qijino1236

And I just used "the Big Bang Theory" as medium for explaining my "something more" idea...I know that the Big Bang Theory is just a theory and not a fact. I am sure there are other theories about the origin of universe too but the "something more" thought would still apply to them.

sorry I'll do that in the future

you - This is basically a word game which exploits the weakness of our language, but even nothing itself becomes something the moment you describe it, so no. However, I'm sure you're asking more about whether or not there is "god" or "nothing," and I repeat... False dichotomy. me - I am more describing the natural world of matter and antimatter and consciousness(without consciousness you couldn't describe nothing or exploit a weakness in language in the first place) and anything else that exists in that respect. Like take the big bang theory for example. According to the big bang theory "everything" was expanded and continues to expand from a single super small point that is so massive it is unreal. Okay I believe that could be possible, but what was there before that when the universe(everything) wasn't changing(expanding)? Was there nothing before the big bang? Using reason(not logic) I don't think so, I don't think that would be possible. How could something that is expanding not be expanding and then just all of a sudden be expanding? There had to be "something outside" of this extremely small point that did something to create the initial expansion(if the big bang theory is truly a fact), don't you think? And where would that "something outside" be now? Could that "something outside" be all of the known universe and maybe even more(the "more" being a more maximum view of god than my most minimalist view of god)?

My most minimalist belief of what god would be is the opposite of nothing or something. Really, what does this even mean? You've pretty much covered all of the bases there. How can something be the opposite of both something AND nothing? That's logically incoherent. sorry I should have worded it like this My most minimalist belief of what god would be is the opposite of nothing AKA something. That sentence..."My most minimalist belief of what god would be is the opposite of nothing AKA something." was pretty much the basis for my whole last post and the most minimalist belief of god would be so I will repost it once more with the "AKA" in there. just to try to get my perspective in a little more accurately. Do you understand what I mean though when I say minimalist belief vs. maximum possibility(AKA a range of ideas of what god could be?) You - I am unsure I follow. Words have meanings. What good does it do to conflate the meanings of several words? Should I start calling my phone a dog, or my car a tree? Me - god or God is a word that has many meanings for many different people... some people believe in a definitive dogmatic God or gods: here is an excerpt from that link you gave to me earlier: A broad atheist denies the existence of all gods: Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, Shiva, and so on. Those gods(Zeus, Yahweh, Shiva, Thor, etc) have specific dogmatic properties and were created throughout history by man. I'm not saying a god such as Yahweh(cosmic dictator in human form) could not exist but it is very unlikely. Actually "the human form" part I completely do not believe in. When say the word god I mean the infinite possibilities of universe that are now just pseudo-science. My most minimalist belief of what god would be is the opposite of nothing AKA something. In my most minimalist belief I see that there is something (me, my consciousness, others with consciousness, the observable universe, etc.) and I consider all that god. There is a word that is close to this minimalist belief too... pantheism...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism...I don't know if pantheism is the exact minimal belief of what I believe god could be and what I have thought god could be but it is close enough. My reasoning(not logic) though is this: we exist and we are conscious and there is a universe(aka there is something(everything)) and that something and everything is god. My reasoning is there could not ever be true nothing. Note this - "I don't know if pantheism is the exact minimal belief of what I believe god could be and what I have thought god could be but it is close enough." ... I did not say that I didn't believe god couldn't possibly be a pantheistic god I just said that I could not determine if that is my minimalistic belief of what god is. ...So as an agnostic I say ...I don't know if it is possible that there is a pantheistic god or something less than that or something more than that(such as a panentheistic god...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism), but I don't discount it unless it has been scientifically falsified. So when I myself think of god...it encompasses a range of beliefs of what god could potentially be(less than pantheism, exactly pantheism, more than pantheism(aka panentheism), or even more than panentheism). But the one thing could not imagine ever could be is absolutely nothing. These multiple beliefs(I'll call it panpantheism) behind the meaning of what god is is why I like to replace the word god with "good" or "life" or "all existence" on occasion. Example of thoughts of something more than panentheism...the collective consciousness of all beings is god(aka how could there possibly be no consciousness anywhere in the universe? Where does consciousness or subconsciousness or perhaps something even less than subconsciousness go when you die?) That is why I think neuroscientists and most other scientists are doing good work to figure out these kinds of questions(even if they could never possibly be answered) The possibility of a more maximum belief than my most minimalistic belief of what god could be is what gives me hope and wonder. My questions to you: Could you imagine absolutely nothing? When I try to picture it in my mind I see all black in a universe before existence...but black is something coincidentally. What do you think other "theists" or "agnostics" think god is? Please note this...I am not trying to convert anybody or make anybody feel bad about an atheistic view of the universe and existence. I am just displaying my thoughts and asking questions.

