tar

Inow, I am trying to not ignore anything. It is obvious to me that my now is separate from other nows in some senses and the same in others. In some ways the future has already occurred, in at least the general sense, that any and all photons that are entering the Earth's atmosphere from other stars now, were necessarily "on their way here" yesterday. They could not arrive here today, coming from "there" unless they traversed the space between this here, and that here. And it took some time for them to make the trip. Thus they had to have left the other here, the other star I am considering, at an "earlier" time than now. That is, that particular set of photons, arriving here today from an object 10 light years distant, left that object "at the same time" that the Earth was engaged in cycling the Sun, 10 cycles of the Sun ago. For this to be true, and because this is true and actual, it requires that there is another set of photons, being released from that distant object during this cycle of the Earth around the Sun, that will arrive here during the period of time that the Earth is in its 10th cycle of the Sun, from now. And there is a steady stream of photons, coming from that distant object that will arrive here in all the moments between now and 10 years from now, that are already, actually in existence in the universe, in that space between the distant object and Earth. New ones leaving "just now" in that "universal" now, that we can concieve actually exists, in reality, understood only from a "God's eye view", that is not bound by the speed of light, but can be known to be true and real, non-the-less. I never quite understand, when people are assuming this God like understanding of "now" in a correct and true and real and scientifically accurate manner, and when they are "misunderstanding" the nature of this universal now. Or when indeed, I am misunderstanding what our measurements and logic have to say about it. Where I am "making my mistake" in characterising the nature of time and space. I understand that time is relative. In many senses. But there are certain assumptions, or starting points, it seems one has to have, inorder to say anthing about it at all. I am considering that the best starting point is here and now, and that is the real and measurable moment we all have access to. And from here and now, we can figure by the evidence, how the rest of the universe must be configured. With nothing really making any sense at all, if we can't at least start with our basic intuition and common sense. Time and space and the reality of it, what ACTUALLY is occuring, considering all the entities and energies, and cycles within it, will not change much, whether I understand calculus or relativity, or not. The calculus is derived from the things that are occurring, and are based on our concepts and judgements about the things that are occurring. While there many be many points of reference, and many ways to look at it, I don't find much value in attempting to look at it, from a reference point that DOESN'T exist. Seems more sensible to attempt to explain it, from here and now. Regards, TAR2

Immortal, And why can Western thought not be considered on its own merits, without having to bow to the "wisdom" of the ancient masters? Perhaps you might consider that many in the West, have read the teachings of the Eastern "Masters" and have considered the ideas and folded them into their own thought, in whole or part, or categorized them appropropriately, consistent with available knowledge and logic, based on their value and merit and dealt with them as they should be dealt with. The East has as much to learn from the West, as the West from the East, and what is foolish remains foolish in either hemisphere, and what is valuble remains valuable. What is real remains real, and what is woo, remains woo. Regards, TAR2 And sorry, I have not read the links yet.

Inow, Interesting, but not very satisfying. There are concepts tossed around, willy nilly, with inconsistencies shrugged off, with "well it could be this or that" or "we don't know why". And impossible things allowed, just to prove a side point. For instance, the guy goes off with his tickets to the future, orbits a black hole for a while, comes back "only having aged a few hours" and the ticket counter gal, is now an older woman... What black hole do you know, that he could have reached, inorder to orbit, in an hour? He would have to age a few hundred thousand years, just to GET TO a black hole. And you say, I cannot construct an imaginary now, yet they sliced the universe into "now" slices and manipulated them, according to a bike rider's motion...inorder to show I can't have a now slice, in the first place? And IF all the times and places of the universe, near and far, past and future exist, on equal footing, what possible sense could a statement like "the universe is currently accelerating" possible make? My point, or question in the OP still stands. We all, here on Earth agree we are in THIS cycle of the Earth around the Sun, even though it has circled the Sun 4 billion times before, and there will be future cycles. We all agree on the day, the hour, the minute, and thanks to the cesium clock in colorado, we all "are in" the same, well defined and measured second. There is no thing, or person on Earth, that is currently in a previous cycle, or a later one. We are all together, in concert, consistently in THIS cycle. Seems to me, there must be reasons for this. Seems to me the reasons are real and important. We are all in the same now, here on Earth, which means something. AND we consider the WHOLE universe is 14.3 billion years old. All of it. Each and every particle in it...considered to be experiencing THIS moment in the life of the universe. And you say I can't construct a universal now? How come then scientists can say it is a certain age, if all of it, is not the same age, at once. And that once, that moment, is NOW? Regards, TAR2

