Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: clueless on 25/10/2016 01:08:20
-
Creationism and the anthropic principle may suit one well. Yet it occurs to me, one cannot build a house on Alpha Centauri Bb from Earth. You first must land on a distant class M planet to build a house there. So if God is the creator of the entire expanding universe, His presence should be required. If God truly is in everything, then one should assume that His phantom DNA spreads throughout the entire universe. Though we cannot detect God’s DNA because it is e.g. cloaked or we are not technologically advanced enough. It appears, God uses his phantom DNA to create everything, to be everywhere in the universe, with His DNA being superior as it spreads at infinite speed and distances. Since God is the most advanced and most powerful entity, all He can create is less advanced entities and primitive creatures, otherwise He Himself would be a blasphemer, because there is one God only.
To recapitulate, to create the entire universe, you usually have to be physically everywhere, because I never heard of a man who built himself a house in Argentina from Pakistan. So, when you have the most advanced DNA, and you don’t want to share power otherwise it is blasphemy, all you can create is Oprah. Though Oprah is very nice, she does not appear to be a goddess to me even though tastes differ.
-
Its very interesting that electrons travel through space with forward rotation similar to following a DNA strand. We cannot detect this pattern of spin energy because it spins at the speed of light rotating the electrons at the speed of light for the combined motion of vector and rotation. This pattern of space that causes electrons to behave in this manor appears to be throughout the universe. In a sense the DNA body of God. its how we interpret God relative to us that seems important to you. Emotionally we want to live forever and seek the possibility. There is a difference between logic and emotional logic. The claims you make for your God are emotional and not scientifically logical. We can find many parallels between science and the description of God by those of faith. There is one God. There is just one fundamental energy pattern. The body of God is pervasive. Fundamental energy is pervasive. We can detect light so the physical relationship seems valid throughout the universe for one energy source. But the important issue emotionally is consciousness of God. You can say the ability to produce life is from the body of God. The ability to produce life is fundamental energy. If God is fundamental energy than yes God created life using the electron DNA pattern. I personally cannot relate fundamental energy to consciousness. That remains faith based not science based.
What is the basis of life? Emotion is probably the path to being self aware. Our brains are fooling us into believing we are alive for the self preservation emotion.
-
Cheers GoC.
I am more than aware I am not good enough to be a naked scientist. I can be naked though. To quote Dirty Harry, I am a good man, and a good man always knows his limitations. I appreciate your comment. Still, about me being overly emotional, allow me to remind you that human heart is 60% brain cells and 40% muscle cells. Heart gives us universal consciousness and brain gives us individual consciousness. We needn't be cloned like sheep Dolly, and there is nothing wrong with being an individual, but without heart which literally thinks and sends electromagnetic waves so that our brain and all other organs form correctly, I wonder if one can solve some of the great mysteries of the universe. Emotions can get in the way of science, logic and pure Zen, but without emotions, with desire being one of them, who says that without desire we would still want to improve ourselves and explore the universe?
-
There are many possible solutions to God and the Universe. We can call God the homogeneous collective intelligence which existed before the big bang and was transformed into the universe at big bang. Thus the God we seek no longer exists except as part of all of us.
The multi-light-speed universe is another possibility in which God exists in higher light speed photonic energy up toward light speed infinity. In my various books "Science of God", The Natural God of Law, Love, and Truth", The Fabric of the Soul, Cosmic Reincarnation, etc, I present many different interpretations from general scientific viewpoints to general religious and particular religious. My novel Futureoids by Gerald Grushow presents a sci fi interpretation of God and the Universe.
Since I believe in a multi-light-speed universe there are many possibilities for God to exist. But I am interested in the science of God and not religion as such.
-
I am more than aware I am not good enough to be a naked scientist.
Curiosity is my test for a person to be a scientist. That is good enough naked or not.
a good man always knows his limitations.
Do we know our limitations? How do we know them if we do not constantly test them?
