Scotty99

Then why do you respond to every single thread i make?

I dont have like an idea of what my "ideal" creator would be, its not like that for me. I just think when you take everything into account a creator makes more sense than not.

I don't really know what i am in regards to classifications, for example i see no problem with evolution and us having a creator. I dont understand why many think these things are incompatible. I just want to add i feel this entire thing is who can guess best. I dont think there is a reward or anything but i do wish science took intution into account more than just data and observations.

So sure i dont doubt there would be some sections of the planet that would be unwilling to waiver from their beliefs, but i truly do think it would be a unifying event that would change the world for the better. Thats part of where im getting all this, i feel we had that in the past as some point. Ancient cultures were clearly far far more advanced than what meets the eye, if you can try and imagine a society where you actually KNOW something like that, would internet and phones and jobs and stuff really be that high on your priority list? Heck no it would probably look something like ancient cultures did. If science was actually able to confirm without a shadow of a doubt that a creator exists it would change everything, i think that is the next scientific revolution. And i already answered the questions as to how i got here, its a combination of things i touched on, really not important to the gist of the thread.

To some maybe? I dunno. I just think its important to separate the idea of a creator with religion, i feel this is going to have to be the way forward for not only the advancement of the human race, but also scientific endeavors. Just imagine this for a second, lets say science finds something that makes it so that its undeniable we were created. It would be such a crazy and unifying event, if there was universal knowledge of a creator (like i believe we had in the past) it would refocus the entire planet, for the better.

Its one of those topics that gets no where, ive been there before on this forum. If people want they can search my post history for the specific reasons i have came to these conclusions, but i will not post them in this thread. Why do you care anyways? Ive decided that i feel there are flaws in the copernican principle, are you not ok with someone having a different opinion on the matter? How i got to this point isnt really important, its that im here. Id rather have conversations about the question posed in the OP, and how i feel it is important that people are able to seperate the idea of a creator to religion, its still baffling to me that so many people even if they disagree with what a religion says will base a creator around that same framework.

lol no its not imperative, you are free to do your own research on the topic as i did. I do understand the feeling you must have tho, would be like the rug taken out from under your and for that i do apologize. There are a lot of problems in science today, it is in my opinion many of them stem from the fact we declared the earth insignificant. This is one of those topics you dont see talked about much, as most of science is "moving forward". You can trust me when i say that the CP is discussed a lot behind closed doors.

Well ive been on both sides of this discussion strange, which brain do i not trust

Definitely not trolling, main reason for the thread is to just get people's thoughts on why religion is so tightly entwined with discussions of a creator, been some good replies so far. Trust me you dont want to go down that road, its too big to get into here. It really is a agree to disagree sort of situation with the copernican principle.

I don't think there is anything to explain, it would simply turn the thread into me linking articles and others linking articles and in the end nothing would be accomplished. There is definitely dissention among the scientific community about the validity of the copernican principle, denying this only admits ignorance.

Its based on both fact and feelings, intuition is something that needs to be taken into account......and i trust my brain. Just know one thing my dude, everyone has something special......you just need to find it. It took me to 35 years to figure out what i was good at, were late bloomers is all

Id rather not get into it here to be honest, just know as someone with zero ties to religion ever i came to the conclusion on my own its more likely we are in the center of the universe than us being a random speck revolving around a random star. I used to be like most people and would say of course there is other life in the universe, look how big it is and how many trillions of galaxies there are. Alas the deeper i dug, the more and more likely a creator became to me. I wont be getting into specifics in this thread, but there is plenty of reading material out there for people wanting to do some research on the copernican principle.

As for the bold part, that makes up about 1/2 of how i came to my conclusions......i feel we are significant. Ive done plenty of research about the copernican principle, and i feel that is where science took a wrong turn. The other half is human history. We really have no clue about anything past a couple thousand years ago, a tiny tiny sliver of time. I find it very likely we have been more advanced in the past than we are now, and no im not saying we had 12g lte 15 or 20,000 years ago To me its very plausible we have had a greater understanding of this universe in the past, that has simply been lost to time. Basically we are in a "lost" period of human history right now, how else would you explain the technological boom of the past 100 years when the great pyramid was the tallest structure on the planet for 3,800 years? I strongly feel we knew things in the past that we don't now. There is more to it than that obviously, but those are two i feel pretty strongly about. Whats funny is i just now stumbled across someone who kind of thinks like me, but not exactly: This "mystic" gets a lot of what i get, the first 10 minutes of that video he is literally describing me lol. When i was young (about 13) i decided in my head to not stick tight to any one way of thinking, at that age i realize that is how people get into arguments and how fights start. I was trying to outsmart my parents and it wired my brain in a way where i dont tie myself to anything, its been a huge positive and negative in my life. I havent even finished the video, but 20 minutes in i think some of you may find it a bit interesting.

I mean, i have my reasons of course. I didn't just wake up one day thinking this stuff, ive done some research over the past few years and that is the conclusion ive come up with. I know others have came to similar conclusions, but they seem few and far between.

Well im not allowed to think that, or at the very minimum im unable to have conversations about it lol. (in reference to your last quote) To me its almost inevitable we have a creator, and its just as likely none of our religious texts are accurate. I think this way for a variety of reasons that are not really relevant to the thread. I guess its just surprising to me more people have not come to this conclusion, and want to have discussions about it.

Never understood why people cannot have a conversation about a creator without bringing up religion. I think its fairly likely we were created but we have either lost that knowledge to the past or never had it at all. Very odd to me that the wiki page for creationism starts off with this line: Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation" So i am not allowed to believe in a creator without taking our current religious texts into account lol? Just incredibly odd to me, /shrug.

I am not sure we can have a conversation if you aren't aware of what the copernican principle denotes.

Well many strange, big one being it gets science away from the idea we aren't special.

I'm not sure we can have a conversation if you can write off the idea of a creator so quickly. Given the current state of cosmology i am surprised anyone can feel confident going forward with any of the theories, or ok with the amount of patchwork that needs to be done. I personally believe there should be teams of people working on an advanced geocentric model, that is where i would start with this re-imagining. I of course know there are problems with the geocentric viewpoint, but given the current situation i feel it deserves another look.

The big bang is constantly challenged? Outside of the absurd (multiverse) i dont see much if any of that.... It just strikes me as odd that article breaks down the problems in science today nicely, but not once suggests an alternative to the big bang. Id just like to see science get to a spot where they can bring intuition into the mix. I think now would be a better time than any, given the current situation.

Peer review of what lol? Its not a study but a "state of things" article. Science is doing nothing but trying to patch up the model to explain away the CMB results, i saw this happening 2 years ago when i made my first post on this forum.

That is the last paragraph from that article. Explain to me why its ok to abandon (what these professors are suggesting) the inflation theory but the big bang is sacred and must not be challenged.

You deny these anisotropies are present? You deny the CP is in question? Did you read the article i linked above from scientific american with professors from harvard/princeton shunning the inflation theory based on the findings from the CMB? How are you so unaware of science's current predicament being a regular on a science forum mordred? So its cool to abandon the inflation model but not the big bang? Explain that one away lol.

Heh, apparently science is also on the verge of abandoning the inflation theory: https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/sciam3.pdf I guess that is another way of explaining away the CMB anisotropies... And zapatos, please...

I am saying you are not privy as to why the cosmological principle is being scrutinized as such. Most people aren't aware of the anisotropies present in the CMB, not something they really want getting out.