What? Except you, right? You are the only glimmer of decency and common sense on the planet. And what's this "you beings" crap. Like you are made of something different than the rest of us. There are billions of people, doing the right thing, all the time, and it has been such for quite some time. If you have some knowledge that the rest of us beings don't have, why don't you share it, or put it into practice to make the corrections required for everybody to have this perfect life you envision. But quit belly-aching. Your belly-aching doesn-t make anything better.

Immortal, Have not read through the links yet, (have plans today, and was having trouble with the links). But I would like to fall in with an uninformed stance, that your either/or is not completely defined, or logically forced. Things can be "of mind" without proving god exists as easily as something can be of TAR2 without my physical possesion of the thing. If there are ideas about things, and there are things, we are already assuming a dialectic of sorts. A universe to be in and of, and our ideas about it. If your definition of God, is us having an idea, that is, if having an idea is proof of God, then you are concluding your premise. Which, does not require our thoughts to be "powered" by anything other than real entities. Which in my book would say that the external world is both the source and the object of our consideration of it. Regards, TAR2

Iggy, Was with you, till the last phrase. Wouldn't all humans have the same instinct against lying and murdering? If we were to carry your logic through? (plus I was taught in 12 grade psychology that humans don't have any instincts, instincts being complex, unlearned behaviours, that are species wide, like nest building). And murdering and lying should have been, under your logic, selected right out of existence. I'm thinking we have to give some credit to religion and spirituality, whether its taken literally or figuratively. Regards, TAR2

D H, I knew what the 7 minutes of terror was referring to. That time span from when we knew the craft was hitting the atmosphere to when it landed. And along with the team in Pasadena, will be the rest of us, who care. My suggestion is in opposition to Inow's statement, that I can not construct a universal now, or that we all don't have the ability to do such. When we say the light from the Sun takes eight minutes to get here, we differenciate between the photons hitting our eyes now, and those that will be hitting our eyes in eight minutes. The later are "just now" being released by the Sun. Inorder to have this conception, we must hold an image of two different reference frames. One where the Earth, or our individual point of focus is NOW, and one where our current reception of photons from the Sun AND the release of a different set of photons(that will arrive in 8 minutes) are occurring simultaneously. The fact that there is no "real" observer, that can experience both events at the same time, does not prevent the true conception that there are photons leaving the Sun "now" that will arrive here in 8 minutes. And they are a different set of real photons, than the set that is arriving here now. If the Curiostity touches Mar's atmosphere at 5:32 EST, and it takes a signal orignating at the craft 14 minutes to reach Earth, then we will get the signal at 5:46 EST. If we are to go by when the craft "really" entered the atmosphere. If we are going by when we "see" the craft enter the atmosphere, and clocking THAT event as happening at 5:32 EST (when the team sees it and starts their 7 minutes of terror), the craft would have, in actuality entered the atmosphere 14 minutes earlier, at 4:18 EST. (and has at the point we recieve the images, already landed safely, or crashed). The craft however is only existing at one place and time, at a time. In Inow's description, what time is it here, when the craft enters the atmosphere there? And if there is 14 minutes lag between what happens here, and what happens there, don't we have to chose to consider two different versions of now. One that is defined by the speed of light, and one "universal" now, that ignores the speed of light completely, and sees both events at "the same time"? Regards, TAR2 Since I was a boy, people have been telling me that stars are so far away, that we see what they looked like a hundred or a thousand or a million years ago, and they are really existing now in another later looking state, or could even have exploded and are now gone. In order to know this thing, which is evidently true, I have to hold a "false" image of what really is, and hold a "true" image of what really isn't. Since it is both true that I see what I see, now, and it is true that I will see what really is now, later, I need to hold two different models of the same thing, one real image, and how that correlates to the real thing. What it looks like from here and now, and what it must be, in reality to look like that. THIS here and now, to be the reference frame to which to correlate everything else. With the knowledge that the Sun really is putting out photons now that will not be the ones I see for another 8 minutes. For instance, if we were to find a way to entangle two particles and keep the one, and send the other with a craft, arranged in such a manner as it would cause a light to flash on Mars when we changed the state of its partner here on Earth. We would see the flash 14 minutes after we affected the partner here. If on the other hand, we sent a signal to flash the light, we would see the flash 28 minutes later. Mar's now is 14 minutes away from ours. And an event happening simultaneously on Earth and Mars puts us both in the same "universal" now, that doesn't care about the speed of light.

