Dear Everyone...atheists,agnostics, religious, spiritual, etc. people

[iNow]

Quick lesson, here. This along the lines of my recommendation to learn more about the carriage return. Quote tags help aid understanding.

 

 

It's easy to do, too. You just take the text someone else said, and put a tag at both the beginning and end. Like this:

 

Stuff the other person said here.

 

 

...and that renders like this:

 

Stuff the other person said here.

 

 

Then you can reply to what that other person said below the quote box, and it's much easier to read.

[qijino1236]

sorry I'll do that in the future

[iNow]

[/Lesson]

 

 

 

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.

"We don't know yet," is a perfectly reasonable answer.

 

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?

I think you've ventured very far away from our topic of conversation, and while these are interesting questions, they'd be best addressed in a different thread.

 

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)?

You're really stretching things here. I mean, seriously... Are you that afraid to let go of the god concept? You're engaged in mental gymnastics to try to make your preconception work. I propose you just let go of the preconception and explore the universe without it weighing you down. Approach the world before you with authenticity and openness and integrity. That's really all you need.

[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.

Edited December 8, 2011 by qijino1236

[iNow]

Try to be careful with the term "Just a theory." When working in science, the concept of a theory tends to be more prized than the concept of facts. Theories provide a logically consistent framework to describe the world, can be used to predict outcomes based on specific inputs, and manages to offer guidance on why the facts are what they are... Why they are facts at all.

 

It's not equivalent to "something I scribbled on a napkin while drunk at a party last night." Unfortunately, that's how most people use the term "theory," but it has a very different meaning in the world of science and by dismissing something like the big bang theory or evolution (as another example) by calling it "just a theory," it suggests that you may not have a firm grasp of the material.

 

Again, though... We're still off topic.

 

 

G'night.

[qijino1236]

Try to be careful with the term "Just a theory." When working in science, the concept of a theory tends to be more prized than the concept of facts. Theories provide a logically consistent framework to describe the world, can be used to predict outcomes based on specific inputs, and manages to offer guidance on why the facts are what they are... Why they are facts at all.

 

It's not equivalent to "something I scribbled on a napkin while drunk at a party last night." Unfortunately, that's how most people use the term "theory," but it has a very different meaning in the world of science and by dismissing something like the big bang theory or evolution (as another example) by calling it "just a theory," it suggests that you may not have a firm grasp of the material.

 

Again, though... We're still off topic.

 

 

G'night.

 

Oh I know that a theory is not "just a theory" it is most researched part of the scientific method before becoming a fact...but nevertheless it is still pseudo-science until it does become a fact.

 

 

You're really stretching things here. I mean, seriously... Are you that afraid to let go of the god concept? You're engaged in mental gymnastics to try to make your preconception work. I propose you just let go of the preconception and explore the universe without it weighing you down. Approach the world before you with authenticity and openness and integrity. That's really all you need….you have just inspired me. I think that this last quote has made me into even more of a theist(I still consider myself a agnostic though)..just listen to this and see what you think of it..

 

Actually my "something more" thought is probably the most convincing idea I have thought up to make myself believe that there is perhaps a god(but perhaps not).

 

Do you understand what my "something more" thought is?

With the Bang Bang Theory that "something more" is something outside(maybe a consciousness, maybe physical space I don't know) the extremely small but massive point that was the start of the big bang.

In today's universe it is something outside the edge of the universe.

In an ancient world before mythology and religion... it was anything outside of what could be seen because there was not really any science(by how we use science today). .....

When I was an atheist I used to think that the first person that came up with god was probably an ancient psychopath that wanted to suppress other people's thoughts seeing as a lot of religions have done that in the past.

But as I thought about it more I started to think that concept of god probably was just a concept that thinkers thought of when they were trying imagine what was beyond the world that they could see. It was imagination...that imagination probably brought about mythologies and religions (and physical dogmatic depiction of god...see "Michelangelo's Creation of Adam" ).

 

But now that we have science and logic that imagination can go further with concepts such as "consciousness" being investigated scientifically by neuroscientists. In fact it is probably never-ending and that is why I have hope that when I die or at some point in my consciousnesses existence I may be able to see that never-ending in a more direct way.