[ You - I am unsure I follow. Words have meanings. What good does it do to conflate the meanings of several words? Should I start calling my phone a dog, or my car a tree? Me - god or God is a word that has many meanings for many different people... some people believe in a definitive dogmatic God or gods: here is an excerpt from that link you gave to me earlier: A broad atheist denies the existence of all gods: Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, Shiva, and so on. Those gods(Zeus, Yahweh, Shiva, Thor, etc) have specific dogmatic properties and were created throughout history by man. I'm not saying a god such as Yahweh(cosmic dictator in human form) could not exist but it is very unlikely. Actually "the human form" part I completely do not believe in. When say the word god I mean the infinite possibilities of universe that are now just pseudo-science. My most minimalist belief of what god would be is the opposite of nothing or something. In my most minimalist belief I see that there is something (me, my consciousness, others with consciousness, the observable universe, etc.) and I consider all that god. There is a word that is close to this minimalist belief too... pantheism...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism...I don't know if pantheism is the exact minimal belief of what I believe god could be and what I have thought god could be but it is close enough. My reasoning(not logic) though is this: we exist and we are conscious and there is a universe(aka there is something(everything)) and that something and everything is god. My reasoning is there could not ever be true nothing. Note this - "I don't know if pantheism is the exact minimal belief of what I believe god could be and what I have thought god could be but it is close enough." ... I did not say that I didn't believe god couldn't possibly be a pantheistic god I just said that I could not determine if that is my minimalistic belief of what god is. ...So as an agnostic I say ...I don't know if it is possible that there is a pantheistic god or something less than that or something more than that(such as a panentheistic god...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism), but I don't discount it unless it has been scientifically falsified. So when I myself think of god...it encompasses a range of beliefs of what god could potentially be(less than pantheism, exactly pantheism, more than pantheism(aka panentheism), or even more than panentheism). But the one thing could not imagine ever could be is absolutely nothing. These multiple beliefs(I'll call it panpantheism) behind the meaning of what god is is why I like to replace the word god with "good" or "life" or "all existence" on occasion. Example of thoughts of something more than panentheism...the collective consciousness of all beings is god(aka how could there possibly be no consciousness anywhere in the universe? Where does consciousness or subconsciousness or perhaps something even less than subconsciousness go when you die?) That is why I think neuroscientists and most other scientists are doing good work to figure out these kinds of questions(even if they could never possibly be answered) The possibility of a more maximum belief than my most minimalistic belief of what god could be is what gives me hope and wonder. My questions to you: Could you imagine absolutely nothing? When I try to picture it in my mind I see all black in a universe before existence...but black is something coincidentally. What do you think other "theists" or "agnostics" think god is? Please note this...I am not trying to convert anybody or make anybody feel bad about an atheistic view of the universe and existence. I am just displaying my thoughts and asking questions.

Yea I guess you are right... I think that it is more of respect the right for someone to believe something too... and if the belief is hurting that person you should explain to them why it is hurting them. But if I do see something good in a religious or a spiritual practice i like to internalize it rather remove it from my mind. Ignorance and indoctrination as an infringement on rights....Do you see the belief of an afterlife as ignorance or an infringement on rights? Do you see singing a song about a god(you may or may not believe in) in a church or at a mosque or whatever to make you feel better an infringement on rights? Do you see reflecting on your life in a prayer or a through meditation in a Buddhist temple as an infringement on rights? Do you see replacing the word "god" with the word "good" or "life" or "all existence" during a sermon or a song in your mind an infringement on human rights? This is what I was meaning when I say the good parts of cults. I am not trying to judge you as a negative counterpoint, I am just asking you straightout. I have history with good and bad religious and spiritual practices and I have become a master at removing the dogmatic bullshit from my mind on the fly.

