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.
the fact is, the cosmos could have existed and will exist in both directions in time, infinitely.
no one created the cosmos. there was no beginning of time. it just is. its just always existed.
this concept is something humans have yet to overcome? or understand?
because we created "time", logically there must be a beginning right? but thats.. not really applicable to everything. we only can apply time to things we can measure.
but there must be things that are not measurable. such as "the beginning".
something can't come from nothing. if it can... then it must be gods creation. but then god came from nothing? or god just is... has always been.
just like time. it's the same concept.
i honestly feel when it comes to measuring existence of time ... you can't do it. there is no value that represents time in that formula. time isnt a factor. it doesn't exist.
the argument above has lead to this logical fork, which both still lead to the same rationale.
something just exists and was never created. it just is.
one refers to the creator(s), god(s).
one refers to the driving force behind all of the cosmos.
Last edited by Ulic Qel-Droma; 09-09-2012 at 05:14 AM.
RS.net, where our google ads make absolutely no sense!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: vancouver
Posts: 925
Thanked 237 Times in 102 Posts
Failed 84 Times in 31 Posts
Quote:
remember, time is a human concept.
we only use it to help us measure things.
exactly. Someone travelling closer to the speed of light will experience/perceive time normally but to an outside observers perception, much more time would have passed in comparison.
what we dont understand is why does our universe have these rules like the conservation of energy, the speed of which light/gravity/neutrino's in a vacuum cannot go beyond ~300,000 km/s....
Quote:
i honestly feel when it comes to measuring existence of time ... you can't do it. there is no value that represents time in that formula. time isnt a factor. it doesn't exist.
I used to believe in religion, then I grew up. For me, it was all about having something to look up to. Posted via RS Mobile
Quote:
Originally Posted by Energy
Yeah same here. Religion is nice when you feel like you have no control over what happens to you or need an explanation for something you don't understand. Both of which tends to happen to young kids or uneducated people.
Other than that I guess it brings people together? Which is both a good and bad thing actually..
I feel the same as both of you. Everyone in my family, girlfriend (her family), and some friends are religious (Catholic) and I'm the only one who doesn't feel the need for it anymore. Went to a Catholic Elementary school + High school too but that didn't help at all lol.
I hate it when my family tells me to "Thank God" for all the good things in my life and how he helped me over come major challenges like school and finding a job. I did all of that on my own. "God" didn't write no exam for me nor was he the one in my interviews.
I did all of that on my own. "God" didn't write no exam for me nor was he the one in my interviews.
Don't get me wrong, you certainly had a lot of input into achieving those things. It's just that all that abilities you have and those opportunities came from somewhere ultimately. Same as all the precursor discussion, I believe our abilities and the universe must have came from somewhere.
Either you believe a creator gave you those chances and abilities or it's randomness that so happened to give you these things. For your Catholic family, their faith drives them towards the former instead of the latter.
Honestly, I miss the good old days of religion; you know, back when science was "exploring the wonders that our creator has brought us and discovering the rules He is guiding us with". I think that faith and rational thought are only mutually exclusive when you want them to be. There are lots of people of faith who don't take their holy book in a totally literal sense, but instead use it for guiding principles (which is kind of how it was intended).
I was raised an Anglican, and went through all of the learnings and the hoohaws and whatnots, drinking the wine and eating the crackers, but I kind of got frustrated with it. I mean, Anglicans here are more progressive now, but it really frustrated me when The Church was all about love and tolerance, but really only if yuo were a member of the club and said as much. I'm glad things are changing, but it's not enough to drag me back.
I'm a huge believer in science, but that doesn't mean I'm going to completely discount faith either. There may one day be a scientific answer for everything, but that day is long long off. And until then, I'd really rather not think that once I die, the lights go off and it's all gone. *poof*.
Now, all that said, I think Evolution deniers and Young Earth Creationists are fucking retarded, and that people who fight for "intelligent design" to be put in to textbooks are some of the biggest idiots in the world.
Universe just existing - implausible
Some deity somehow magically involved in the universe's creation, but himself can just exist - plausible.
I think you're just reading what you want to read. I did not say implausible did I? To be fair, I said the creator theory takes less faith than the universe just existing under the agreement there is cause & effect for everything. Unless you don't agree with everything having cause & effect, then
Ok, let me open up the possibility that there could something that resulted in the creator. So what then? How does that change anything in the creator vs. universe-just-is theories? It's still the debate between intelligent design vs. randomness.