Still, about me being overly emotional, allow me to remind you that human heart is 60% brain cells and 40% muscle cells. Heart gives us universal consciousness and brain gives us individual consciousness
To accuse you of being overly emotional is like accusing you of being overly human. You misunderstand my points. There is no logical reason for life, only an emotional one. That is what AI is missing.
We needn't be cloned like sheep Dolly, and there is nothing wrong with being an individual, but without heart which literally thinks and sends electromagnetic waves so that our brain and all other organs form correctly, I wonder if one can solve some of the great mysteries of the universe.
I am sure the mystery o aging will one day be solved. It will be found in rewinding our telomeres of our cells. Which is why cloned seep only live as long as the hosts cell winding. As far as the universe a beginning and ending will never be known scientifically. The BB is faith based using extremisms.
Emotions can get in the way of science, logic and pure Zen, but without emotions, with desire being one of them, who says that without desire we would still want to improve ourselves and explore the universe?
Emotion is why we want to explore our environment, which includes the universe.
-
Rather than creating the complex universe we see today, it is more likely that he only created spacetime, matter and pushed some energy in and then the big bang happened. If all was compressed to a singularity them god only needed to be in one place. However, this scenario in which an entity creates the Big Bang, leads to a more complicated world and there is absolutely no evidence for it. You can take the scenario into consideration, but then you need to test
it and find some clues. Also information about anything beyond this world cannot be found. Vague theories can't be proven right or wrong.
-
Interesting points all.
You misunderstand my points.
Misunderstandings can be fun. Perhaps not. I must admit I understand not half of what is said on this forum. Poetry is my thing and I just might be one of the greatest poets of the 21st century because competition isn't much. No offense to other poets. Sometimes I am curious about the universe just as my cat is about a box. It's just that I've one life instead of nine so I guess I should be more careful as I explore the universe.
-
At the speed of light, the universe will appear to contract to a point-instant; special relativity. In terms of a visual, at the speed of light, the fabric of space-time will unravel into separate threads of space and separate thread of time.
If we followed a time thread, that is independent of space, we can move in time, not constrained by space. This would allow us to know the history of the entire universe as a function of time. This is historically called omniscience. If we followed a space thread that is independent of time, we can be anywhere in the universe in zero time. This is historically called omnipresence. Omniscience and omnipresence have been historically attribute to God. From inference, God would need to exist where space-time breaks down; speed of light.
The separation of space and time into separate threads is inferred from the point-instant is implied by special relativity. If we traveled at the speed of light and the universe appeared as a point-instant, we could be anywhere and everywhere in that universe, in zero time, since everything overlaps as a point. Even if don't move, we are everywhere or omnipresent.
To form the universe, separated threads of time and separate threads of space; omniscience and omnipresence, need to overlap to create the inertial constraints that we call space-time. We need to weave the fabric of space-time, to set limits on omnipresence and omniscience; constrained by the speed of light.
If we look at gravity, is an acceleration. An acceleration is one part distance and two parts time; d/t/t. Gravity is space-time plus extra time threads that are embroidered into the fabric of space-time; pucker. The extra time threads, allows gravity to integrate over extreme distances, where the speed of light should place a limit. The extra time threads adds omniscience to gravity, so the mass can coordinate, even when distance become so large the speed of light appears to take too long for coordinated inertial signals.
Gravity also generates pressure, where pressure is force/area. In terms of the units connected to space-time, this is d/t/t/dd, where the last two d's are connected to area. Pressure, generated by gravity implies extra distance threads embroidered into space-time. This is also a pucker in space-time allowing new phases of matter to appear.
-
Creationism and the anthropic principle may suit one well. Yet it occurs to me, one cannot build a house on Alpha Centauri Bb from Earth. You first must land on a distant class M planet to build a house there. So if God is the creator of the entire expanding universe, His presence should be required. If God truly is in everything, then one should assume that His phantom DNA spreads throughout the entire universe. Though we cannot detect God’s DNA because it is e.g. cloaked or we are not technologically advanced enough. It appears, God uses his phantom DNA to create everything, to be everywhere in the universe, with His DNA being superior as it spreads at infinite speed and distances. Since God is the most advanced and most powerful entity, all He can create is less advanced entities and primitive creatures, otherwise He Himself would be a blasphemer, because there is one God only.
