more seriously and make everyday count and try to be rich?
yes, i get what you mean. and there's plenty of research trying to figure out what you just asked. quantum physics, multiverse, holographic universe, reading the surfaces of black holes... all those point to the fact that our future already exists. or some version of our future.
your question begs me to ask the question... how do we know fractals are infinite? how can we prove it? we know because of the mathematical formula. the concept of it.
nothing is provable... this falls back on one of the threads i started a while ago saying religion and science rely on the same axioms.
eventually all proof rely on some axiom within a system. those axioms basically state that for the structure or system to work, there are a few things that just have to "be" without solid proof. mathematical axioms are the most common.
your ultimate proof that you are looking for, is the same as the "ultimate" origin that others are looking... good luck lol!
That's what I'm trying to get across too, if I'm understanding you correctly. In the end, whether it's god, a mathematical formula, or an intellectual being, or a theory, the end result is, that some "thing" has to be without proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulic Qel-Droma
don't you already wonder that now? LOL. I already wonder that even knowing fractals never end or never start.
i mean, lets just think of the mathematical equation. i, ulic, stick that equation into a computer and simulate it. the computer whirs and boom. the fractal appears. now i can zoom in step by step, or zoom out step by step... and i can hold onto forward or backwards button for the rest of my life and I will never find a beginning or end.
i can put in a number to zoom into any point of any time, and it will appear instantly.
now... when did the fractal appear? and how is it eternal, even though I started it? did me putting the equation into the computer give birth to some eternal entity? but how can that be? there was a beginning, i put it in, i started it... yet, after it exists, the beginning is no where to be found.
I'm not a mathematician, but I'm not sure if you can prove infinity/infinite with an equation. Aren't all equations infinite, but an infinite equations haven't been known to exist? y = x can to infinity both ways, but that doesn't mean a y = x infinite line exists right? Simulating it and having already exists is two different things?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulic Qel-Droma
they climbed it for the same reason you choose to stare at a girls cleavage when she bends over. curiosity. even if it's super familiar or you KNOW the result. you still gotta do it.
k bad example. lol. but yeah curiosity. you just wanna experience it first hand. even if they never reach the top of the mountain, they'll find lots of exciting things along the way, and those things more than make up for the effort of the trip.
yeah, it's unprovable in that sense.
but then this goes back to my fractal example... i think some point in time, perhaps a fractal equation for how the universe or cosmos is structured will emerge... that will be all the proof you need. you won't need to search or look in every crevasse across the span of the cosmos to prove anything or disprove anything. it will all be simply laid out to you in some formula.
i mean, when i tell you there's a song that never ends, and i sing part of it to you... you're not gonna keep singing it just to prove there's no end, or find an end right? you just know.
But one would question, how do you know the song never ends? Unless you're the creator of the song. There's also a slight difference in saying a song never ends, as in it starts, and it keeps going forever, vs, the song never ends, as in, the song keeps going forever whichever way you go. It's like saying, the universe can keep going forever, vs, the universe extends infinitely both towards the past and the future. I think those two are different things.
The point I want to bring out is, in the end, everyone climbing the mountain will be accounted to the question, what do you believe in? Is there an end to this mountain, or the mountain goes forever? (either you come to a cause where you accept that's the ultimate cause, a cause without a cause, OR, a cause that goes on forever)
Neither is provable, and either requires just the same amount of "faith" as the other.
The focus (or what I'm trying to say) is not how you get to that answer, but what you do with that answer. You can get there by mathematical formula, , biological observation, logical thinking, or you could get there by guessing or making up some weird creature, but in the end, you'll arrive at an answer where you can not prove. Sure, getting there using a mathematical formula looks more intellectual and logical, but it's the same in the end. You have to make that leap of faith and say, it is what it is, it's there, this is the end, and I have accept that it just exists.
Even if someone finds the ultimate equation that solves everything in the universe, one will always ask why was it there in the first place. It will never stop. Until one accepts the fact that it's just there. Doesn't that take just the same amount of faith as to saying god just exists? Again, you may get there differently, but in the end, everyone will have to make that leap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulic Qel-Droma
don't think of "god" as some dude, or being... if you take "god" as some conceptual mathematical formula, it all makes sense... or it makes better sense.
If both god as some dude, and god as some conceptual mathematical formula, both of which, there's no way to prove the cause of its existence, what's the difference in believing either one?
cant we just all get along... and not argue?!!!?? the ppl who believe creationism are such a happy bunch of people, reminds me of people at church, they are always happy in every way! Can't we just good human beings instead of debating who is right.. lol
__________________
Quote:
Hey guys,
Can someone tell good or unusual dating spots? Or what was your the most unusual date? THanks for sharing!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.HappySilp
my bedroom =D
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhillon09
that's a great secret date spot,
i bet no girl in vancouver has seen it.