sri_nav, I'll bet you the world does not end in 2012. I will even give a week or two fudge factor, and 10 to one odds. If the world ends on Dec. 21st 2012, or any time thereabouts, I will owe you a million dollars. If it does not end on or about that date, you will owe me 100,000 dollars. What do you say? OK, a little too rich for your blood? How about this. The loser has to write the word "IDIOT" backward on his or her forehead, in magic marker, in big bold letters, so that he or she can read it clearly in the mirror for several days? Or maybe, on the 23rd, you will have the guts to post here, and admit you were 100% wrong.

My answer to the grandfather paradox would be that it makes no sense, either way, therefore you can not go back in time. What's done is done. And we are on to what we are going to do next.

Interesting, 7 minutes of terror for who? Those who know the project will know the craft is actually currently on the surface (intact or in pieces) and has been for a while, as soon as the signals come in that the craft is ready to hit the atmosphere of Mars. I would think the terror could realistically begin seventeen minutes before its about to enter the atmosphere (going by signal reception). So why don't we expect about 45 minutes of terror? From the time "we think" the craft is hitting the atmosphere, to the time we know the rover is on the ground, intact and operational? And I think the question of what or who's now we are going by, is still a good one. The universal now, though real in retrospect, is more conceptual than actual. Our actual now, concerning the entire universe, is the one that is composed of events everywhere, arriving here, now, informing us of their existence. Is it just me that finds this an interesting question? Or does everybody else either have it figured out already, or not see it as a thing that requires figuring out? Regards, TAR2

Spyman, Well thanks for that. Guess I should have read about it, before jumping to conclusions. I had thought it would "have to be" automated, and was perplexed at the thought that anybody could have direct control of the craft. Still leaves the OP question however, as in whether or not the Curiosity has left our now. Or whether the Curiousity will expand our here and now to include Mars, and expand our moment from 3 seconds to a half hour, and expand our "here" from the orbit of the Moon, to the orbit of Mars (including the Sun, in our here and now). Regards, TAR2 Or have we created AI, that can exist/survive in its own here and now, on it own.

Seems to me, there must be a reason why everything on Earth and Everybody on Earth, exists in the same now, and the rest of the universe seems to exist immediately, but we know it's actual now will not "get here" 'til another later time, depending on the distance and the relative velocity of an event. Somewhere I read that a human "present moment" is about 2 and a half to 3 seconds long. Perhaps that has something to do with the round trip time of various sensory inputs plus predictive motor simulations plus motor impulses, plus the sensory inputs of the results. And we are always "in the middle" of this process. But perhaps as well, since we are used to this "lengthy" present moment, we can easily concieve of everywhere that light can get and back, in 2 and half to three seconds, as "here and now". That's about half a million miles, or a sphere around wherever we sit, a million miles in diameter. Certainly includes everybody else on Earth, and the moon (238 thousand miles or about a moment away...456 thousand mile round trip for light), but little else is "inside" our moment. In the fall, I hear we are to attempt a remote, "piloted" landing of a craft on Mars. On the way now, I hear. The pilot is going to have to stretch his or her "moment" quite a bit. Mars varies from half an AU (four minutes or 80 moments to 2 and half AU or 400 moments, depending on whether its behind us or on the other side of the Sun). I believe the landing is going to happen about 17 minutes away or about 340 moments to get a signal there, and 340 more moments to get a signal back. In anycase the pilot is bound to have a bit of trouble imagining what the craft is doing "now". I would think, anyway. How about you? What do you think? Regards, TAR How is that going to work, anyway. If the pilot sees with his camera, that the craft will hit an obstacle on its present course, in a minute, the craft already hit the obstacle 16 minutes ago??