To recapitulate, to create the entire universe, you usually have to be physically everywhere, because I never heard of a man who built himself a house in Argentina from Pakistan. So, when you have the most advanced DNA, and you don’t want to share power otherwise it is blasphemy, all you can create is Oprah. Though Oprah is very nice, she does not appear to be a goddess to me even though tastes differ.
If you think in God as the One, (not just pagan super-hero gods :)), he is by definition outside all range of comprehension for the human being or any other type of live, so all the categories used by humans could not be used to describe God ("creation", "fill the space", "DNA")... all them could not suit to God.
Even if the Universe was created by some Deity, he may not be the One God! Think that the infinite has no limits!
-
Because of those things, people do not built houses on Pakistan, they built survival shelters, and graveyards.
God (seek of "creator of "life"), not of everything, long this concept has become a excuse for, anything.
You want to know when the concept was born?
Early humans awoke to their environment, also become self aware of the animals surrounding them, at that very day, raised the subcontinent, inescapable question: Why? I'm so different?
Tow possible answers, of course if you do not have the meanings to find it back there "as we do", only one possible and "logical" outcome, a creator, not of everything, there where many gods, the concept started to focused into "one" as humans evolved on "knowledge"
There is still the question, but at least for us, the question diverges from "all might entity" for "alien enhanced", the true question we have is, "whom" not "what".
We do not intend to die or kill for that, that's because the subcontinent knowledge, awareness, that one does not "enhance" a primitive being, correct if you prefer, for providing atrocity for a "non-observer" to not watch...
Be careful with the path, as others are being careful with your beliefs, "god" is always helpful and not meaningless when someone else is suffering, we tend to recur, but we deftly diverge from the reasons behind of it...
Maybe not even "alien enhanced" at all, maybe just a natural jump on the evolution scale, speaking freely?
No mater at all, if we are an experiment of curiosity by the same reasons we would built A.I, or if we are "still" alone on the local universe. We will wake up in peace on the "knowledge" that after there should be no after, what means I would not, as consequence most of us do acknowledge this simple feeling:
"I do not exist anymore, thus I "can" know that. I cant know nothing, no join nor pain. We simple not"
What is there to fear on that, if one understand that "to fear to be...", one need to be?
Why would anyone, of those who are alive now, fear such thing?
Sounds tough and cold, but when the society reach a critical point, and it will believe that. Our we, are the best chance and most likely one help available, for free... When every religion collapse, when civilization collapse, and every follower face the knowledge of what, the visualization, of what is "terror", not the subcontinent fear of it, but it's existence on each street, it's "visualization"
When all that eventually comes true, people like us, already doing "good" expecting no magical post-reward, those will most likely be the only help one may find, all the others would request something back, while we simple "acknowledge" that the bet thing, is do not care...
And here we are! I do not care about your believes simple because I do not.
They do not care about my own beliefs, the only difference is that I'm thankful for their kindness in to do so, as in exchange, I'm willing do the same for them...
Now for the reason why most of people that do not believe will not answer back, is not even for not respecting the belief into something...
As answering fro myself, at this moment, I do not have reasons to fear anything but the persistent tough, that one do posses meanings within to "rationally" think about that. That, I do pay attention...
Only reasons I'm answering is to open a chance to reply back that it was just a philosophic question made by someone that was in good mod, with a relaxed mind, and not a necessarily real physical consideration...
Taking my personal preferences, but to express my point of view on this mater I need to be abrupt:
The resume of gods existence, lies on:
"by (any means we will ignore)
Humans appeared on earth.
Humans looked upon all the creatures there is.
Humans felt collective loneliness and confusion: Why I'm so different?
Only humans instinctively knew that they where alone, as a "logical necessity", humans stop to search on the ground and look at the sky's, cause they instinctively needing that behind that veil, there should be the creator.
For the other hand, the underground was give to be hell, where the gods behind the veil sent the bad man.