me - That's some of the reason why I used the words "non-observable truth" ...I am simply trying to display a common ground...... you - That's fine, but you have yet to demonstrate there is any truth whatsoever in what you're saying, whether it's observable or not. me - The "truth" that I am referring to is not actually truth it is what an individual or group of individuals perceives could be potential truth through reason or logic (in science and philosophy) or they want it to be true in order to feel hope (in philosophy or religion) through thoughts, ideas, theories, beliefs, etc. In science it is called either pseudo-science or a hypothesis or a theory, in philosophy it is called reason, in religion and spirituality it is called belief. Example...the big bang theory is still a theory...it is not an observable scientific fact ...it is what I was referring to as a non-observable "truth". I always intentionally separate observable science or logic from faith or hope or belief or reason or pseudo-science, but I like to still keep that faith or hope or belief or reason or pseudo-science or fantasy in my mind. observable truth... 2+2 = 4 true doesn't equal false. A dog is furry(if it has fur). non-observable "truth"...the big bang theory, god(or something), nothing(can you truly observe nothing? you can perceive what nothing is but can you know exactly what true nothing is...is it possible to have true nothingness?), Theories are the best "truth" because they have been tested over and over again with science in many different ways, but that doesn't mean that can't be not true. Science and religion and spirituality can all be used for hope and if you don't or do need some or all of that to survive psychologically then there is nothing wrong with either points of view(hopefully at LEAST you need some science in addition to religion and spirituality other-wise I think you are a little too much right-brained). To clarify deeper my previous sentence: I said at LEAST science because if you ONLY guide your life through religion and spirituality you are definitely missing a lot of something(observable truth) and become excessively dogmatic….but if you only guide your life only through science there is no problem since science is based on fact. I like to guide it through all three through my own philosophy and thoughts but don’t disrespect anyone else who doesn’t. And I see nothing wrong with thinking of both as long I keep non-observable "truth" and observable truth separate from each other in my mind. One of my thoughts… 2+2 = 4 right? Yes it does it is an observable truth. The “2” and “+” and the “=” and the “4” are all symbolic creations that evolved throughout history. A cavewoman was probably doing this at one point in human history. A cavewoman probably was picking berries and looked at them. She probably took a single berry in the left hand and then looked at her right hand with closed fingers and stuck one finger up. Then she probably took another berry in her left hand and stuck up a 2nd finger. Then she probably took another berry in her left hand and stuck up a 3rd finger and so on. Then she probably realized that if took two berries and stuck two fingers up and then again another two fingers and two berries then she would have four berries. She didn’t have a separate word for “2” or “4” but she knew that 2 berries and 2 berries equaled something different …4 fingers. That cavewoman was doing observable science. The thing is though berries are made up of something…atoms and that cavewoman did not know what hell atoms were and never would in her lifetime. This is what I am referring to when I say unobservable “truth”. When the word atom was first created there was no way observe an atom and know its various properties. “The Greek word átomos (ἄτομος) was first used by the philosopher Democritus who lived around 450 BCE. The modern use of the word goes back to the beginnings of the science of chemistry in the mid 17th cent. It's first usage (as meaning a very small particle) outside of scientific journals and into the mainstream goes back at least as early as 1796 when the word is found in newspapers of the time.” I am sure someone before 450 BCE thought of the idea of something like the atom but it was never put into words until someone “sane” like Democritus put it on paper and shared it with the world. And I am sure at some point in history before 450 B.C. someone may have tried to aurally explain his thoughts of what atom was and was deemed crazy because: “WTH are you crazy bitch, why are you talking about things inside things…there is no such thing as a thing inside of a thing …see look this is a berry bitch…there nothing inside of it… you crazy. Here, eat a berry, maybe you’ll stop thinking crazy.” The person that called “the bitch” crazy was being scientific but they just didn’t have enough information(a microscope, the other person’s EXACT perspective and thoughts, knowledge of the fundamental make up all physical properties, etc) to not think that the person was crazy. “The bitch” I see as the metaphorical person that thinks of the unobservable “truth”(aka the unknown) . The person calling them a crazy bitch is the metaphorical person that doesn’t respect that other person’s unobservable “truth”. At the same time period if that same “bitch” spoke of things inside of things inside of things inside of things that person would have probably put “the bitch” out of her supposed misery. The thing is that there is such a supposed non-observable “truth”(or belief) today in science and it is not just a belief or a hypotheses , it is a scientific theory … and it is called String theory(strings inside of quarks inside of protons inside of atoms inside of berries). So all I am saying is just respect the ideas and thoughts of all “the crazy bitches” in the world even if it isn’t based in science. So I’ll be a crazy bitch and hypothesize this…maybe there is something inside of the strings(or energy waves) or something that makes up all those strings and maybe that thing is something(or god) or maybe it is just nothing. As I say this I know that this is not an observable scientific truth but it is my non-observable “truth” or thought. You cannot argue that a non-observable “truth” is wrong or right. How can you prove that there is or isn’t something inside or what makes up a string if a string has not been observed but only theorized as a non-observable “truth” using science? Now I will back up to the observational scientific cavewoman’s four berries and think of this: If something is matter If we are not scientific sure that true nothing ever did exist or will exist how do we know that 2 berries +2 berries does actually equal 4 berries and math exists… I say because that is something and an observable scientific truth. I mean this is in this way…true nothing has never been scientifically proven or observed because we don’t know if true nothing(negation of consciousness and matter, and anything else that exists) could ever be possible. If we don’t know what true nothing is then I think it would be reasonable(not logical though) to believe that something(or some interpretations of what god is) always existed until we prove that true nothing ever did or did not exist. Plus I don’t think true nothing could ever be scientifically proven. But that is just my belief and I respect any counter-beliefs or thoughts on the matter. You - Why? You see, I disagree. I don't have to respect your beliefs. If you believed that murdering infants would end global warming, must I respect that? If you believed that raping 12 year old boys would end poverty, must I respect that? If you believed that burning puppies alive would result in world peace, must I respect that? No. We shouldn't respect other peoples beliefs, especially when they're ridiculous (like belief in god, or those just mentioned above). What I do respect is your RIGHT to believe whatever you want. That is fine. That is your freedom. That is your choice. Your beliefs belong to you, and I respect that, but I don't have to respect the beliefs themselves. Do you agree with this, or do you think I am mistaken? Should I respect the beliefs of a person who thinks that pouring acid on a young girls face is the correct path to purity and piety? I suspect you understand what I'm getting at here, and I hope you realize that the same approach applies to people's beliefs in deities. Me - I am glad you brought this up... Note my last sentence in my first post... Or perhaps accept all non-observable "truths" that DON'T infringe in human rights(happy thoughts). That was supposed to a vital extension to my second to last sentence in my first post: "So do not impose your non observable truths on anyone but please believe in your non-observable truths with all your heart and listen to everyone elses non observable truths with aristotles quote in mind and maybe you will surprise yourself and come to accept another's non-observable truth as your own." Here is quote that I made up that uses culture as unifying idea behind all -isms, beliefs, non-observerable truths, sciences, etc with human rights(and others:)) in mind .... My quote - We (and others) exist, we are conscious. All civilizations were created by us in the past and present through our different varied WONDERFUL thoughts(our consciousness). We humans(and others) are civilizations. Civilizations ARE various cultures throughout the past and the present. Culture is a religion , and a philosophy, and a science, and a belief, and a spirituality, and more. We must all keep our culture in a way that human(and others) rights are utterly revered(WONDERFUL). We must dispose of our culture in a way that infringement upon human(and others) rights is done away with through love and thoughts through our consciousness.(NOT WONDERFUL) There is no right religion just as there is some times not a right theory or hypothesis, but those theories and hypotheses and religions are beautiful if handled in a conscientious and loving and open way. They may even become a generally relative, quantum, spiritual fact. Now go out, have fun, laugh, love, pray, study, think, and play some dice with our universe (No offense to Einstein) And don’t call your dog or your visiting alien species “others”, that’s specism. YES ... You are right, respect should not given those beliefs that infringe on rights(bad cults)...but respect should be given to those who don't infringe on rights(good cults) The thing is with bad cults not all the people in them are bad themselves since they don't do every single BS dogma there is in that cult. Example: I'm don't think every Jew that wrote an excerpt in the bible was good. But I am sure that some of the Jewish people who wrote excerpts in the bible were good or lived the most moral lives they knew how to. Actually, I highly doubt that even half of the stuff written in the bible was intended to be taken literally even at the time that is what written. I am sure many writers of the bible had a sense of humor too.