I wonder what Dr. Penrose thinks happened the 10 to the 10 to the 123rd minus 1 times the universe did not happen? If time and space were created by the Big Bang, then there is no "other" time to consider and no "other" place available for ANYTHING to occur. Where and when would one have to stand to figure the odds? Seems to me that the odds of our universe should run quite close to 100%, as in, a sure bet, with no other possibilities available. Perhaps this is what Athena is talking about, when she says we need the concept of God. We can't figure the odds, without stepping outside time and space to make the judgement. And we have no place to stand, once outside time and space, but in God's shoes.

Bill Angel, Well, I was raised Christian. I have Christian values. I have "felt" Jesus' love. My mother was a profound believer. There are hundreds of ways that I figuratively believe in Jesus. (I celebrate Christmas, my wife believes in God, etc.) What is figuratively true is figuratively true. I am subject to a greater universe. I believe the universe will continue to exist after I die, and I have some great responsibility and ownership toward and of everything that came before TAR2 and everything that comes after, and I should consider my actions based on an understanding and love of this greater than me reality. I think flowers are beautiful and the universe is magnificent. Not required to believe Jesus actually rose into heaven, to understand him as a proxy for humanity. I can believe this, and retain the real, valuable lessons, and discard the lies. Regards, TAR2

beanieb, Atheists are a quite varied bunch. I for one, believe that God is a human construct, a personality that embodies all there is, including us, and our constructs, and the universe we are in and of. This is not unlike the religious idea of god. It is not contrary to many of the statements in religious books, if taken figuratively rather than literally. My personal theory, is that the God of judgement, depicted in the Bible, is our own collective judgement, rolled up into one personality. That we (Moses or Christ or Mohammed or any of the Prophets of God) were referring to a "real" collective judgement, is not something I doubt. It is the fact that all of "creation" is controlled by the exact same personality, that I have a problem with. Not on some levels, but very much on others. Logicallly speaking, if God is a human construct, then God can not create humans. God, in this take, (the collective judgement one) comes after humans have judgement. Which leaves a different personality to collectively consider, and that is the personality that created humans. Not that something did not create humans, but it has to be something "other than" a human personality. Something "greater than" human, something that humans can be created "in the image of". And this can simply be the universe as we find it to be. It need not be, nor can it be, a human type thing. We are universelike, but the universe is not humanlike. Humans are humanlike. The universe is rather like a universe. The God of the Bible has shown up figuratively, but has not shown himself literally to anybody, as a scientifically verifyable entity, to anybody...ever. Most accounts of having actually run into God, are highly suspect as real encounters. They involve people wandering in desert mountains, or in caves, or high on mushrooms, or after days of fasting or sleep deprivation, or other situations of meditations or chemical intake, that could easily cause one to "imagine" something that is not really there. Stare at a blank, flat white wall for about two hours. It won't be too long (much less than two hours), before you start to see colors and patterns, and movement. You might think the colors and patterns are real. Perhaps they are, to you. But that does not mean they are really on the wall. Regards, TAR2 If you have the patience to stare for the whole two hours, I wouldn't be surprised if you begin to read some meaning into the patterns...maybe even a message from God.