Bad man at that time means, the member of the group who disrespect the "rules", born from a excuse to necessarily accomplish the killing of a foe, for the individual do too much noise, steel food, anything that put a threat on the survival situation, for bellow underground was all sorts of primitive beasts, ready to kill them all at any given second as they vague the surface of the earth... It's logic to determinate that the one who does not follows the rule, any rule of any civilization, at any given moment in human history, discard a foe in order to survive shouldn't have being easy since the begging, for there remain vengeful sons, woman and other friends... If my father is to stay behind due injure or violate the laws, for me to accept, I need to be convinced that is the will of the creator...
This is the beginning of god's and devil's history...
Now if you ask me if I believe that: No I'm a Buddhist, I believe on the methodology of a obese naked baby face bald man that "perhaps" lived thousands of years ago, so who am I to say what is the correct answer... Just trying to provide what seems to be, for me, the most logical answer, "monkey genetic enhancement", or for such being, Sunday dinner with the kids...
God was up to survival, now that we basically do not need to survive anymore, god is becoming something more spiritually related, some base where to lie our hopes and sadness, a good concept if you ask me, the problem is, there is still those who "survive", form them god will always be god, and perhaps willing to kill for it... The question I ask myself once a while, to kill for god by lack of knowledge, is any different, than have the knowledge but instead use it for good, use it to produce fake events in order to let other believe on what they subcontinent want to believe?
What I mean is: I I tell to a fanatic that I know that his god do not exist, he'll kill me...
If I told a general that I know that it wasn't work of religious fanatics, he'll also find a way to kill me...
I really guess that the only difference is that one will do it right on the middle of the street based on irrational emotion, the other will use means to make sure he is protected... As conclusion both are idiots, although one is a coward, the other is an idiot...
What I do not get at all, why so many people ask for god to come forward and punish the evil, do they not realize that no one would be left, or it is a real suicide desire with makeup of kindness?
and the most funny fact, is that if something like that come in front of me, an atheist, asking my opinion on the mater, I would ask he to forgive them all for they do not know what they do...
Maybe happens that that wise young doctor back there as right, this before the emperor made him son of god, of course...
DNA behave like universe, not otherwise... It's most likely as a "time" mechanism of evolution, coping the environment, but fascinating one... Seems that DNA borrowed its mechanics from universe mechanics, perhaps the spiral shape has something to do with communication and transporting information one cell to the other... If you ask me, DNA evolved, but the original one, the base, it's not from this earth, seems to be like a seed that was spreader not on a single planet, but along with universe itself...
God is a feeling, as time always have being, only happens that if time exists, so should be with god...
-
Creationism is a possibility examined by scientists although only hypothesis can be made.
Science can understand religion as is.
Religion doesn't understand science.
-
Science can understand religion as is.
Religion doesn't understand science.
Science should not follow faith.
Faith should not follow Science.
The value of one restricts the other but a moral code needs to be followed by all.
-
Science can understand religion as is.
Religion doesn't understand science.
Science should not follow faith.
Faith should not follow Science.
The value of one restricts the other but a moral code needs to be followed by all.
I agree with the first statement. As for the second, personally I don't quite care but seems impossible someone not to use any scientific evidence. Only lifeforms that do not have a culture can do that. Perhaps you meant to say something elese or not ad literam.
Creationism can be discussed by scientists but if it includes religious people, the discussions will generate contradictory opinions and will not go anywhere because of faith.
-
Taking a bite of the apple of knowledge reduces your faith. To maintain your faith you need to leave the apple of knowledge alone or you will have inner conflict between facts and faith. Faith is not necessary for a moral compass. Science and faith are at odds and always will be. Should you make the faithful suffer the facts of science?
-
Creationism can be discussed by scientists but if it includes religious people, the discussions will generate contradictory opinions and will not go anywhere because of faith.
So what you're trying to say? That you don't want pope to join the discussion about God? How dare you! And who died on the cross for us? Jerry Lewis? Jesus, save us from our sins, or you've done that already? Hmm… It appears You will have to die for our sins again, because it appears that scientists blinded by math and physics do not appreciate the greatest sacrifice there is.