Actually my agnosticism conflicts with some definitions of what agnosticism is so sometimes I see myself as a (cultural) Christian Agnostic Atheist But I believe it is closest to agnosticism so I usually just call myself an agnostic.

That's some of the reason why I used the words "non-observable truth" ...I am simply trying to display a common ground...and if you insist on calling atheism a non-belief then I will respect that and say this. People should respect others beliefs and non-beliefs. I think you are thinking that I am trying making a negative connotation of atheism. I am not trying to do that. I am trying to put a positive connotation for all people's beliefs or non-beliefs. When I say non-observable "truth" I mean this - It is not possible in this point in observable science to say that "there is no god in any forms" is a scientific fact since god has not been observed through a scientific lens. Do you disagree? I used to call myself and atheist for 2 years but I realized that what I thought was atheism was actually not.

I did not mean it that way I simply meant to respect others beliefs. I must respect your beliefs also and I do. I respect that you are an atheist even though I am an agnostic. But when I said the words "non-observable truths" I did not mean it as an actual truth I meant it to be an exact synonym to the word belief. AKA ....dog = dog is to "non-observable truth" = "belief". And since no one has scientifically falsified god, atheism is a belief, or a theory or whatever you would like to call it also. And since no one has scientifically falsified this claim "I don't know if there is a god" agnosticism is a belief also. Therefore I would never impose my agnosticism on you. And by the way, not everybody defines god the same way.

Dear Everyone...atheists,agnostics, religious, spiritual, etc. people, ...I believe you can fly. Think of a logical thought sometimes or don't and then think of a happy thought sometimes or don't; you exist and are free to think of both or one or none. "To entertain a thought without accepting it is the mark of an educated mind" - Aristotle I believe that beliefs should never be altered even slightly through our Mind AND mouth. Beliefs should only be changed through Mind and ears OR Mind and eyes OR Mind and nose OR Mind and touch. That doesn't mean we can't speak of our beliefs...it means that when we speak of our beliefs that our voice should never be intended to alter another persons beliefs. Others can hear what we are saying when we speak and celebrate our beliefs, but that doesn't mean your voice should impose on anyone else's mind. When you speak of your beliefs to ears and eyes and nose and touch rather than imposing your beliefs through your mouth you may or may not alter the listener's (or observer's or feeler's or smeller's) mind and vise versa. When someone hears a pastor speaking in church we are hearing his beliefs through Mind and ears and eyes. And what is wrong with that? If the pastor uses his mouth to guilt or condemn his congregation through his mouth I think there is something wrong with that. Using your mouth to alter beliefs I believe is an infringement on human rights. Using your mouth to share your beliefs is not(unless it happens to infringe on human rights...see Note 1) Note 1: "Notice I did not say that it wasn't sometimes wrong to for beliefs to be changed through Mind and ears OR Mind or eyes OR Mind and nose OR Mind and touch. Sometimes when someone changes their beliefs through Mind and ears OR Mind or eyes OR Mind and nose OR Mind and touch it can be wrong and infringe on human rights. Example: A Pastor says: "I believe all gays and lesbians and pansexuals and panromantics are going to go to hell". But I believe even in that situation you should not alter that pastor's beliefs through your Mind and mouth. You should alter the pastor's beliefs through the pastor's Mind and ears OR Mind and eyes OR Mind and nose OR Mind and touch. Do not get angry at the pastor...simply share your beliefs that "gays and lesbians and pansexuals and pansexuals are not going to go to hell" and maybe the pastor will listen instead of getting angry. Let all people you meet believe what they believe and share your beliefs with them. But don't do it in a way that makes that person feel bad about what they believe. Using science is a way to find out the truth about the universe. When something is a scientific fact it is a truth found out by observing the physical universe. Science is by definition observable truth. There is nothing wrong with having beliefs , but beliefs and religions and theories and hypotheses are not observable truths so no one should impose them on other people unless the other person decides what they believe is what they want to believe. Atheism is a belief just as agnosticism is a belief just as Christianity is a belief. To Chistians and muslims and scientologists and agnostics and whoever is not an atheist ..do not call atheists non-believers because they do believe in something. They believe that what they think is god doesn't exist. The fact that god doesn't exist is not a scientific observable fact so it is a belief. To Chistians and muslims and scientologists and atheists and whoever is not an agnostic.. do not call agnostics non-believers because they do believe in something. They believe that they don't know whether (what they think god is) exists or not. And to atheists that try to impose their ideas on others in a negative way through their mouths at christians or muslims or scientologists or zoraoastrianist or whoever, please do not do it, because atheism is a belief also. God has not been scientifically falsified. The overall message though is this...If you haven't scientifically proven god or you haven't scientifically proven god doesn't exist then it being an atheist or a non-atheist is a belief not observable truth. So do not impose non observable truths on anyone but please believe in those non-observable truths with all your heart and listen to everyone elses non observable truths with aristotles quote in mind and maybe you will surprise yourself and come to accept another's non-observable truth as your own. Or perhaps accept all non-observable truths that don't infringe in human rights(happy thoughts).