From Inow's link in 98. The last half of the paragraph proceeding the conclusion of Richard Carrier's essay. Inow, While I would mostly agree with the conclusion of the essay, the idea that the universe is mindless, careless, silent and blind, and a machine at that, is patently and observably false. There is me and there is you that exist in this universe, completely made up of elements of it, completely bound by its constants and laws, and you and I are proof that mindful, careful, noisy, sighted, living things, are existent in the universe. The argument that this is by design is not required, but that this is not indicative of the universe having a mind, is downright ignorant. There still remains US to explain, and it will never be true that we are not possible for the universe to create. To give the universe a bit of "intelligence" on its own, is not too silly, under the circumstances. To think otherwise, would mean that we believe mindfulness, carefulness, speech and sight are things the universe IS NOT capable of, and we pulled them, on our own, out of our impossible and non-existing asses. Regards, TAR2

Seriously Disabled, Perhaps not so important to the "big picture", but then, who do you suppose is capable of looking at the "big picture"? If not God, then who cares about the big picture. We don't get to see it, or know it, except from here and now, like we do. We can't get "up there" and look down. Not actually. Figuratively yes, but its not like we have the ability to see the final scene of the movie. Or as if we can see all the universe as it currently exists. We can IMAGINE it, but only by analogy, we don't ever get to see the real thing, except as it arrives in the here and now. And come to think of it, our way of looking at the universe is not so terrible. We get to experience the whole thing, at once. Close things immediately, neighborhood things after a few minutes, further stuff in hours or days or years or millenia or millions of years. The "leftover" radiation from when the universe was very young, is just arriving now. What happened at Alpha Centuri a year or whatever ago. Does the God of the Bible exist? is a different question than does God exist? "Does God exist?", Depends on the nature of the envisioned or imagined God. You seem to think that if no "purpose" is evident, then no god is evident. But what if the universe has not yet done what it is going to do next? How would you propose to communicate with the advanced civilization that is huge and powerful, right now, but existing on the other side of the Milkyway? We don't have to worry about any gamma rays they have sent our way, today, for several hundred thousand years. And by the time they get here, the beam will be so wide and dispersed that we might not notice when it hits us. And what would such a race be aiming at? All they currently know about the Earth, is what was happening here, several hundred thousand years ago. They have no way, to be concerned with you and me, and we have no way to be concerned with them. The universe dwarfs them as severly as it dwarfs us. It is all happening now, only in our imaginations, not in actuality. Its only "one" thing to a point of here and now focus, like ourselves, or to God, who can know it all at once. There is not much middle ground. That being said. It still is possible that races from this solar system, or neighboring ones, could drop by the Earth on vacation or safari, and not even consider themselves required to say hello, or feel as if they have no right to be here, much as we don't bother to ask the ant's permission to spread the picnic blanket. Which leaves "purpose" a relative and local thing. It doesn't much matter what a society of giants on some planet on some galaxy on the other side of the universe is doing right now. No one is capable of considering what they are doing and what we are doing as causally related. Not from both ends, as in how we are related to the past AND how we are related in the future. Seems the universe has more than a single purpose. And if it DID have but one, we are too far removed from it, to ever notice. When would we be, or how could we ever be, in a position, to say "there, I told you so."? Other than, of course, here and now, where we can get an inkling of what the universe used to be up to. And where and when we can be rather sure of what the universe is doing right here, right now. If God exists, I would guess that it is rather like our image of it. Regards, TAR2