To be fair, I said the creator theory takes less faith than the universe just existing under the agreement there is cause & effect for everything. Unless you don't agree with everything having cause & effect, then
Actually, 'something comng from nothing' isn't that implausible. Particle physics has determined that in what we would ordinarily call 'empty space', some subatomic particles spontaneously appear. Also remember that empty space isn't really empty; there's a difference between 'nothing' and 'null'. All space that exists holds something known as 'vacuum energy', or essentially 'energy that needs to exist for this to exist'. Think of space as everything you can see with your eyes, and 'null space' being like your blind spot. Since it has null energy, it literally doesn't exist and so everything would get bent around it.
Shit. I shouldn't think about these things unless I'm drunk or stoned. Too hard to take in while not in an altered state of perception.
Also: like Ulic said, Cause and effect come from our perceptions of the fourth dimension (time) and its progression. There's no proof saying that time does actually flow linearly outside of our own perception, and IIRC there are physics proofs showing that time is not a stable static unidirectional stream as we perceive it. But again, until we do more science, we'll never know.
..But that's mostly just because we don't have a magical answer-key-book to refer to that has all the answers of particle physics.
but instead use it for guiding principles (which is kind of how it was intended).
That's another thing. There are many prinicples and lessons that are valueble in the bible/other religious books. Not stealing, try not to judge,, taking care of oneself before helping others, just a few. But believing WORSHIPPING a god, bowing down, murmuring with eyes closed, eating crackers and drinking wine, its not something I'd like to do. Posted via RS Mobile
I think you're just reading what you want to read. I did not say implausible did I? To be fair, I said the creator theory takes less faith than the universe just existing under the agreement there is cause & effect for everything. Unless you don't agree with everything having cause & effect, then
Ok, let me open up the possibility that there could something that resulted in the creator. So what then? How does that change anything in the creator vs. universe-just-is theories? It's still the debate between intelligent design vs. randomness.
A basic understanding of probability and the vastness of the universe leads me to assign more likeliness to randomness rather than intelligent design. Creationist theory requires more faith of me.
Creationist theories don't fill the cause-effect gap of our origins. A cause-effect relationship requires a distinct, manifest, unambiguous bridge between the cause and effect explained by our existing pillars of knowledge, much like modern-day evolutionist theory. The "creator" snapping his fingers and bringing something into existence may form the basic skeleton for a comprehensive explanation, but it absolutely does not satisfy.
A basic understanding of probability and the vastness of the universe leads me to assign more likeliness to randomness rather than intelligent design. Creationist theory requires more faith of me.
Creationist theories don't fill the cause-effect gap of our origins. A cause-effect relationship requires a distinct, manifest, unambiguous bridge between the cause and effect explained by our existing pillars of knowledge, much like modern-day evolutionist theory. The "creator" snapping his fingers and bringing something into existence may form the basic skeleton for a comprehensive explanation, but it absolutely does not satisfy.
Let's see if I understand what you mean. Are you saying based on our current knowledge, randomness + vastness is more likely than design + creator in creating this universe? I can see your point.
The striking thing to me is that even if you have randomness +vastness, it doesn't "DO" anything unless there are certain rules with cause & effect. Like the chemical reaction O2 + 2H2 -> 2H2O + energy.
Science helps us discover all these rule-sets: physics, chemistry, biology, etc... What it doesn't do is explain how these rule-sets came about. I see science as an infinite rabbit hole that will always result in more questions when we discover an answer.
It's possible that it is an infinite loop of discovery -> questions -> discovery -> ... {infinite}. Or that there is some end like discovery -> questions -> ... God. What you choose is up to you.
Science helps us discover all these rule-sets: physics, chemistry, biology, etc... What it doesn't do is explain how these rule-sets came about. I see science as an infinite rabbit hole that will always result in more questions when we discover an answer.
Beginning --> question --> answer/benefit/new question --> new answer/more benefits/new question --> and it keeps going and we keep making progress. Perhaps we even find out what caused the beginning.
Creator/god --> question --> creator/god and no progress.