Lucifer too wanted to be as smart as God, rather than blindly follow commands from above. I needn't tell you what happened to the fallen angel. So stop acting like nerds with glasses and scientist, rather repent, and thou shalt be saved.
-
Science is a process, not an entity.
Interestingly, it is arguable that western science owes its development to christianity in providing an assertion that effects have causes and there is order in nature and some ultimate and discoverable connection between phenomena - a different holism from eastern philosophies which tend not to invite analysis.
Anyway, the problem with creationism and any model of an intelligent creator, is that they don't stand up to scientific investigation and do not lead to useful predictions or products.
-
So what you're trying to say? That you don't want pope to join the discussion about God?
Why should he? He has never seen or heard from his god, and would be condemned as a blasphemer or ignored as a fantasist if he claimed to have!
And who died on the cross for us? Jerry Lewis? Jesus, save us from our sins, or you've done that already?
I haven't sinned, so that would have been a waste of effort, but plenty of noble people have suffered and died in the course of a history that has given me a lot of freedom and privilege, including the freedom not to have to kneel in front af a cross.
-
So stop acting like nerds with glasses and scientist, rather repent, and thou shalt be saved.
People are not going to be receptive to preachers that come shouting insults and making demands that they repent. Repent to whom, to you? BTW, repentance means to "change", and if you ever expect to sway others to your beliefs, you'll need to "change" your delivery, do it with love and not demands.
-
Should you make the faithful suffer the facts of science?
In my opinion, an evolved society shall have rules based on evidence and logic to accomplish goals like protecting the individulas needs (including religious needs if there are people who believe), protecting the countries and ultimately the planet (e.g. Global warming) . The more we know about the universe and about ourselves the better the rules. If the faithful doesn't obeu the rules it must suffer the consequences including punishment. That is not because they are evel. In my opinion nobody is evel although I usually follow my instincts and judge evil acts. I said " nobody is evil" because I think every action of a person is a consequence of the environment, education and genes, all external factors. Twins usually think the same. However if rules are not followed the punishments single purpose is to prevent further actions against the rules. We can't eliminate punishment although nobody deserves it. People that can't adapt to the rules (Repeatingly disobeying the rules) get excluded from the society. This works for the individual who did the wrong action but also for those who might have similar intentions. An evolved man shall follow these rules easily. All of these happen because of the laws of nature especially, natural selection rules. There was a natural selection process that selected individual with faithful genes. Basically, the majority decided what set of rules we follow.
To be clear, the simple fact of being religious is not a reason for punishment. Nevertheless, religious groups that act like organised crime shall be forbidden.
A society that gives up rules becomes a short term heaven for those who don't like to follow them. The key is "short term".
I expect religious persons will become increasingly irritated.
-
As soon as I finished my work, I shall join this... For now devil is on the details...
-
So stop acting like nerds with glasses and scientist, rather repent, and thou shalt be saved.
No offence but I think you are the "odd" one here.
-
Should you make the faithful suffer the facts of science?
Everyone suffers from various factual causes, including god's wonderful creations of famine, earthquake, disease and congenital deformity. Some pretend it's part of a plan for which they should be grateful and praiseful, others try to put it right, in defiance of the Almighty. Science is a useful tool for fixing such horrors as the just and merciful creator of all things inflicts on his children for his own perverted amusement - nobody else thinks congenital syphilis is funny.
-
Did pope pollute air, water and soil? No. Did Jesus invent weapons of mass destruction? No. All this, and more, all in the name of progress. Progress? What progress? Technology will fail, if it hasn’t already. There isn’t an infinite ocean of oil in the ground, as scientists would have us believe. And who said that the Sun will last for another 5 billion years? Scientists? And I’m supposed to believe them after all they have invented? I watch Oprah on TV for crying out loud! The thirst we have for knowledge will be our downfall. Computers will fail. The OS of my computer is almost but dead already. Cars and planes will be parked forever because there will be no more oil. And that is just the beginning...