That's what I'm trying to get across too, if I'm understanding you correctly. In the end, whether it's god, a mathematical formula, or an intellectual being, or a theory, the end result is, that some "thing" has to be without proof.
I'm not a mathematician, but I'm not sure if you can prove infinity/infinite with an equation. Aren't all equations infinite, but an infinite equations haven't been known to exist? y = x can to infinity both ways, but that doesn't mean a y = x infinite line exists right? Simulating it and having already exists is two different things?
But one would question, how do you know the song never ends? Unless you're the creator of the song. There's also a slight difference in saying a song never ends, as in it starts, and it keeps going forever, vs, the song never ends, as in, the song keeps going forever whichever way you go. It's like saying, the universe can keep going forever, vs, the universe extends infinitely both towards the past and the future. I think those two are different things.
The point I want to bring out is, in the end, everyone climbing the mountain will be accounted to the question, what do you believe in? Is there an end to this mountain, or the mountain goes forever? (either you come to a cause where you accept that's the ultimate cause, a cause without a cause, OR, a cause that goes on forever)
Neither is provable, and either requires just the same amount of "faith" as the other.
The focus (or what I'm trying to say) is not how you get to that answer, but what you do with that answer. You can get there by mathematical formula, , biological observation, logical thinking, or you could get there by guessing or making up some weird creature, but in the end, you'll arrive at an answer where you can not prove. Sure, getting there using a mathematical formula looks more intellectual and logical, but it's the same in the end. You have to make that leap of faith and say, it is what it is, it's there, this is the end, and I have accept that it just exists.
Even if someone finds the ultimate equation that solves everything in the universe, one will always ask why was it there in the first place. It will never stop. Until one accepts the fact that it's just there. Doesn't that take just the same amount of faith as to saying god just exists? Again, you may get there differently, but in the end, everyone will have to make that leap.
If both god as some dude, and god as some conceptual mathematical formula, both of which, there's no way to prove the cause of its existence, what's the difference in believing either one?
you are describing exactly what I am describing. many people didn't get it.
but yeah, i agree with you, at some point, you get to an area in which you must face the same decisions that you stated... Faith is what you're talking about (not religious faith, but trust or confidence in something in which you have no direct "proof").
Last edited by Ulic Qel-Droma; 02-07-2014 at 01:48 PM.
^
I followed thread when you created it and thought it was one of those few thought-provoking thoughts that was enjoyable to read on Revscene.
I think I would see why not many people get it. On a microscopic level (our daily lives), science uncovered so much for mankind, that it's easy to take that and also apply it to the macroscopic level (the whole universe). The world that we live in have so far has been built up on the fact that everything has a cause and effect. So naturally, science fits in to our daily lives and makes everything logical. But when we dive deeper into its root, or a on a bigger scale, we realize that in the end, there's going to be an element of faith.
It's undeniable, that science is more logically sound, which also makes it attractive to people because it makes sense, but when apply to the grand scheme of things, the whole universe, the beginning, it requires just as much as faith to say a god exists and created it.
What I feel is the debate between religion and science is not so much whether the evidence are real or not, or how the universe came about. The notion of god/intellectual being means there's a purpose to the being that created the universe. The notion of science/mathematical formula means that the universe is heading towards a direction that's strictly guided by a set of rules and formula.
^
While we are on this topic, does true randomness exists? (according to the definition of random).
no. Not according to the research done on chaos theory. things only appear random at the level you view it at. but over time, or from a higher perspective, things seem organized again. there's always a pattern which can be mapped out, given enough time and enough cycles.
Our known universe is very organized and structured.
the saying "order arises from chaos" is... literal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reamemiya
Spoiler!
^
I followed thread when you created it and thought it was one of those few thought-provoking thoughts that was enjoyable to read on Revscene.
I think I would see why not many people get it. On a microscopic level (our daily lives), science uncovered so much for mankind, that it's easy to take that and also apply it to the macroscopic level (the whole universe). The world that we live in have so far has been built up on the fact that everything has a cause and effect. So naturally, science fits in to our daily lives and makes everything logical. But when we dive deeper into its root, or a on a bigger scale, we realize that in the end, there's going to be an element of faith.
It's undeniable, that science is more logically sound, which also makes it attractive to people because it makes sense, but when apply to the grand scheme of things, the whole universe, the beginning, it requires just as much as faith to say a god exists and created it.
What I feel is the debate between religion and science is not so much whether the evidence are real or not, or how the universe came about. The notion of god/intellectual being means there's a purpose to the being that created the universe. The notion of science/mathematical formula means that the universe is heading towards a direction that's strictly guided by a set of rules and formula.
yes, you are right.
but then i have to ask... how do you define purpose? purpose is subjective. meaning can be injected to anything depending on your perspective, even your OWN perspective can change and the "original" purpose changes.
Which makes me think at some macroscopic scale, there are no absolutes. I mean, absolutes imply permanent. and it's very obvious nothing stays in a permanent state forever... even things like purpose.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