But it looks like the best Cree has for lightbulbs is 80 lumens per watt... do you know when they will be using the 231 lumens per watt in lightbulbs? Or is there another company that has a greater than 118 lumens per watt light bulb that you can actually buy?

The most energy efficient bulb.... is there anything more energy efficient than an LED light bulb...aka... more lumens per watt http://www.designrecycleinc.com/led%20comp%20chart.html or a better type of LED that creates more than 118 lumens per watt?

I had a sliver of hope for things to happen concerning global warming but now after research the masses opinions on global warming, I just have to admit now we are totally f@#ked. But here is a survey from September 2011...Today, 43 percent of Republicans believe global warming is the result of natural causes, up from 35 percent in 2010. we are totally f#$ked, 43% of republicans are dilusional. Nobody cares about global warming anyway it's only the end of the world as we know it. 17% of americans still believe global warming isn't happening. ONLY 27% of americans believe that "people are mostly responsible" for global warming. What the f*(king he!! is this? I can't believe that 73 % of americans believe that we are only partly responsible for global warming. This is fricking amazing, I guess should just take enough cocaine until the common sense part of my brain is completely destroyed and move down south and start shouting nothing is wrong with anything. Everything is perfect let's buy some hummers and race back and forth from sea(galvaston,texas) to shining sea(charleston, south carolina) until we run out of money. Whoever has the most money and is therefore the winner gets to wear a "the earth is my cult follower bitch" (In other words whatever my mind wants the earth to be, that's what it is) t-shirt til the end of time. It's one thing to acknowledge that it exists and not be able to do anything about it do to your financial circumstances...it is a totally different thing to not acknowledge that it exists because of us at all(brain dead). Happy NOT earth day!! http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2011/2011-09-16-091.html Our only hope now is to go back in time and give Gilbert Plass a 77.77 billion dollars

Don't know what I want to do with my life so I tried computer science because that can lead to learning pretty much anything(history, philosophy, chemistry, biology, art, English, neuroscience, music, anything under the sun, etc.) except I totally suck at learning it. And sometimes I really , really don't like it but I keep thinking if continue to stick with it, it will pay off. I have passed five computer science classes(including two programming classes(but I failed at both of them at first try)). And I don't know if I should continue trying toward a computer science degree or completely change it and go towards something I truly love(even though I don't exactly know what that is yet). For the last year I have been really , really trying hard to figure out what I truly love to do but I still don't know yet. I mean love pretty much every subject(history, philosophy, chemistry, biology, art, English, drama, neuroscience, music, anything under the sun, politics, etc.), everything interests me. I love to figure out ways they are all connected also. History is connected to pretty much any subject( philosophy, chemistry, biology, art, English, drama, neuroscience, music, anything under the sun, politics, computer science, etc.) as well as philosophy, politics, and computer science. So this semester I am trying a history class. I just really cannot afford to fail another computer science class though. I am better at history than computer science. What would you computer science guys suggest? Should I continue on even though I can get deathly sick of it sometimes or should switch to history and do computer science on my own in my spare time? I love history and love when I can actually grasp a new concept in computer science(but I have a REALLY hard time doing that). I would not be a good politican I don't think by the way. Or should i try philosophy to tune my mind to what really believe and what I want to do? I do not want to be teacher. Any other subjects you know of that are connected to a wide array of subjects or ideas? Dr. Hansen was a life saver.

In your own mind map with the center pivotal word being "neuroscience", what would your first nodes be?

I ain't no dogmaee follower,.I am just a humble evolution believin', big bang theory, parrallel universes, e=mc^2, finder outer if true through that there sciency method they are all talkin' bout. I also go to church to hear them morality tales that guy with the mike talks 'bout. Last week he was talkin' 'bout how that ye olde lady that likes to sing about liven' the ya want to and not worryin' bout how ya look, weird stuff like that, I think she was singin' bout being born someway or this way or that. I was thinkin' though even though we ain't 5,000 years old, and we don't fear god nowadays, that his story last week 'bout that ye olde lady was something I might, and other peeps, and youngins might like to think bout from time to time. I might or might not be a humble christian atheist, I don't know, but I sure like the sound of that "romance that goes bad" song. It makes me happy and wantin' to sing and dance to mountaintops of the rockies and find out where them there autotrophs on the stromatolites high in the Canadian Rockies came from. So where in the HELL did they from?

