Just another thing to make you smile.
I resent that. Besides, I believe in science, which mostly explains how the universe was created.
The Big Bang Theory isn't perfect, but we'll find the answers eventually.
It's also a really interesting TV show.
The Big Bang Theory isn't perfect, but we'll find the answers eventually.
It's also a really interesting TV show.
There's so many things wrong with that. I hope everyone here understands the following points, and if not, would do a little study:
1) The idea that something existed that was uncreated by something else is shared also by most religious views. So to ridicule atheism on that point is clear confirmation bias. The idea that God created the Universe is provides no simplification or explanation because the question would then immediately become, "who created God?"
2) The initial state of the universe and the big bang is not only responsible for everywhere and everything but also everytime. There was no time before there was space. The difficulty to comprehend is a result of people applying a simplified and imperfect understanding of physics ('folk' physics) that everyone develops while growing up (perhaps somewhat innate) rather than taking a formal approach.
3) As far as "re-arranging" itself (e.g., into planets and galaxies etc.), the forces of the universe are understood quite well
4) Confounded with the last point, the process of (effectively) random changes and mutations on a molecular level is well understood in physics and chemistry
5) "into self-replicating bits" is obviously the domain of natural selection, which in its simplest form is a tautology (true by definition): mutations that promote self-replication/survival are more likely to self-replicate/survive.
This has little to do with atheism and everything to do with basic science
1) The idea that something existed that was uncreated by something else is shared also by most religious views. So to ridicule atheism on that point is clear confirmation bias. The idea that God created the Universe is provides no simplification or explanation because the question would then immediately become, "who created God?"
2) The initial state of the universe and the big bang is not only responsible for everywhere and everything but also everytime. There was no time before there was space. The difficulty to comprehend is a result of people applying a simplified and imperfect understanding of physics ('folk' physics) that everyone develops while growing up (perhaps somewhat innate) rather than taking a formal approach.
3) As far as "re-arranging" itself (e.g., into planets and galaxies etc.), the forces of the universe are understood quite well
4) Confounded with the last point, the process of (effectively) random changes and mutations on a molecular level is well understood in physics and chemistry
5) "into self-replicating bits" is obviously the domain of natural selection, which in its simplest form is a tautology (true by definition): mutations that promote self-replication/survival are more likely to self-replicate/survive.
This has little to do with atheism and everything to do with basic science
Besides this, there's also a fundamental problem of painting atheism as a religion with dogma. Atheism is simply non-belief in gods, not belief in the Big Bang Theory, Evolution, etc.
I prefer cynicism over atheism. Frankly I just find it to be more fun.
Ha! I've found that dissociating one's self to a labelled belief-system is the most emancipating way. Why should belief-systems by mass-produced? The individual need only satisfy himself and be at rest with the ones he loves.
in digression, it seems to me that the big bang theory resembles Judeo-Christian creationism in that both teach the self existence of a mass of energy which ultimately reacts to create the universe. The major difference being in the personification of said mass.
Evolution becomes problematic as a majority of mutations are nothing more then tumours and tumours do not lend to the improvement of a species so much as its' extinction. Queue Tazzy Devils here.
in digression, it seems to me that the big bang theory resembles Judeo-Christian creationism in that both teach the self existence of a mass of energy which ultimately reacts to create the universe. The major difference being in the personification of said mass.
Evolution becomes problematic as a majority of mutations are nothing more then tumours and tumours do not lend to the improvement of a species so much as its' extinction. Queue Tazzy Devils here.
"O.o I'm amazed at how fast this topic got to this stage.
[]
[]
Pretty much everything said above sums up what I would say. However, something that hasn't been said is that we do not know what absolute nothing is like, how it would act, or whether even IT was around before the big bang. As was said, it started time as well, so there may not have been a before for the nothing to be in.
The majority of mutations are maladaptive, not tumours. Also, an entire species does not undergo mutation together, but individually.. And the new genes won't perpetuate through the whole species unless they are beneficial
In regards to the Tasmania Devils. For those that do not know, tasmanian devils are currently being driven to extinction by a contagious cancerous disease (not genetic mutation). So it's not an example of what you seem to be implying. In fact it is somewhat the opposite, because as we see the tasmanian devils being driven to extinction we are also seeing the disease being driven to extinction. That is natural selection. Evolution selects for diseases that are not too effective in killing their hosts (probably why contagious cancers are extremely rare)
In regards to the Tasmania Devils. For those that do not know, tasmanian devils are currently being driven to extinction by a contagious cancerous disease (not genetic mutation). So it's not an example of what you seem to be implying. In fact it is somewhat the opposite, because as we see the tasmanian devils being driven to extinction we are also seeing the disease being driven to extinction. That is natural selection. Evolution selects for diseases that are not too effective in killing their hosts (probably why contagious cancers are extremely rare)
There was no time before there was space.
Time doesn't exist. It was made up by humans, to clarify different chains of events.
Time doesn't exist. It was made up by humans, to clarify different chains of events.