Why is the universe here? Like perhaps there is another place for it to be? I do not think the lack of a reason or a good reason, would be any justification of, or force the requirement, of the God of the Bible. There is, logically speaking, no better sense in allowing that the universe created itself, than in requiring that an everlasting, all powerful intelligence created it on a whim. The later requires that God always was, and has no creator. If God requires no creator, it is approximately the same statement as "the universe created itself". To question the universe's existence, would only make sense if one knew of something, other than, the universe. I know of no such thing. Don't know where one would go to find such an "other" existence. This universe appears to be it. That is, its the only one we have to talk about, to exist in, and to experience. The Bible promises another realm of existence. And perhaps there is such...but no one has seen fit to "come back" and tell us about it. If this other realm, this other place, exists, it appears as if it has no bearing on "this" universe. Reality, as it is commonly considered, has to do with "this" universe. If there is a "connection" between this universe and some other "real" realm, why must one die, cease to exist, to experience it? What if "this" is our only shot at existence. This life we have accomplished, in a universe tending toward entropy? Would it not be better to enjoy this life, and make it possible for others to do the same? Than to discard this life for a promise made by someone halucinating in the mountains? The God of the Bible is too human-like to be a real existing thing. The "made in his own image", gives the whole book a "human" slant. How could the creator of the universe be at all like a human. Why would he need eyes to see, or hair to protect him from the elements, or lungs to breath Earthly air, or a penis, or a heart to pump blood to muscle and tissue? And why would the creator of the universe care if he was ignored or praised? MUCH more likely that a human would care if he/she was ignored or praised. And the promised heaven for believers, and the promised hell for lost sinners, is not so much of a reward or punishment as its made out to be. What good would heaven be, if you had no body and brain and senses with which to experience it? How could you take YOU with you, when you go? And likewise, what pain could hell cause, if you have no skin and nerves and brain to feel the heat? How could your flesh be burned away...more than once? Justification of God? It has not been shown here, yet, that the God of the Bible, is a real component of THIS universe. Or that it makes any sense that he would be required to be outside this universe, looking in. So if we are to together hold values, and consideration of others, we could just as well do that, on the merits of doing that, as do that on threat of "false" damnation if we fail to do it, or "false" everlasting life if we succeed. Myths and stories and the wisdom of our forefather's (foremother's) have value, but do not justify the belief in the God of the Bible. Figuratively in some senses, yes. Literally in all senses, absolutely not.

Read the Owner's Manual.

As an aside, talking mostly to Inow, I would add that our ability to put ourself in other "people's" shoes, is not limited to people(humans) but can be done as well with quarks, photons, molecules, cells, flowers, rivers, hurricanes, planets, solar systems, galaxies, the universe or God. When we put ourselves in these things shoes we do not create them, we already have evidence that they exist. We are merely visualizing what it would be like to experience that "other" particular here and now, giving ourselves the proper scope and scale and attributes, that that thing has, inorder to imagine what it would be like, to be that thing.

Well, here is the sticking point. We cannot, or at least I cannot concieve of anything, grasp anything, or know anything, without me doing the grasping. That I do, though, proves two things to me. That there is me, and there is other than me, to grasp. It is not my consciousness that creates reality, but it is reality that creates my consciouness of it. That is, I am not, actually, anything other than, real. This gives me, my worldview, my personality, and both an understanding that there is other than me, and an understanding that there is a me that is in and of reality. I do not think that this is unrealistic, that is, "idealism" in its basic real form, is me, having an idea. And being a collector and storer of information, my "ideas" are of that information, and that information is about reality. There might be "better" tools than a human, with which to know reality. But there is no other that I have access to. My model of the world, is the only model I can have. I can not have yours. However, I can know that your model, is OF the same world that my model is of. This establishes reality as a separate, existing thing, that is more than just here (TAR2's location) and now (TAR2's moment). But also demands that TAR2 is not in possession of all locations and all nows, but only one point of focus. Here and now. With this basis, it is not unrealistic to "have the idea" that other points of focus exist. We have plenty of evidence of other humans, other "points of focus" whose model of the world corresponds in large part, with mine. The moon for instance, exists in my model, and in yours, quite independantly from any information processing about it, that you or I might do. With this "information", you and I both can take a "God's eye" view of reality, and consider the Moon quite real and existent, regardless of our thoughts about it. That we can take this God's eye view is, to me, both a proof of the Moon's existence and a proof that "other than TAR2's point of focus" exists. What "body", what personage we imagine is holding these other points of focus is immaterial to the fact that these other points of focus exist. That they conceptually or idealistically exist, does not negate the fact, that they actually do exist, and the information that they are currently recieving, will indeed match up with our information, in retrospect. That we can concieve of this "whole ball of wax" is to me, a proof of the existence of a "mind" that can contain it all at once. And that mind, is certainly not TAR2's, or the collective mind of the human race from Lucy 'til now. It must be God's mind, to which we are referring. Regards, TAR2