Is science always defined by the scientific method? What is the format for the big bang theory in the scientific method for steps 3-8? .... 1. Define a question - Is the big bang real? 2. Gather info and resources....I observed that many believe in the big bang theory. ..... 3. Form an explanatory hypothesis <---what would 1(or more) hypotheses be? 4. Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner<--what would these be? 5. Analyze the data<-.....? 6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis<-.....? 7. Publish results<-.....? 8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)<-.....? theory's are many hypotheses... so what are some example hypotheses for the big bang?

Is science always defined by the scientific method? What is the format for the big bang theory in the scientific method for steps 3-8? .... 1. Define a question - Is the big bang real? 2. Gather info and resources....I observed that many believe in the big bang theory. ..... 3. Form an explanatory hypothesis <---what would 1(or more) hypotheses be? 4. Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner<--what would these be? 5. Analyze the data<-.....? 6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis<-.....? 7. Publish results<-.....? 8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)<-.....? http://theotheri.wor...tific-question/ 1. Define a question - Is god real? 2. Gather info and resources....I observed that many believe in the god . I observed that the meaning of god is different for many, many, many people. ..... 3. Form an explanatory hypothesis <---what would 1(or more) hypotheses be?... god is real. 4. Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner<--what would these be? 5. Analyze the data<-.....? 6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis<-.....? 7. Publish results<-.....? 8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)<-.....? 1. Define a question - Is love real? 2. Gather info and resources....I observed that many people including me believe in love. I observed that the meaning of love is different for many, many, many people. I am not sure but I think god and love are synoymns ..... 3. Form an explanatory hypothesis <--- Love and god are synonyms What would 1(or more) hypotheses be? 4. Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner<--I guess the test would be that I feel love. ...but is that really what step 4 means? 5. Analyze the data<-.....? 6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis<-.....? 7. Publish results<-.....? 8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)<-.....? 1. Define a question - Does 2=2 2. Gather info and resources....I observed that many people including me believe that 2=2. ..... 3. Form an explanatory hypothesis <--- 2 equals 2 4. Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner<-- how do I test this? 5. Analyze the data<-.....? 6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis<-.....? 7. Publish results<-.....? 8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)<-.....? I guess my main question is what has been done in steps 4-8 concerning the Big bang theory?

Can you prove the big bang is 100% wrong though?...answer me if you can:). 10 second pause. That's what i am trying to get at though ... none of them had a 100 on my "trying to explain what's in my head" scale except for the directly provable items such as "2=2". "the earth is a sphere", "We are carbon lifeforms", "atoms exist", "water expands when frozen". Theory's don't get a 100 unless they are changed from theories to facts.... theories can't be 100% fact...so is there anything that separates the definition of theories from the definition of pseudoscience? Is there anything that separates theories from pseudoscience?

Well that friggen great they don't allow spaces IN ORDER TO SHOW WHAT I AM THINKING, WTH!! Just ignore this whole topic, it is completely lost due to the fact that you can't post spaces after entering. I guess I'll try to explain it though.... It was SUPPOSED to be a scale ....1 2 3..through 100 with exteremely fake pseudoscience being 1 and direct observable provable science being 100. "crazy cults" and "earth is 5,000 years old" were SUPPOSED to be shown at the bottom of the scale "2=2". "the earth is a sphere", "We are carbon lifeforms", "atoms exist", "water expands when frozen" were all SUPPOSED to be shown at the top of the scale "Galileo in 1639" was SUPPOSED to be in a range of about "1-20" "Galileo in 2011" was SUPPOSED to be in a range of "90-100" "Einstein in 1945" was SUPPOSED to be in a range of "95-100" "Einstein in 2011" was SUPPOSED to be in a range of "94-100" TTTTHHHHHEEEEEEE BBBBBIGGGGGG BANNNNGGG TTHEORY was SUPPOSED to be in a range of "77-99" TTTTTTTTTTTTTTHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRYYYYSSS was SUPPOSED to be in a range of "1-99" RRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGGIIIIIIIIIONNN... .creepinn touch... was SUPPOSED to be in a range of "1-99" SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLL was SUPPOSED to be in a range of "1-99" AAAAAAAAAAAFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTERRRRRRRRRRRRLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIFFFFFFFFFFFFFEEEEEE & CCCCCCCCCCOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNSCCCIOOOOOUUUSSSSSNNESSSSSSSS & DDEEEEEEMMMMMMMMARRRRRCCCCCCCCATTIIONNN PPPPPRRRROOOOBBBBBLLEEEEMMMMM was SUPPOSED to be in a range of "1-99" BUT SINCE AFTER I POSTED THERE WAS NO SPACES AFTER "ENTER"ing , that didn't happen