Imagine if our ancestors were satisfied with god always being the answer lol.
logically we have to define what intelligent design is.
inˇtelˇliˇgent deˇsign
Noun:
1 The theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.
now we have to define intelligent
inˇtelˇliˇgent/inˈtelijənt/
Adjective:
1 Having or showing intelligence, esp. of a high level.
2 (of a device, machine, or building) Able to vary its state or action in response to varying situations, varying requirements, and past experience.
and entity
enˇtiˇty/ˈentitē/
Noun:
1 A thing with distinct and independent existence.
2 Existence; being: "entity and nonentity".
i think our understanding of intelligence, existence is and what an entity must consist of is warped and blinded by our egos, combined with the fact that, it is the only way we can perceive anything (and everything).
when we look at rocks, they don't seem too intelligent.
but when we zoom out and see how rocks, magma, tectonic plates, core of earth, all combine and flow together to sustain whatever else (life), we can start to call it an entity. gaia. but it is only an entity and intelligent when viewed as from a whole.
because it is a system that has patterns you can identify.
if you were to zoom out to the most macro possible view of the cosmos, you can probably find the same patterns.
im not saying someone designed it intentionally.
but perhaps, intelligent design is a by product of existence.
we seem to deem things intelligent if they fit into a system.
but what exists that doesn't fit into a system? i can't think of one thing.
but really, in life when you get obsessed with something, your mind filters everything out and you find that something, everywhere you look.
the cosmos is a blank canvas. the possibilities on the canvas are almost infinite.
but whatever is painted onto the canvas still has to follow the rules of the canvas.
to exist within the cavas it has to work that way. regardless if it is to do with randomness. even if it is randomness, it is still a system within the canvas.
and so far, both religion AND science state they just have existed, forever, and ever, and the concept of "beginning" is a human thing.
but i can totally see this to be another circular never ending cycle, much like fractals and our universe/cosmos.
we search for a reason, from top down, "we" say it's god.
from bottom up "we" use science and slowly climb till we reach our goal of finding an answer to life (god/the driving force behind existence).
why is it we understand 'never ending', but we cant understand 'no beginning'?
looking at a fractal helps understand the concept. if you keep zooming out, you can zoom out infinitely. if you zoom in, you can zoom in infinitely. it seems completely logical and it makes sense right? why can't you apply the same logic to the cosmos, to time, to existence.
it's just layer upon layer upon layer infinitely both ways.
doesn't it make so much more sense when you look at it that way?
there's not much to argue about once you understand this concept. that and it satisfies both sides of the argument.
intelligence is a by product of existence, and existence is a by product of intelligence.
Actually, 'something comng from nothing' isn't that implausible. Particle physics has determined that in what we would ordinarily call 'empty space', some subatomic particles spontaneously appear. Also remember that empty space isn't really empty; there's a difference between 'nothing' and 'null'. All space that exists holds something known as 'vacuum energy', or essentially 'energy that needs to exist for this to exist'. Think of space as everything you can see with your eyes, and 'null space' being like your blind spot. Since it has null energy, it literally doesn't exist and so everything would get bent around it.
Are you talking about dark energy?
Can you link to an article that talks about this? Or at least the name of the theory? I'd like to learn about that.
RS.net, where our google ads make absolutely no sense!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 980
Thanked 129 Times in 62 Posts
Failed 22 Times in 11 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graeme S
Honestly, I miss the good old days of religion; you know, back when science was "exploring the wonders that our creator has brought us and discovering the rules He is guiding us with".
Come on, I think we're getting better. In the good old days, so much pressure came from the Church to shut Galileo up when he merely proposed the earth evolves around the sun. I can't imagine the hardship Darwin went through in his day.
Organized religions are a little more realistic now realizing they have to accept evolution (Church of England and the Vatican), only when we are dealing with our religious right friends down south do they attempt to inject stupidity like creationism back into school.
Come on, I think we're getting better. In the good old days, so much pressure came from the Church to shut Galileo up when he merely proposed the earth evolves around the sun. I can't imagine the hardship Darwin went through in his day.
Organized religions are a little more realistic now realizing they have to accept evolution (Church of England and the Vatican), only when we are dealing with our religious right friends down south do they attempt to inject stupidity like creationism back into school.