James195101, I do believe we are looking at this question "does god exist or not" from the same angle. For simplicity, in tying together the above thought, with Severian's request to Immortal to define "person", I'll use the word "control" to stand for the above thought. There are things we can control and things we cannot. As our knowledge grows our power to control does as well, for obvious reasons. There remains, as powerful as increased knowledge make us, the "rest" of the universe, which we have little to no control over. So the question arises, does anyone (a person?) have contoll over that which we do not. If there is "no one" in control, then its hard to imagine why and how things could be so predictable and regular and understandable on such a grand scale, as they are predictable and regular and understandable. And it is difficult to imagine how it could be that we can control our local reality, if "no one" is in control. There must be, at least the person TAR2. And his family and his town, company, state, nation and global human associates who are "persons who can control". Being that TAR2 is not supernatural, it must be natural for the universe to contain a person that controls. Personhood and associated will and power have been bestowed upon TAR2, by that which has naturally occurred prior and during TAR2's existence. No power that TAR2 posseses can be other than natural, and ALL power that exists must likewise be natural. Yet TAR2 is not the only one in control, so personhood is not a singular and private affair. It, personhood, cannot be separate from nature, cannot exclude nature or be any different thing than natural. It was noted that God, (this person in control of that which we are not), is forced into the smaller and smaller gaps in our knowledge, as our knowledge grows. Seems to me that that could only be the case if there was a god to consider. Which seems to be the case. Therefore, God exists. Regards, TAR2

Perhaps the question is faulty. THE point? As if there must be only one? Why wipe your bottom...its only going to get dirty again tomorrow. What's the point? Point is, you don't want to walk around smelling like you would smell if you didn't wipe. There are a whole bunch of sub-points we concern ourselves with. I doubt there is any reason to believe that there is one super point. The "points" get larger and larger of course, to where one can devout their life to just a several or few or one. But then others have other points of focus. Personally, the best "point" to life, I have come up with is to be, and to assist others in doing the same, and to make it possible for such to continue, after you die. And as such, getting and giving as much enjoyment as possible, for yourself and to others...doesn't seem pointless, at all. What the universe thinks its doing is somewhat too big a concern for a "here and now" type of thing like a human. We can notice what its done up to now, and predict what its going to do next, but the unity of a single point is too too far away, in scope and size and time to actually ever "arrive at". So, given the circumstances, one could, and I do, consider that I am a little piece of the universe, whose job it is, to be me. And that's the point. Regards, TAR2

Jaden, Back in September 2009 in a thread titled "Evolution for Dummies" I wrote a post that recieved 2 pluses, and a comment that it was a nice description of abiogenisis. Not sure if it breaks the self advertising rule (not my intent), but I've copied it here because it falls in with Moontanman's suggestion that real answers may (must?) be available, that don't require the miracle touch of a deity. Regards, TAR2

Moontanman, Hey, I am weird in ALL directions. I'll entertain the idea of an alien overlord. Keep it in the back pocket, so to speak. It's not completely out of the question. But it doesn't really answer much, if it were true. Who is pulling THAT guys strings? And I want to correct myself about the boiling water. Searched the Bible for boiling water and it didn't come up. Some boiling pots, but that seemed to be related to wars, as in defending the walls by pouring the boiling oil down on the attackers. The boiling water torment for non-believers, seems to be a feature of hell God forgot to mention to his earlier prophets and only told his last one, Mohammed. Wonder why he would leave such important information out until his final messages to Mohammed? Maybe, just maybe, its a fairy tale. And isn't true.