 

I always approach the world before me with authenticity and openness and integrity…..As I stated in my first post I always INTENTIONALLY separate science and logic(observable science) from faith or hope or belief or reason(philosophy) or pseudo-science (non-observable "truths" AKA potential truths), but I like to still keep that faith or hope or belief or reason or pseudo-science or fantasy in my mind.

 

It is in effect not suppressing even a single thought whether it be logical or reasonable or maybe even more "out there"(abstract) …which I think is a more open way to live than any as long as your thoughts are decently reasonable. It is science + logic + belief + ideas + reason + spiritual ideas + certain religious ideas + pseudo-science + "something more" …I'll call it panthoughtism.

 

Also…the thing is philosophy and thought can create hypotheses… how do you think the first hypotheses were created?

 

See this quote… "Philosophy gave birth to science. If you think philosophically, you'll undoubtedly find a hypothesis. After you find a hypothesis, all you have to do is apply it to a scientific method and research it to come to a conclusion. It's just the lack of methodology in philosophy that makes it inferior to science. Philosophy is just thinking outside of the box, science is thinking outside of the box and carrying out experiments to validate said thought. "

 

So thinking outside the box like I am trying to do could potentially become a theory or even science.

 

Once again… But now that we have science and logic that imagination can go further with concepts such as consciousness being investigated scientifically by neuroscientists. In fact it is probably never-ending and that is why I have hope that when I die or at some point in my consciousness'es existence I may be able to see that never-ending "something more" in a more direct way.

 

As a side note about the suppression or destruction of thought...I always wonder what world would be like today if the great Library of Alexandria had not been burned down.....Plutarch (AD 46–120) wrote that during his visit to Alexandria in 48 BC Julius Caesar "accidentally" burned the library down when he set fire to his own ships to frustrate Achillas' attempt to limit his ability to communicate by sea.^[2] After its destruction, scholars used a "daughter library" in a temple known as the Serapeum, located in another part of the city.

 

All those philosophical and scientific ideas burned away. The burning of that library was probably about the equivalent of burning down the whole internet today. I wonder if Brutus had a couple of books he wanted to read from Alexandria? The dark ages were soon to come.

Edited December 8, 2011 by qijino1236

[tar]

Inow,

 

I will go along with qijino1236 on the panthoughtism bus. While it is good to know that matter is made up of tiny atoms which are made up of mostly space, inside them, and between them, you can still pick up a cup of coffee, without all the space in your fingers passing through all the space in the cup, like a puff of smoke through the air.

 

There is "something more" involved.

 

And to the "religion hijacks" thread, this "something more" that qijino1236 is talking about is the "same" "something more" that I as a human am capable of having as an idea, that you or qijino1236 or anybody else is capable of having, if you think of it as a "pure" idea, without content. What content we "put" into that "something more" idea, (and where we "get" that content) and where our personal lines are drawn between something and something more, is probably very much a good thing to talk about when talking about science and religion and personality and truth, and insight, and authority, and a whole host of "human" concerns. Especially since where we drawn the line, and what "things" and "nature of things" are "known" and "to be known", by one individual are not the same sets of things in the case of "another" individual.

 

That we can have such an "idea" seems to be rather automatic. Comes with the equipment so to speak. And probably has everything to do with evolution and how in general, our bodies and hearts and brains are constructed and function, in and of the reality we seek to understand.

 

Were science is very useful is in drawing a "collective" line, between what "we" know and what falls into the "something else" category. But it is important to note that even in science there are certain things one takes on the word of someone else, and possibly misunderstands (pulls or pushes certain things across the line, one way or the other) based on a misconception or lack of knowledge of where exactly the consensus lines are drawn, and that there almost certainly is not an exact match between one mind and another. We all know "different" things.

 

As a quick example, my route to work, is not your route to work. You and I both know there are other routes to work than our own, but we do not know all of them, and we know the specifics of only a small portion. I know to get to work I back out to the north, so I can go south and follow certain roads that lead me to work. There are any number of different routes I have taken, depending on conditions, but there is the "best" route. These specifics and even the whole operation are not going to get YOU to work. Only me. You have no reason to wind up at my desk.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited December 8, 2011 by tar

[iNow]

Oh I know that a theory is not "just a theory" it is most researched part of the scientific method before becoming a fact...but nevertheless it is still pseudo-science until it does become a fact.