I only answer to my username, my real name is Irrelevant!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CELICAland
Posts: 25,677
Thanked 10,395 Times in 3,918 Posts
Failed 1,390 Times in 625 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulic Qel-Droma
logically we have to define what intelligent design is.
inˇtelˇliˇgent deˇsign
Noun:
1 The theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.
now we have to define intelligent
inˇtelˇliˇgent/inˈtelijənt/
Adjective:
1 Having or showing intelligence, esp. of a high level.
2 (of a device, machine, or building) Able to vary its state or action in response to varying situations, varying requirements, and past experience.
and entity
enˇtiˇty/ˈentitē/
Noun:
1 A thing with distinct and independent existence.
2 Existence; being: "entity and nonentity".
i think our understanding of intelligence, existence is and what an entity must consist of is warped and blinded by our egos, combined with the fact that, it is the only way we can perceive anything (and everything).
when we look at rocks, they don't seem too intelligent.
but when we zoom out and see how rocks, magma, tectonic plates, core of earth, all combine and flow together to sustain whatever else (life), we can start to call it an entity. gaia. but it is only an entity and intelligent when viewed as from a whole.
because it is a system that has patterns you can identify.
if you were to zoom out to the most macro possible view of the cosmos, you can probably find the same patterns.
im not saying someone designed it intentionally.
but perhaps, intelligent design is a by product of existence.
we seem to deem things intelligent if they fit into a system.
but what exists that doesn't fit into a system? i can't think of one thing.
but really, in life when you get obsessed with something, your mind filters everything out and you find that something, everywhere you look.
the cosmos is a blank canvas. the possibilities on the canvas are almost infinite.
but whatever is painted onto the canvas still has to follow the rules of the canvas.
to exist within the cavas it has to work that way. regardless if it is to do with randomness. even if it is randomness, it is still a system within the canvas.
and so far, both religion AND science state they just have existed, forever, and ever, and the concept of "beginning" is a human thing.
but i can totally see this to be another circular never ending cycle, much like fractals and our universe/cosmos.
we search for a reason, from top down, "we" say it's god.
from bottom up "we" use science and slowly climb till we reach our goal of finding an answer to life (god/the driving force behind existence).
why is it we understand 'never ending', but we cant understand 'no beginning'?
looking at a fractal helps understand the concept. if you keep zooming out, you can zoom out infinitely. if you zoom in, you can zoom in infinitely. it seems completely logical and it makes sense right? why can't you apply the same logic to the cosmos, to time, to existence.
it's just layer upon layer upon layer infinitely both ways.
doesn't it make so much more sense when you look at it that way?
there's not much to argue about once you understand this concept. that and it satisfies both sides of the argument.
intelligence is a by product of existence, and existence is a by product of intelligence.
Let's see if I understand what you mean. Are you saying based on our current knowledge, randomness + vastness is more likely than design + creator in creating this universe? I can see your point.
The striking thing to me is that even if you have randomness +vastness, it doesn't "DO" anything unless there are certain rules with cause & effect. Like the chemical reaction O2 + 2H2 -> 2H2O + energy.
Science helps us discover all these rule-sets: physics, chemistry, biology, etc... What it doesn't do is explain how these rule-sets came about. I see science as an infinite rabbit hole that will always result in more questions when we discover an answer.
It's possible that it is an infinite loop of discovery -> questions -> discovery -> ... {infinite}. Or that there is some end like discovery -> questions -> ... God. What you choose is up to you.
For someone who questions Science so much, why don't you question your religion as much?
There's no fear in unanswered questions, just an excitement in finding them; it allows people to explore, discover, theorize and imagine different possibilities. Religion for all its worth is the ancient man's science. Religion, myths and superstitions were all borne out of ignorance. Read up on Cargo Cults, it's a perfect example of how ignorant/ancient people reacted to things they didn't understand. In the Cargo cult's case, airplanes; in ancient arab jew days it was thunder, lightning, earthquakes and other natural phenomena.
"Hell is an invention of the church"
"The church doesn't like it the people to grow up, because you can't control grown ups"
"The people don't need to be born again, they need to grow up and take responsibilities..."
For someone who questions Science so much, why don't you question your religion as much?
Wow, from which sentence I wrote gave you the idea that I question science validity? Did you read the post where I wrote about science and faith coexisting and complementing each other?
Wow, from which sentence I wrote gave you the idea that I question science validity? Did you read the post where I wrote about science and faith coexisting and complementing each other?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pally777
It is just easier to put your faith only on your 5 senses since you use it everyday and it's familiar. That doesn't make it truth.
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!