After reading this go directly to the 3rd post before responding(It has to do with a "problem" with these forums) What is the difference between theories and pseudo-science? Is it just the reliability, fame, and respect we have for a person (a.k.a power) who created the theory or is there another thing involved in calling something a theory? Is a theory a science or does it have to proven first? Here is example for me try to explain to you what I am getting at - I watched an episode of Curiosity where Stephen Hawking was host, the episode was ..."Did God create the universe". He explains things to us in a way where can understand it...which I liked and his ideas were very convincing. But at least three times in the episode he said "trust me". I am sure he has valid reasons for just saying "trust me" instead of trying to explain the inner workings of his brain(probably because the episode would have been like 5 hours instead of 1 and not much would have the patience to watch it). But would you consider what he laid out in that episode(if you saw it) a theory or pseudo-science? Here's a scale I extracted from my cerebral cortex... 1 50 75 100 pseudoscience<----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> science crazy cults earth is 5,000 years old the earth is flat 2=2 the earth is a sphere We are carbon lifeforms atoms exist water expands when frozen Galileo in 1639 GALILEO in 2011 Einstein in 1945 Einstien in 2011 TTTTHHHHHEEEEEEE BBBBBIGGGGGG BANNNNGGG TTHEORY TTTTTTTTTTTTTTHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRYYYYSSS RRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGGIIIIIIIIIONNN... .creepinn touch SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLL AAAAAAAAAAAFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTERRRRRRRRRRRRLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIFFFFFFFFFFFFFEEEEEE CCCCCCCCCCOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNSCCCIOOOOOUUUSSSSSNNESSSSSSSS DDEEEEEEMMMMMMMMARRRRRCCCCCCCCATTIIONNN PPPPPRRRROOOOBBBBBLLEEEEMMMMM ^^^^^^^^^^^^^is this kind of how it is??^^^^^^^^^^^^^ In other words is there anything that clearly seperates pseudo-science from theories or is it all just on a variable sliding scale effected by the popularity of the theory/pseudoscience and the person, the education level of the person, the amount of math, research, time, etc. applied to the theory, etc....??

