That wasn't what you asked for though. You asked me what I "believed," about the origin of the universe. I don't believe anything about it. I have some certain bits of knowledge about various parts of what (current science) has assumed to be the original epoch of our universe, but even of that small part I (as is the rest of humanity) am currently still filling in blanks as theory and data form more knowledge.
I don't and do not have to believe in Quantum theory or BB Theory. They're plausible and rational explanations of observable phenomena that are backed up by empirical evidence. Assuming more empirical data were gathered that overturned both theories, I wouldn't place any stock in them. If I held beliefs in either theory, it would require me to consider them valid regardless of the data. That is completely irrational and counter to my nature.
That wasn't what you asked for though. You asked me what I "believed," about the origin of the universe. I don't believe anything about it. I have some certain bits of knowledge about various parts of what (current science) has assumed to be the original epoch of our universe, but even of that small part I (as is the rest of humanity) am currently still filling in blanks as theory and data form more knowledge.
I don't and do not have to believe in Quantum theory or BB Theory. They're plausible and rational explanations of observable phenomena that are backed up by empirical evidence. Assuming more empirical data were gathered that overturned both theories, I wouldn't place any stock in them. If I held beliefs in either theory, it would require me to consider them valid regardless of the data. That is completely irrational and counter to my nature.
i need to read the dictionary more when i talk to you because you take everything in its 100% literal definition. which i guess is how speach should be taken and its hard to not when its just words on a page and not in person. i just wanted your opinion on what you thought about it, not actually 100% believed to be true.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"once the pretty hardcore gamers we had testing inferno found it fairly difficult, we then we doubled it" -trolololol jay wilson
i need to read the dictionary more when i talk to you because you take everything in its 100% literal definition. which i guess is how speach should be taken and its hard to not when its just words on a page and not in person. i just wanted your opinion on what you thought about it, not actually 100% believed to be true.
Yes, I am usually literal when speaking on this subject. If you want my opinion, all you need to do is ask. =)
In my opinion, the idea we are all alone in the mysterious universe doesn't frighten me. I consider it plausible and likely, given the data I have, that at some point a very long time ago the universe was a very small and dense sphere. I furthermore find it plausible, considering the data supporting quantum theory, that this tiny ball of universe could have simply come from "nothing," for lack of a better description, since further framing and background are either too far out of focus or too abstract to think about for science at present.
It is my opinion that the above chain of events might have happened and that we have more reason to presume it did happen than not or that it did happen instead of some other explanation that is unfounded in the empirical sense.
i need to read the dictionary more when i talk to you because you take everything in its 100% literal definition. which i guess is how speach should be taken and its hard to not when its just words on a page and not in person. i just wanted your opinion on what you thought about it, not actually 100% believed to be true.
Yes, I am usually literal when speaking on this subject. If you want my opinion, all you need to do is ask. =)
In my opinion, the idea we are all alone in the mysterious universe doesn't frighten me. I consider it plausible and likely, given the data I have, that at some point a very long time ago the universe was a very small and dense sphere. I furthermore find it plausible, considering the data supporting quantum theory, that this tiny ball of universe could have simply come from "nothing," for lack of a better description, since further framing and background are either too far out of focus or too abstract to think about for science at present.
It is my opinion that the above chain of events might have happened and that we have more reason to presume it did happen than not or that it did happen instead of some other explanation that is unfounded in the empirical sense.
i recently went to a planetarium and spoke to an astronomer and out of the billions of galaxies that could be like our own i find it almost impossible to think that we are alone and "aliens" dont exist. wither they are also human or soem other type of creature. or just perhaps another earth-type planet but all the animals are.... animals. no real intelligent life. it will be hundreds of years before we can travel freely in space like its normal and explore billions of lightyears away.
by no means do i believe the earth has been visited by aliens or anything rediculous like that. just if we literally could travel the universe we would find SOMETHING else is what i believe
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"once the pretty hardcore gamers we had testing inferno found it fairly difficult, we then we doubled it" -trolololol jay wilson
That wasn't what you asked for though. You asked me what I "believed," about the origin of the universe. I don't believe anything about it. I have some certain bits of knowledge about various parts of what (current science) has assumed to be the original epoch of our universe, but even of that small part I (as is the rest of humanity) am currently still filling in blanks as theory and data form more knowledge.