You guys make it sound like this was a serious statement... I just smiled.
O.o I'm amazed at how fast this topic got to this stage.
Indeed.
O.o I'm amazed at how fast this topic got to this stage.
Indeed.
That works, Someone. PS, I mentioned TD's because they're awesome. Obviously cancer is not the answer and bears no weight on the evolution debate; if answers you seek, in Darwin's scripts you must peek for natural selection strives for genetic perfection and vast gene pools help eliminate fools.
Skull, I think time represents the motion of one mass in relation to another. The fact that the bodies of mass will effect each other justifies the actual existence of time aka it is not just another label, though the means of measuring time are.
Skull, I think time represents the motion of one mass in relation to another. The fact that the bodies of mass will effect each other justifies the actual existence of time aka it is not just another label, though the means of measuring time are.
will Taz, the loony toons Tasmanian devil go extinct to.
I really, really, really, really hope not.
I giggled
DackFight wrote:
will Taz, the loony toons Tasmanian devil go extinct to.
I'd cry
DackFight wrote:
will Taz, the loony toons Tasmanian devil go extinct to.
I'd cry
we must save him with something extinct and bugs bunny proof!
June 12th 2013, 05:49 PM
Glenn
Atheism vs Religion, a never-ending battle. How about both sides grow the duck up?
Grow the duck up? Gooby pleaze. Huey, Dewey and Louie would be arseholes grown up!
Time doesn't exist
Incorrect Skull Time dos exist the Measurements for time was made up by humans.
That's like saying temperature dosent exist and its made by humans the measurements were made up.
Incorrect Skull Time dos exist the Measurements for time was made up by humans.
That's like saying temperature dosent exist and its made by humans the measurements were made up.
Incorrect Skull Time dos exist the Measurements for time was made up by humans.
That's like saying temperature dosent exist and its made by humans the measurements were made up.
So, by that logic if there were no more humans, time would stop existing. Temperature too.
That's like saying temperature dosent exist and its made by humans the measurements were made up.
So, by that logic if there were no more humans, time would stop existing. Temperature too.
That's exactly the point Punisher is trying to make: Even without humans having a concept of time there will still be time. For example, even when humans aren't watching things can still change their position as a function of time.
The way we describe time is of course made up by humans. We could have described velocity as the product of distance and frequency instead of distance divided by time. I know of someone who loves to express velocity in units of Herz per dioptre.
The way we describe time is of course made up by humans. We could have described velocity as the product of distance and frequency instead of distance divided by time. I know of someone who loves to express velocity in units of Herz per dioptre.
Actually, temperature and time aren't comparable at all. Without measurements of time, there wouldn't be time. However, without measurements of temperature, it would still exist. Humans & other animals both can feel temperature, but only humans have "time". For other animals, there's just change and reaction. One of the biggest misconception made by humans is that there needs to exist something like time for events to change, when in reality, time is something made up almost subconsciously by humans, because they otherwise couldn't explain changes and reaction. It's something beyond human comprehension. Like saying space is endless.
And am I really replying to someone who doesn't even know baldness can come from either of your parents. *Sigh* It seems I am.
And am I really replying to someone who doesn't even know baldness can come from either of your parents. *Sigh* It seems I am.
I disagree that time and temp don't come from humans, they are words to indicate the actions, thus without humans time could be called whatever it wanted to and, vice city versa.
That's like saying temperature dosent exist and its made by humans the measurements were made up.
Temperature is (sort of) the energy that molecules have because they move. If you're not looking, they're still moving, so there still is temperature. But if there are no molecules (before the big bang started), then it's not just not measured; it really doesn't exist. It is not a sensible quantity to even talk about.
With time it's slightly more complex, but the same reasoning works. Time is really a strange thing. We usually define it by the rate of change, especially of things which seem to change at a constant rate, such as pendulums. With this definition, if there are no things, there is nothing that can change, and so there is no rate. It's more than just not watching it; without things which can change, time is not a usable concept.
Temperature is (sort of) the energy that molecules have because they move. If you're not looking, they're still moving, so there still is temperature. But if there are no molecules (before the big bang started), then it's not just not measured; it really doesn't exist. It is not a sensible quantity to even talk about.
With time it's slightly more complex, but the same reasoning works. Time is really a strange thing. We usually define it by the rate of change, especially of things which seem to change at a constant rate, such as pendulums. With this definition, if there are no things, there is nothing that can change, and so there is no rate. It's more than just not watching it; without things which can change, time is not a usable concept.
Doesn't this kind of prove that time does indeed exist independently of human measurement?
As shevek, myself et al. have previously suggested...
As shevek, myself et al. have previously suggested...
Doesn't this kind of prove that time does indeed exist independently of human measurement?
No. That would indicate speed requires time to exist and the otherwise around, which isn't true either.
No. That would indicate speed requires time to exist and the otherwise around, which isn't true either.
Well if you want to delve really deep into this topic, can you really prove that *anything* exists?