This only my rambling ideas and in this context I remove all my pride. Not my personality pride…that is sacred to you. From now on I will refer the removing of that separate pride as prode…a new word I made up. And the sacred pride that you need to survive as human being as just plain pride. Pride is still pride, the type of pride that makes you proud to be you – your personality. On the other I believe that if all prode is removed then we could get very close to solving the mysteries of the universe. I would really like in this forum for all prode to be removed even if you don’t know what prode is exactly yet. Removing prode is just TEMPORARY removal of pride to work together to create a good idea with others. Prode has to be absolute though, which probably doesn’t sound good, and I don’t know if it is a good thing either...but by my definition removal of prode has to be absolute. Removal of prode takes into account all angles of other individuals opinions, truths, etc. This is why I think removal of prode could be a bad thing(I don’t know though)….since removal of prode is absolute, your ideas, morals, thoughts, even personalities, etc. will have to be constantly changing(but it is only temporary). Since they are constantly changing you don’t have to call them morals, thoughts, personality(You could think up of your own word for those)…Example: marals, thights, purseonailite, etc. So I am now removing all my prode....these are not are not my beliefs, these are my beelufs(aka constantly changing temporary beliefs ). So when I talk about beelufs, it only applys to the removal of my prode. These are my beelufs, I beeluf in these possibilities: ONCE AGAIN THIS NOT A BELIEF, NOT A RELIGION, NOT A MORAL, NOT A PERSONALITY, NOT A SCIENCE, this is my rambling no-prode ideas(beelufs) being excreted from my inside head goo and I would like people to challenge it in a no-prode way in order to not argue, but to better understand the mysteries of the universe in an commonality kind of way: I beeluf some of the keys of the mysteries to the universe can be solved through our words. When the first intelligent Homosapiens, Neathertals, etc started evolving speech this is probably what happened to the first speech evolvers: They looked at a rock and gave it a name eventually called a word…”uga” perhaps They then looked at a tree and made a different word for it…”buga” perhaps. So every new thing had a different name. at the first the new words were probably purely physical things: tree, rock, sand, water, stick,man, chimpanzee, blood(“red buga”), etc. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Way later on the word tree, chimpanzee, and man became another word, carbon, in this sense: And carbon, hydrogen, and helium are another word ….element And proton, neutron, electron, quark…are another word element. I beeluf some of the keys of the mysteries to the universe can be solved through the similarities between our words. After the physical words(computer scientist, Jesus, Mohammed, Christian, Vlad the Impaler, Muslim, lesbian, man, woman, chimpanzee, tree, snake, sky, wind, universe, alien) were all created, as time went on some non-physical things became words. Examples : time, god, science, soul, real, unreal, poor, rich, eternal, love, hate, thought, idea, religion, moral, immoral, personality, pride, lazy, hard work, afterlife, ethics, ying and yang, spirituality, Christianity, Islamic, existence, apartheid, race, math, hope, faith, longing, needing, homosexuality, straight, happy, sad, apathy, sympathy, physical, non-physical, word, conspiracy, communism, democracy, etc. What if we took all the non-physical words and just like America put them into a melting pot called non-physical words. Then we decided to take the non-physical words that were the MOST significant to us out. Everybody in the universe (including extraterrestrial intelligent life) would pick out a different set of non-physical words. BUT I beeluf there would be universal constants throughout all of the universe of non-physical words all intelligent life picked out of the pot. These universal constants are probably words like this: love, hate, thought, afterlife, moral, immoral, happy, sad, pride, soul, etc…things directly related to emotion, life, and learning. A majority of intelligent beings I beeluf would pick out science and god also. Then we decided to take out of the remaining non-physical words, the 3 non-physical words that are the most flexible words I beeluf it would be: love, hate, and thought. When I said flexible I meant this: The thing about these three words is that they apply to all of the other words…including the physical words. Example: religion ….relates to maybe love, maybe hate, and thought….happy: relates to maybe love, maybe hate, and thought… love: relates to maybe love, maybe hate, and thought….chimpanzee: relates to thought and maybe love or maybe hate(I relates to thought In that the word “chimpanzee” could not have come into existence without intelligent life creating or thinking of it. THE MOST FLEXIBLE THOUGH OF ALL OF THE WORDS IN THE UNIVERSE THOUGH IS “THINKING” OR “THOUGHT”..IT APPLYS TO ALL OTHER WORDS IN THE UNIVERSE SINCE WORD COULD NOT HAVE COME INTO EXISTENCE without intelligent life creating or thinking of it. Not only did the actions of the minds (thinking or thought) (alien or terrestrial intelligent life) create every word in the universe , but also the actions of the minds(including non-intelligent life) created all the ideas, beliefs, thoughts, etc… behind all the non-physical words in the universe. So we now have all non physical ideas, beliefs, thoughts figured out …now for the physical Now, think of this one sentence: How can physical existence begin, and how can physical existence not begin if we exist, and how could there possibly ever be absolutely nothing? This question is so simple, yet it has never been answered by any human life. This is when the no-prode thing really, really needs to be used…I use it and I keep every opinion on this in back of my head for safe keeping. No theory is rejected by me because most of it is done through love. Is there actually nothing and we are all in a dream? Here are a few good movies exploring the complexities and beauties of the universe. Rabbit Hole The Nines – awesome ending The Tree of Life The Matrix I watch these movies and keep all the ideas in my head. Stephen Hawking thinks that he has answered how existence began part. I respect Stephen Hawking very much but I have my doubts due to him just saying “trust me” instead of trying to explain throughout the Episode of Curiosity – “Did God create the Universe?”. But I throw away my prode and keep his ideas in my mind and hope I can learn more about his theory and ideas on how the universe was created from nothing. I never hold back in scientific learning, yet at the same time I do hold onto the idea of god. I listen to everything atheists have to say about this subject and keep that also in my mind. I want to really, really know why they do not believe in God…and I want to really , really know why I do believe in God. Do I believe? My beeluf is to turn off my prode and speak with kindness to everyone around me without judging them because of their beelufs. Then I want to transport myself into their perspective and take into account all the circumstances of their life. If they have lived in a strong Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu etc.. household for all their life I don’t get mad at them or try to understand why they believe in what they do , I simply share with them my ideas. It is usually to do with love of family and a strong sense of their culture that people hold onto some dogmatic ideas. As long as they aren’t hurting anyone or themselves, who cares? There is always religious nuts out there that make religion look evil. But there is also great good in religion too. I think I am almost a complete Christian atheist but I am still not convinced. What is god? God is also word thought up by humans. Does that mean we invented god? Yes, we did think up the many, many ideas behind god(some very evil), but does that make god a convenient fairy tale invented by cavemen? In the sense of the idea in my mind of what god is, that is not true. To me god wasn’t made up…to me god is love which is something even cavemen could probably feel(elephants mourn their dead). God is the love I feel for everyone around me. So then I think okay you are an atheist then right because god and love are just words. So you could just say that you believe in love instead of creating multiple synonyms…god and love. So I guess I am a Christian atheist. But then I started feeling my culture and I wanted god to not just be an exact synonym of love and happiness. So then I started really thinking if to me god and love are the exact same thing. I started then thinking about consciousness, how does consciousness come to be out of nothing? Is consciousness connected to my soul? Consciousness is my soul right, they are synonyms right? But consciousness is associated to the brain which is physical thing. The soul is not supposed to be physical. It is supposed to continue on into an afterlife. So are they synonyms to me? Regardless of whether my soul and my consciousness are synonyms, I must ask this question again…. How can physical existence, a consciousness, and a soul begin, and how can a physical existence, consciousness, and a soul not begin if we exist, and how could there possibly ever be absolutely NOTHING(no soul, no god, no science, no love, no happiness, no consciousness, no afterlife, not even(the depressing belief) wormfood, etc? Then I start to feel for the non intelligent life on earth like worms and insects, they are like in hell, how could they live like that(no love, no thinking)? Killing an insect is really a blessing for the insect I think. Will I become a worm after I die and not remember anyone I ever loved and is that the same for everyone else I love when they die? Then I get really depressed and turn to back to loving, learning and living and turn back on my pride. BUT, I still would like to know. Any ideas, additions, revelations, morals, etc? Please use a non-prode approach. Is there an afterlife? How could we possibly prove that there is? Are we all one consciousness(god or love), put into separate physical bodies and not knowing we are all the same consciousness? Are we reincarnated after we die? Are we reincarnated after we die into the same body over and over again(Then I would feel extremely sorry for insects) as time cycles to the beginning and the end for infinite? Do we get to see people who have passed in the afterlife if there is one? Is there a heaven? Is there an end to time? How could an end to time possibly occur? Is there alternate universes? Do you go to an alternate universe version of yourself when you die? How could time have possibly started? Is there an edge to the universe? How could there be an edge(end) to the universe? What do you see when you look through a telescope 1 million times more powerful than the Hubble telescope? Does our mind or consciousness actually create the physical universe for us because how could we exist without a place to be located? Are we a in a huge PC simulation created by aliens that may or may not be living in the simulation also?