I am unsure why you would say this. It's simply untrue. Scientific theories don't morph into facts, they explain them. It's not pseudoscience until facts are at hand. Science is a process. It is a method. It is about forming hypotheses and putting them to the test and trying to falsify them. It's about rejecting ideas which are shown to be false, or without use, or based on faith and wish thinking. It's about approaching the world around us with open eyes, with a preparedness to be surprised, and with a recognition that if it can't be falsified or measured it usually doesn't matter in our day to day lives.

 

Actually my "something more" thought is probably the most convincing idea I have thought up to make myself believe that there is perhaps a god(but perhaps not).

 

Do you understand what my "something more" thought is?

Yes, I think I do understand what your "something more" thought is. You have not been able to find a way to support your god concept within the confines of reality, so you are searching desperately to define it as something "beyond reality." You're putting forth an unfounded assertion that there is absolutely anything "outside the universe" just so your special idea of god can remain protected. However, what you fail to realize is that even this is a total waste of time until you (or someone) demonstrates that there is absolutely anything outside the universe.

 

When I hear people say "something beyond the big bang," I immediately think to myself that this is logically incoherent nonsense. By definition, the term universe is all encompassing. It means absolutely everything there is. We may have multiverses, but even then we're still inside one "verse," and the term universe would extend to include all of them. There is no "outside the universe" or "before the big bang." Those ideas are meaningless, and yet that's the foundation on which you're basing your entire argument for some sort of pantheistic god.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think the universe is rather amazing, and I am inspired by the order we see and how we can describe its behaviors so precisely with math, but going out of your way to find impossible loopholes so you can avoid abandoning your fuzzy, ambiguous, and ill-defined god concept is very unappealing to me. You can believe anything you want, but I don't respect that belief and I'm trying to patiently explain to you why. You don't have to agree with me, but I do want you to understand me.

 

In today's universe it is something outside the edge of the universe.

It would help if you could demonstrate there is "something outside the edge of the universe" before you start arguing that something resides or exists there.

 

I always approach the world before me with authenticity and openness and integrity… <snip> but I like to still keep that faith or hope or belief or reason or pseudo-science or fantasy in my mind.

Ok.

 

Also…the thing is philosophy and thought can create hypotheses… how do you think the first hypotheses were created?

I'm pretty sure it was a molecule somewhere determining whether or not to bond with another molecule, or perhaps it was an amoeba deciding between food and not food when encountering another object, or responding differentially between predator or prey.

 

As a side note about the suppression or destruction of thought...I always wonder what world would be like today if the great Library of Alexandria had not been burned down.

I agree, it is fun to consider such things. We will never know, though. The world would be different, perhaps. If nothing else, Cleopatra would have received more scrolls from Rome to add to the collection, and perhaps Persia would have been less successful when seeking to expand their rule. Then again, maybe nothing would be different outside the lives of those who were there to experience it. We will never know.

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is "something more" involved.

That "something more" is easily explained by the laws of physics. There is no need to invoke a fictional amorphous nonuseful concept like "god" to do so. I see it as a weapon of the lazy, a crutch for the uninformed, and a non-answer which ends a persons search for the correct one.

 

 

Were science is very useful is in drawing a "collective" line, between what "we" know and what falls into the "something else" category.

I tend to disagree here. As I've tried to illuminate above, science is far more than some narrow collection of facts. It's a process, an approach, a methodology. It helps us to see the universe as it truly is. That's not about drawing lines, it's about obliterating them.

[Arete]

Science is by definition observable truth. ... theories and hypotheses are not observable truths so no one should impose them on other people unless the other person decides what they believe

No they aren't. Scientific conclusions ARE theories which ARE supported by observation

http://en.wikipedia....ientific_theory

 

The Garden of Eden/ribwoman/talking snake gives away apples version of creation and Evolutionary theory cannot rationally be considered equally well supported and we shouldn't tolerate someone trying to teach children that they are.

 

Respecting beliefs is one thing - pretending that they are all equally supported and viable is another. E.g. it's Johnny's right to believe the theory of gravitation is wrong and it's actually invisible shoe gnomes holding his feet to the earth, but should we allow him to teach it to kids as though it's as well supported as gravitation, or give him NSF funding to pursue the shoe gnome hypothesis?

Edited December 8, 2011 by Arete