You want to know what true progress is? True progress is, when you put a large turkey in the oven for Thanksgiving Day. When your wife respects you even though you are her husband. When Cuba doesn’t aim their ICBM’s at America, rather casts aside communism and celebrates Christmas. Now that’s true progress. Americans are shaking like a leaf all because of atheist science sponsored by communism, which is supposed to save us, but it will probably be our demise, and quite possibly ELE because of a simple misunderstanding or one dictator.
Jesus is the greatest scientist and genius there is, with an IQ of 2009. And when He was amongst us, did he pass along the knowledge he has, being all-knowing and all? No. Did he give us cellular phones? No. Did he told us how to build nuclear submarines? No. Did he have a wife? No. He was a carpenter. That’s all. A carpenter. Why? Because, in the end, simplicity is the greatest achievement and the most important discovery for scientists there is. That and ignorance which is bliss. Imagine. Sitting in a chair at a nice table carved by Jesus while you eat your dinner. Jesus knew it, while struggling with His demons. He knew that science is Inferno for human sinners. He knew that scientists are being taken by the dark side, selling their soul to Beelzebub for another breakthrough that will pollute our environment even more, slowly turning into demons blinded by science, because of our sad nature and volatile nature of wives. You are not being farsighted. You do not see the big picture. In fact, because of the complexity and quantum mechanics, scientist have the greatest myopia there is. You forgot about the little things. About celebrating Christmas with our loved ones. About love for our enemies. Even though we resist our wives. And most of all, you forgot about Jesus. And Why!? Because of the USS Enterprise, the Noah’s Ark of modern era, which will abandon Earth just as a rat abandons a sinking ship. Earth is our home, not Qo'noS. So instead of gazing at the stars with that silly look in your eyes, perhaps you should value our home above all, an unpolluted Earth, all those blooming meadows with myriads of butterflies. If religion had stopped the science before it started, Isadora Duncan would not die in an air-polluting car and Yesenin would not take his life out of grief.
Dear scientists, though you mean well, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. So cast aside your doubts, fears, numbers, math, physics, quantum mechanics etc. and be but sheep of our Lord, the good shepherd. The greatest arrogance of men, in particular that of scientists, is that we can control nature, and yet it is the other way around. Just forget about science, because you will forget it anyhow when you grow old and acquire dementia and Alzheimer. Instead of holding on to differential equations, which perplex the hell out of me, perhaps you should pick up a bonny flower and give it to your love, even if she’s your wife.
And don’t be afraid of earthquakes, famine, diseases, war, etc., for God works in mysterious ways, and blessed are those who suffer persecution for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of the heavens.
I, clueless, who knows about science nothing really, have spoken. Thanks for listening.
-
Dear scientists, though you mean well, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I'm sorry , but hate this aphorism.
My philosophy is that the good intentions are the only thing that makes a person good. It doesn't matter if it fails. If the intentions were good, that is what matters for me, it is good person. Apparently that is Kant philosohy.
This is why "it takes religion for a good man to do bad things."
Btw, how are your intentions ?
-
Did pope pollute air, water and soil? No. Did Jesus invent weapons of mass destruction?
(a) neither is or claimed to be god and (b) they seem to have had some involvement in the Conquistadores, Crusades, Inquisition, slaughter of the Cathars, various pogroms, organised crime in Ireland, and the election of an illiterate pro-life fundamentalist lunatic to the Presidency of the United States. And every animal pollutes its environment.
And don’t be afraid of earthquakes, famine, diseases, war, etc., for God works in mysterious ways, and blessed are those who suffer persecution for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of the heavens.
Misquoting a famous rabbi is one thing, evidence is quite another.
-
Well everybody has an opinion when it comes to God. And who said I was being serious? If I am a character it does not mean I have character. Wait a second. That was a shot at me. I guess I’ll just put myself in scientists’ capable hands and say adios to Jesus. Perhaps not.
(...) Btw, how are your intentions ?
My good attentions are doing quite well actually. I myself am a bit depressed. But thanks for asking.
Misquoting a famous rabbi is one thing, evidence is quite another.