I don't and do not have to believe in Quantum theory or BB Theory. They're plausible and rational explanations of observable phenomena that are backed up by empirical evidence. Assuming more empirical data were gathered that overturned both theories, I wouldn't place any stock in them. If I held beliefs in either theory, it would require me to consider them valid regardless of the data. That is completely irrational and counter to my nature.
i need to read the dictionary more when i talk to you because you take everything in its 100% literal definition. which i guess is how speach should be taken and its hard to not when its just words on a page and not in person. i just wanted your opinion on what you thought about it, not actually 100% believed to be true.
Words are symbols to represent ideas. To use them incorrectly leads people to think they "know" things. It leads to a lack of understanding and misrepresentation of the true meaning of these things. This is a bigger issue than most are aware of.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
That wasn't what you asked for though. You asked me what I "believed," about the origin of the universe. I don't believe anything about it. I have some certain bits of knowledge about various parts of what (current science) has assumed to be the original epoch of our universe, but even of that small part I (as is the rest of humanity) am currently still filling in blanks as theory and data form more knowledge.
I don't and do not have to believe in Quantum theory or BB Theory. They're plausible and rational explanations of observable phenomena that are backed up by empirical evidence. Assuming more empirical data were gathered that overturned both theories, I wouldn't place any stock in them. If I held beliefs in either theory, it would require me to consider them valid regardless of the data. That is completely irrational and counter to my nature.
i need to read the dictionary more when i talk to you because you take everything in its 100% literal definition. which i guess is how speach should be taken and its hard to not when its just words on a page and not in person. i just wanted your opinion on what you thought about it, not actually 100% believed to be true.
Words are symbols to represent ideas. To use them incorrectly leads people to think they "know" things. It leads to a lack of understanding and misrepresentation of the true meaning of these things. This is a bigger issue than most are aware of.
i recently went to a planetarium and spoke to an astronomer and out of the billions of galaxies that could be like our own i find it almost impossible to think that we are alone and "aliens" dont exist. wither they are also human or soem other type of creature. or just perhaps another earth-type planet but all the animals are.... animals. no real intelligent life. it will be hundreds of years before we can travel freely in space like its normal and explore billions of lightyears away.
Aside from that having nothing to do with the origin of our universe, I agree with the premise it seems statistically unlikely that the processes of evolution and natural selection haven't generated another sentient species elsewhere or at-least more locations where life, in the sense we understand it, is present. I don't think that the discovery of said life (or lack there of) would change my skeptical view of cosmology much. If any other species is there to be discovered, and even if it were a carbon-copy of humanity, we would still be looking for a more complete empirical explanations for how the universe works.
by no means do i believe the earth has been visited by aliens or anything rediculous like that. just if we literally could travel the universe we would find SOMETHING else is what i believe
If we are to presume that an alien is capable of visiting earth, I think we could also presume they might be able to do so without being widely detected. I don't take any of the alien sightings/conspiracies seriously either, but I don't eschew the possibility that other life has glimpsed us at some point. I agree, if we became capable of traveling the universe in the Star-Trek sense, we would be shocked to not find anything that didn't cross from the realm of chemistry into biology.
Fun philosophy. If you were to be reincarnated, would you want to have your memory of your past life?
I am not aware of any plausible evidential theory behind reincarnation. In every way it has been described to me, even by the 'atheistic' Buddhist sects, it appears to require a cosmic judge to deem lives worthy of some subjectively better incarnation or subjectively worse incarnation. They might not use the "G," word, but it is most definitely implied and thus the whole proposition takes on very little meaning to me. That said, if by some currently-inexplicable process I were to be reincarnated after my inevitable demise and if I were allowed to choose (throwing logic out the window just for the sake of exigence). I would rather carry over all the knowledge that I had previously acquired so I could continue to learn more in successive iterations.
on the topic of reincarnation, i like the idea of quantum immortality. that brings more comfort to me than heaven for some odd reason.
Because the thought of floating around clouds without any tangible things and somehow mindlessly happy seems not so great. Keep coming back forever is much more fun
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"once the pretty hardcore gamers we had testing inferno found it fairly difficult, we then we doubled it" -trolololol jay wilson
on the topic of reincarnation, i like the idea of quantum immortality. that brings more comfort to me than heaven for some odd reason.
Because the thought of floating around clouds without any tangible things and somehow mindlessly happy seems not so great. Keep coming back forever is much more fun
it has more to do with staying alive until the end of the universe than coming back over and over, but i get ya.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
"An atheist has to know alot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions athesim is very stupid." - Carl Sagan
I figured since you guys (Proleteria and LinkX) get such rampant hard ons over Carl Sagan ... that I should just toss this one at ya.