I mean sure we notice things based on our perceptions, but how can we be sure they are anything more than perceptions? How do we know the life we live is anything more real than a dream? What if death is simply an awakening from this dream and the entrance to reality, with entirely different concepts and physics where time, space, matter are all nonexistent, replaced by other concepts which are incomprehensible to our current being. Well, we don't know. Sure we're 99% sure that our life is real and affects other humans and that these concepts we speak of exist, and that's enough for me. But is that really enough to say anything is proven?
No, I'm not a nihilist. If I was nihilist I would think life was not worth living and that life is essentially meaningless. I only think there is a very tiny possibility that our lives are not real. Just like I think there is a small possibility God could be real but yet I think religion is stupid.
I mean sure we notice things based on our perceptions, but how can we be sure they are anything more than perceptions? How do we know the life we live is anything more real than a dream? What if death is simply an awakening from this dream and the entrance to reality, with entirely different concepts and physics where time, space, matter are all nonexistent, replaced by other concepts which are incomprehensible to our current being. Well, we don't know. Sure we're 99% sure that our life is real and affects other humans and that these concepts we speak of exist, and that's enough for me. But is that really enough to say anything is proven?
No, I'm not a nihilist. If I was nihilist I would think life was not worth living and that life is essentially meaningless. I only think there is a very tiny possibility that our lives are not real. Just like I think there is a small possibility God could be real but yet I think religion is stupid.
Well, might as well put in my two cents.
I believe that all existence is a consciousness that experiences life as a three dimensional world. Atoms are made out of energy, as evidenced by E=mc2 (At least, as I can understand it.), and therefore all of what we see and experience is energy, meaning the world is in our minds. But, the reason behind all of the negative things? We may never know, but as the world is in our minds, my thoughts that nothing is impossible is entirely valid and possible.
These thoughts are also the reason why I like to treat all points as valid as mine.
Now, another cent to add. Matter is energy, energy is all encompassing, therefore energy is soul. Energy cannot be extinguished or otherwise destroyed. As souls are energy, ghosts are perfectly valid, and these ghosts remain themselves due to certain circumstances until they are able to move on.
The energy then could theoretically scatter, becoming part of the universe, or mixing with other energy and creating new souls (which could explain reincarnation).
As energy cannot be destroyed, and the energy can only move on to other forms, therefore we are, in essence, immortal, and that death is only a temporary state in which our energy is dissipated to be reborn.
We all could very easily share the same energy that a person who lived before us held.
My brain is weird, I know. Also, note that this still does not explain the origin of existence.
I believe that all existence is a consciousness that experiences life as a three dimensional world. Atoms are made out of energy, as evidenced by E=mc2 (At least, as I can understand it.), and therefore all of what we see and experience is energy, meaning the world is in our minds. But, the reason behind all of the negative things? We may never know, but as the world is in our minds, my thoughts that nothing is impossible is entirely valid and possible.
These thoughts are also the reason why I like to treat all points as valid as mine.
Now, another cent to add. Matter is energy, energy is all encompassing, therefore energy is soul. Energy cannot be extinguished or otherwise destroyed. As souls are energy, ghosts are perfectly valid, and these ghosts remain themselves due to certain circumstances until they are able to move on.
The energy then could theoretically scatter, becoming part of the universe, or mixing with other energy and creating new souls (which could explain reincarnation).
As energy cannot be destroyed, and the energy can only move on to other forms, therefore we are, in essence, immortal, and that death is only a temporary state in which our energy is dissipated to be reborn.
We all could very easily share the same energy that a person who lived before us held.
My brain is weird, I know. Also, note that this still does not explain the origin of existence.
TheNewGuy, I'd say that's going a bit too deep into it, considering I was talking about something as simple as time, which quite frankly has nothing to do with what you said. Sure, I could go into a conversation about existence in general, but I think I'll leave that for another time.
Ah, the endless debating of philosophy. How can we analyse life with our insufficient and inept perceptory senses; therefore what you say is irrelevant; how do I prove that I exist simply because I believe I think; and how do I know it was I who actually beheaded the duck?!
Ok this is a wee bit mind-blowing:
What if all motions of matter actually occurred simultaneously and our consciousness is trapped within this matrix, creating an illusion of time when in fact everything is one-dimensional, so can only be observed from within?
Beyond this one dimension lies a wasteland of measurement-defying monstrosities who may ultimately collide with the one-dimension and be sucked into it...
Ed. Sooo, the more actions we complete, the more we attract the future... except that "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." – George Santayana
A little help here guys, sorting this out - I beleive we might be onto something
What if all motions of matter actually occurred simultaneously and our consciousness is trapped within this matrix, creating an illusion of time when in fact everything is one-dimensional, so can only be observed from within?
Beyond this one dimension lies a wasteland of measurement-defying monstrosities who may ultimately collide with the one-dimension and be sucked into it...
Ed. Sooo, the more actions we complete, the more we attract the future... except that "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." – George Santayana
A little help here guys, sorting this out - I beleive we might be onto something