Evidence? Who needs evidence? Anthony Peaks practically proved that we are holograms. I myself like to think that we aren’t, even though faith, belief and sweet little lies are hardly evidence. And if everything Oprah said is evidence, truth, and nothing but the truth so help me God, I am boarding USS Voyager heading for the Delta Quadrant.
-
If you do the genealogy of the bible, Creation times out to be about 6000 years go. If you look at the scientific carbon dated data from archeology, this 6000 year time frame, coordinates with the invention of writing. Genesis was the first scientific publication. It was the first unified theory of cosmology, earth science and life. These ancient theories may not withstand the tests of modern science, but neither do any of the science theories of 200 years ago. I am not sure why only these roots of science are taboo reading.The ancients assumed a model of physical and biology evolution with a logical sequence of integrated events. Modern science assumes a more disjointed model governed by chaos. Which framework is correct at the conceptual level?
Consider the significance of the invention of writing. Say you had to go to a lectures at school, where there is no written language. All that you can do is listen to the professor, while not being able to take notes or have take home study materials. Without writing, there is no good way for this learn knowledge to be the same for all. Different people will different hear things or parts of the lecture. Different people will remember the same things, differently, and different people will forget at different rates. The result is it would hard to get the entire group to agree on what they heard over the long term of tests. The knowledge from the lecture will diverge and even shrink with time. The net affect is people would forget and most knowledge might be generational, at best. Civilization might appear, but it would abort, as the working creative knowledge of the fathers, atrophies in the children, and they forget, and return to pre-human instincts.
With the invention of writing, there is now a way to record data and the pivotal human ideas, so everyone can study, reinforce, refresh and become more sheltered from the atrophy of memory. This allows civilization to stick and evolve.
The question becomes, how does this impact human consciousness? For one thing, with writing knowledge persisting, there will a loss of instinct. Before writing, forgetting allows everyone to default back to instinct and old habits; prehuman. But with writing, there is a cultural way to reinforce the needs of culture; civilization now persists. With writing, will power and choice will increase, apart from instinct. Instead of eating when hungry, like our instincts may say, we practice willpower, and store the grains. We cannot forget or deny this path, since it is written. Free will begins, as choices apart from natural instincts.
In the beginning was the Word and the word was God!
The word is connected to the invention of writing. God appears to humans with the invention of writing; God was the word. The reason God appears is repression of instinct, due to written language carved stone, will increase the human brain potential. For example, if you are hungry, your mind and body will become more agitated as the potential in the brain increases. If the written words says you can't eat, this repression becomes stronger with time. This is needed for civilization, but it adversely impacts the individual; start to project.
Civilization will require the members stick to the written plan, with instincts more and more repressed, since it can't naturally forget. The first written knowledge is practical knowledge; building, storage, commerce, etc. The impact of the repression of instinct, is impulse and projection. This is called paradise. Repression is causing instinctive potential, which is harnessed in productive ways.
New written rules of good and evil appear, to help people differentiate the most suitable paths, for the needs of civilization. But this causes further repression of natural instinct, since natural outlets become increasingly dammed. Creationism is witness to this change in the human brain and the pitfalls that appear as instinct is repressed. One only needs to understand symbolism to translate this data.
-
Perhaps you've noticed that theories evolved from simple to extreme complexity, from a basic level towards a explaining fundamental level. You still think the first scientific publication reflects the truth ?
If you have free will you can decide whether something seems good or bad. If you follow religion you think faith is the good thing and decide to follow faith not to think on your own. If you follow faith, you are not allowed to think on your own and to say whether something seems good or bad. Then, where is your free will ?
Once you follow faith there is no free will anymore, you simply follow the scripture (of course in reality you can't).
If I want to decide whether to follow the scripts or my own judgement, how do I know I've made the right decision because it is me who needs to decide this ? (And you think those who made wrong decisions are guilty ? That is ridiculous).
-
(...) If I want to decide whether to follow the scripts or my own judgement, how do I know I've made the right decision because it is me who needs to decide this ?
Don't look at me. I am clueless.