"An atheist has to know alot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions athesim is very stupid." - Carl Sagan
I figured since you guys (Proleteria and LinkX) get such rampant hard ons over Carl Sagan ... that I should just toss this one at ya.
Indeed. To claim such knowledge is laughable.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
"An atheist has to know alot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions athesim is very stupid." - Carl Sagan
I figured since you guys (Proleteria and LinkX) get such rampant hard ons over Carl Sagan ... that I should just toss this one at ya.
Indeed. To claim such knowledge is laughable.
just replace that with "think" and its fine. knowing is an absolute. and absolutes lead to the dark side.....
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"once the pretty hardcore gamers we had testing inferno found it fairly difficult, we then we doubled it" -trolololol jay wilson
The statement wasn't referring to what people think. It was referring to what they claim to know.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
holy shit 855 posts on this, nearly as many pages that are in the new testament
im a catholic by birth, havent really practiced it as an adult no see im caught in the middle, i beleive in science, i beleive in evolution
but same time i do now and again think about a higher being, but that higher being is Mr Bill Murray
so yes my god is Bill Murray
I, too, am a man of science and adhere to scientific theory and factual approaches to life's questions. Based on true scientific method it is impossible to disprove the existence of anything, for that would require simultaneous observation of everything in every place at every point in time. Someone who approaches the existence of god, gods, or even alien life must do so with the realization that lack of evidence in no way proves lack of existence.
It is interesting that you state you "believe" in evolution--meaning you have faith in it. Evolution is still a theory, unproven, because it isn't possible TO prove it since none of us are capable of observing anything for millennia. The fossil record is suggestive, but not proof.
This thread's title is an interesting one. The OP must think himself an impressive force to be reckoned with within the realm of philosophy to demand that the metaphysical be demonstrated to him through HTML--that or he is a massive troll.
God is personal, ethereal, and has no objective measure but ony that which is felt inside, that which guides an individual's morals, their veiw of "good" and "evil".
The OP is searching for proof to settle an internal struggle. He/she does not wish to acknowledge the nagging thought that persists, the deep feeling that there is more to life than that which we can see/feel/touch/taste/or hear. As such the OP seeks to prove all others as inferior to elevate themselves and to quiet their own thoughts. I cannot help you there, OP, for discredit those who believe in God all you will, unfortunately for you, it is impossible to use science to disprove His/Her existence.
Atheism is a faith all it's own, but instead of believing in something that gives hope and a moral compass, it is a belief in nothing.
It has been said that those that believe in nothing will fall for anything.
holy shit 855 posts on this, nearly as many pages that are in the new testament
im a catholic by birth, havent really practiced it as an adult no see im caught in the middle, i beleive in science, i beleive in evolution
but same time i do now and again think about a higher being, but that higher being is Mr Bill Murray
so yes my god is Bill Murray
ok let me ask you this and im not really an atheist, but for the people who do beleive in god (if you have a faith, i wont judge you) why do you play wow and diablo?
surely games like this will go against your beliefs and what you stand for
same for the atheists, diablo means devil, entity, spirit, but atheists dont beleive in spirits god, the devil and supernatural beings
but hye its a game and its ok...im not saying you are wrong, im just saying
Thats a rather silly post -
Premarital sex is DEFINATELY bad in all sects of Christianity, yet its practiced by staunch beliefers. Playing a video game is NOT the same as comitting a sin. The closest comparison you could come up with is comparing it to looking at pornography, but even that is not comparible. Pornography is normally for the goal of lusting over 2 other people engaging in sexual relations... and normally you wish you were one of those 2 (or several :-D) people doing the witnessed acts. Playing a video game does not wish you were doing that act in real life... or mean you believe in the religions of these games.
As for bringing up aethiests playing diablo ... Diablo originally had Christian over tones yes.... but that was shredded and replaced with a made up mythology / lore to appease to non Christian players. Several different religions believe in demons by the way... Think about the Djinns and Ifritis....
Premarital sex is DEFINATELY bad in all sects of Christianity, yet its practiced by staunch beliefers. Playing a video game is NOT the same as comitting a sin. The closest comparison you could come up with is comparing it to looking at pornography, but even that is not comparible. Pornography is normally for the goal of lusting over 2 other people engaging in sexual relations... and normally you wish you were one of those 2 (or several :-D) people doing the witnessed acts. Playing a video game does not wish you were doing that act in real life... or mean you believe in the religions of these games.
As for bringing up aethiests playing diablo ... Diablo originally had Christian over tones yes.... but that was shredded and replaced with a made up mythology / lore to appease to non Christian players. Several different religions believe in demons by the way... Think about the Djinns and Ifritis....
not trolling or anything. i honestly, truly and deeply wish i could kill hookers IRL like GTA.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"once the pretty hardcore gamers we had testing inferno found it fairly difficult, we then we doubled it" -trolololol jay wilson
holy shit 855 posts on this, nearly as many pages that are in the new testament
im a catholic by birth, havent really practiced it as an adult no see im caught in the middle, i beleive in science, i beleive in evolution
but same time i do now and again think about a higher being, but that higher being is Mr Bill Murray
so yes my god is Bill Murray
I, too, am a man of science and adhere to scientific theory and factual approaches to life's questions. Based on true scientific method it is impossible to disprove the existence of anything, for that would require simultaneous observation of everything in every place at every point in time. Someone who approaches the existence of god, gods, or even alien life must do so with the realization that lack of evidence in no way proves lack of existence.
It is interesting that you state you "believe" in evolution--meaning you have faith in it. Evolution is still a theory, unproven, because it isn't possible TO prove it since none of us are capable of observing anything for millennia. The fossil record is suggestive, but not proof.
This thread's title is an interesting one. The OP must think himself an impressive force to be reckoned with within the realm of philosophy to demand that the metaphysical be demonstrated to him through HTML--that or he is a massive troll.
God is personal, ethereal, and has no objective measure but ony that which is felt inside, that which guides an individual's morals, their veiw of "good" and "evil".
The OP is searching for proof to settle an internal struggle. He/she does not wish to acknowledge the nagging thought that persists, the deep feeling that there is more to life than that which we can see/feel/touch/taste/or hear. As such the OP seeks to prove all others as inferior to elevate themselves and to quiet their own thoughts. I cannot help you there, OP, for discredit those who believe in God all you will, unfortunately for you, it is impossible to use science to disprove His/Her existence.
Atheism is a faith all it's own, but instead of believing in something that gives hope and a moral compass, it is a belief in nothing.
It has been said that those that believe in nothing will fall for anything.
I doubt you'll go back and read Proletaria (OP)'s posts but he made this whole thread as some sort of silly play thing for himself. Several times over the course of this thread he tells us that we cannot prove there is a god... but when asked for him to disprove him, he simply states thats not what this thread is about. He "wants to see if anyone has any good proof."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That wasn't what you asked for though. You asked me what I "believed," about the origin of the universe. I don't believe anything about it. I have some certain bits of knowledge about various parts of what (current science) has assumed to be the original epoch of our universe, but even of that small part I (as is the rest of humanity) am currently still filling in blanks as theory and data form more knowledge.
I don't and do not have to believe in Quantum theory or BB Theory. They're plausible and rational explanations of observable phenomena that are backed up by empirical evidence. Assuming more empirical data were gathered that overturned both theories, I wouldn't place any stock in them. If I held beliefs in either theory, it would require me to consider them valid regardless of the data. That is completely irrational and counter to my nature.
i need to read the dictionary more when i talk to you because you take everything in its 100% literal definition. which i guess is how speach should be taken and its hard to not when its just words on a page and not in person. i just wanted your opinion on what you thought about it, not actually 100% believed to be true.
Yes, I am usually literal when speaking on this subject. If you want my opinion, all you need to do is ask. =)
In my opinion, the idea we are all alone in the mysterious universe doesn't frighten me. I consider it plausible and likely, given the data I have, that at some point a very long time ago the universe was a very small and dense sphere. I furthermore find it plausible, considering the data supporting quantum theory, that this tiny ball of universe could have simply come from "nothing," for lack of a better description, since further framing and background are either too far out of focus or too abstract to think about for science at present.