Say, Nilak, how about we hang out and talk about nothing rather than talk about everything? The latter sounds a bit like megalomania whilst nothing sounds great to me at the moment. I can't take this anymore. My head is about to explode. So, what is the cure? Budweiser of course. Unlike religion and science, the beer doesn't give you headache, if you have one beer only, just one at a time. Still, no pain, no gain. I speak from experience. But if you think that I'm going to suffer all the time, best think again. It appears, I can be dumb and happy too!
-
(...) If I want to decide whether to follow the scripts or my own judgement, how do I know I've made the right decision because it is me who needs to decide this ?
Don't look at me. I am clueless.
Say, Nilak, how about we hang out and talk about nothing rather than talk about everything? The latter sounds a bit like megalomania whilst nothing sounds great to me at the moment. I can't take this anymore. My head is about to explode. So, what is the cure? Budweiser of course. Unlike religion and science, the beer doesn't give you headache, if you have one beer only, just one at a time. Still, no pain, no gain. I speak from experience. But if you think that I'm going to suffer all the time, best think again. It appears, I can be dumb and happy too!
Speaking of beer... Religion is like a drug. It offers you comfort and false freedom but it takes you the real freedom of thinking. It makes you happy but also doesn't let you enjoy things you might like to do.
I'm sorry I've made you angry. Remember, I also feel disappointed I couldn't convince you, as well.
I'm not even trying to convince you that you are definitely wrong. All I want you to do is to realize that there is a chance you might be wrong.
-
I'm not even trying to convince you that you are definitely wrong. All I want you to do is to realize that there is a chance you might be wrong.
Searching out our errors and understanding them is great therapy and prepares us for new insight into many mysteries. If we do not seek out our personal errors, we are prepared to learn nothing.
-
I'm not even trying to convince you that you are definitely wrong. All I want you to do is to realize that there is a chance you might be wrong.
Searching out our errors and understanding them is great therapy and prepares us for new insight into many mysteries. If we do not seek out our personal errors, we are prepared to learn nothing.
Yes but he is starting with the idea that creationism is definitely true fact. This means when he searches for errors he looks somewere else not in the idea of creationism.
For example in the past we had the idea that newtonian mechanics was correct but some scientists had some doubts and they turned out to be justified. Now we think relativity is correct, but still there is a chance it might not be.
-
Yes but he is starting with the idea that creationism is definitely true fact. This means when he searches for errors he looks somewere else not in the idea of creationism.
I wasn't directing my observations specifically at you Nilak, error is common to us all. I think you may have misunderstood to whom I was directing these observations. For the greater part, you and I agree.
-
Speaking of beer... Religion is like a drug. It offers you comfort and false freedom but it takes you the real freedom of thinking. It makes you happy but also doesn't let you enjoy things you might like to do.
My bad. Religion does not give me headache. Science does. Still, religious fanatics give me headache as well. I guess Einstein got to me regarding relativity.
-
Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a God or many Gods. In science our best tool is mathematics. Mathematics suggests the Bible used in the west is inaccurate. But that is not proof either way. Can we design perfection from imperfection? I do not believe in the existence of witches, warlocks, the devil, magic or God. I can only suggest after we die I suspect no one will be surprised.
-
Can we design perfection from imperfection?
Of course we can. Just use eraser. Remove 'im' and voilà, you have perfection.
-
Can we design perfection from imperfection?
Of course we can. Just use eraser. Remove 'im' and voilà, you have perfection.
It is usually an argument against creationism. There is evidence of improvement over extremely long periods of time time, in the theory of evolution. A creator would've correct the design errors before choosing the final version.
Anyway I see perfection only as a mathematical concept for solving problems.
-
Can we design perfection from imperfection?
No need - evolution does it for us. Compare this year's flu virus with last year's, or an Airbus 380 with a Wright Flyer.
Whether driven by natural trial and error or human design, stuff evolves by quasi-continuous optmisation. As the environment is inherently unstable and unpredictable, perfection is not usefully definable.
-
Life can bring order and improve order out of ciaos but eventually ciaos will win.
-
Perfection is everything there is not...