It is my opinion that the above chain of events might have happened and that we have more reason to presume it did happen than not or that it did happen instead of some other explanation that is unfounded in the empirical sense.
i recently went to a planetarium and spoke to an astronomer and out of the billions of galaxies that could be like our own i find it almost impossible to think that we are alone and "aliens" dont exist. wither they are also human or soem other type of creature. or just perhaps another earth-type planet but all the animals are.... animals. no real intelligent life. it will be hundreds of years before we can travel freely in space like its normal and explore billions of lightyears away.
by no means do i believe the earth has been visited by aliens or anything rediculous like that. just if we literally could travel the universe we would find SOMETHING else is what i believe
Words are symbols to represent ideas. To use them incorrectly leads people to think they "know" things. It leads to a lack of understanding and misrepresentation of the true meaning of these things. This is a bigger issue than most are aware of.
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
well thats gay....
DOH!
Aside from that having nothing to do with the origin of our universe, I agree with the premise it seems statistically unlikely that the processes of evolution and natural selection haven't generated another sentient species elsewhere or at-least more locations where life, in the sense we understand it, is present. I don't think that the discovery of said life (or lack there of) would change my skeptical view of cosmology much. If any other species is there to be discovered, and even if it were a carbon-copy of humanity, we would still be looking for a more complete empirical explanations for how the universe works.
If we are to presume that an alien is capable of visiting earth, I think we could also presume they might be able to do so without being widely detected. I don't take any of the alien sightings/conspiracies seriously either, but I don't eschew the possibility that other life has glimpsed us at some point. I agree, if we became capable of traveling the universe in the Star-Trek sense, we would be shocked to not find anything that didn't cross from the realm of chemistry into biology.
I am not aware of any plausible evidential theory behind reincarnation. In every way it has been described to me, even by the 'atheistic' Buddhist sects, it appears to require a cosmic judge to deem lives worthy of some subjectively better incarnation or subjectively worse incarnation. They might not use the "G," word, but it is most definitely implied and thus the whole proposition takes on very little meaning to me. That said, if by some currently-inexplicable process I were to be reincarnated after my inevitable demise and if I were allowed to choose (throwing logic out the window just for the sake of exigence). I would rather carry over all the knowledge that I had previously acquired so I could continue to learn more in successive iterations.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
I figured since you guys (Proleteria and LinkX) get such rampant hard ons over Carl Sagan ... that I should just toss this one at ya.
Indeed. To claim such knowledge is laughable.
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
just replace that with "think" and its fine. knowing is an absolute. and absolutes lead to the dark side.....
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
ya exactly. the dark side
It is interesting that you state you "believe" in evolution--meaning you have faith in it. Evolution is still a theory, unproven, because it isn't possible TO prove it since none of us are capable of observing anything for millennia. The fossil record is suggestive, but not proof.
This thread's title is an interesting one. The OP must think himself an impressive force to be reckoned with within the realm of philosophy to demand that the metaphysical be demonstrated to him through HTML--that or he is a massive troll.
God is personal, ethereal, and has no objective measure but ony that which is felt inside, that which guides an individual's morals, their veiw of "good" and "evil".
The OP is searching for proof to settle an internal struggle. He/she does not wish to acknowledge the nagging thought that persists, the deep feeling that there is more to life than that which we can see/feel/touch/taste/or hear. As such the OP seeks to prove all others as inferior to elevate themselves and to quiet their own thoughts. I cannot help you there, OP, for discredit those who believe in God all you will, unfortunately for you, it is impossible to use science to disprove His/Her existence.
Atheism is a faith all it's own, but instead of believing in something that gives hope and a moral compass, it is a belief in nothing.
It has been said that those that believe in nothing will fall for anything.
Thats a rather silly post -
Premarital sex is DEFINATELY bad in all sects of Christianity, yet its practiced by staunch beliefers. Playing a video game is NOT the same as comitting a sin. The closest comparison you could come up with is comparing it to looking at pornography, but even that is not comparible. Pornography is normally for the goal of lusting over 2 other people engaging in sexual relations... and normally you wish you were one of those 2 (or several :-D) people doing the witnessed acts. Playing a video game does not wish you were doing that act in real life... or mean you believe in the religions of these games.
As for bringing up aethiests playing diablo ... Diablo originally had Christian over tones yes.... but that was shredded and replaced with a made up mythology / lore to appease to non Christian players. Several different religions believe in demons by the way... Think about the Djinns and Ifritis....
not trolling or anything. i honestly, truly and deeply wish i could kill hookers IRL like GTA.
I doubt you'll go back and read Proletaria (OP)'s posts but he made this whole thread as some sort of silly play thing for himself. Several times over the course of this thread he tells us that we cannot prove there is a god... but when asked for him to disprove him, he simply states thats not what this thread is about. He "wants to see if anyone has any good proof."