danielsangeo

The theory, as I understand it, states that spacetime began with quantum fluctuations which destabilized the "point" and caused the "Bang". What caused these quantum fluctuations? We don't know. There's no evidence TO know....yet. Some hypothesize that the universe undergoes a series of "bangs" and "crunches". That the cause of the "Big Bang" is the "Big Crunch".

I think that "eternal force" or something similar posits a "before the Big Bang". The word "before" is meaningless at this extremity of time. Think of it this way, for those that can't grasp the concept. You are on some place on planet Earth, right? You can move "south" from where you are, right? So, move south. Now, can you move south from that point? Sure. Keep at it. Eventually, you'll reach the South Pole. Can you move south again? Inversely, move north from where you are now. Keep at it. Eventually, you'll reach the North Pole. Can you move north again? Why can you move "south" or "north" from where you are but not at the poles? Because, "north from the North Pole"/"south from the South Pole" is as meaningless as "before the Big Bang".

Methinks someone has been watching too many Hollywood movies. Also, human cloning is a completely inefficient way of going after your enemies because, even though they're clones, they're human beings. If you're going to create an army, why spend the time, energy, and money to create clones when there are billions of people already on Earth to do your bidding? The 'technology' to create humans has been around since before humans existed. It's called: Reproduction. "Clone armies" is Hollywood. Clones don't go from cell to adult human overnight. A cloned human would still have to go through gestation and birth, then babyhood, toddler, child, pre-teen, teen, then to young adult and adult as a normal human grows. And the possibilities of glitches in the process make it even more non-viable. If you want an army, cloning is not the way to do it. You're just adding cost and possible glitches into what already exists. Just grab a bunch of men and women, turn them into breeding factories, and let them give birth to your army. (Wow! That's dark.)

I've heard it said that we are already affecting the climate in ways that are detrimental to our species. We won't destroy the planet, but I think we're going to cause a lot of problems for a lot of people. Already, we're seeing shifts that are causing really strange things to happen. You can't expect to do what we've done and not affect something. We are destroying our oxygen replenishers while simultaneously releasing said carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This is TWO blows. Think of it this way. Destroying oxygen replenisher: -1. Introducing carbon dioxide: -1. Doing one thing: -2. Nature is about balance. If we mess with that balance, then that balance will mess with us (as it were). I'd like humans to exist for a very long time and naturally evolve into future species. I don't want the human species to go extinct because we're stupid. No, I'm not fear-mongering. I'm saying, you clean up your house because you don't want to live in filth. Why do you want to do that to the planet you live on?

Force, yes. Is there an intelligence behind said "force", though?

That's not evidence. That's a logical fallacy. Why would there need to be an eternal force behind the universe?

But, like the puddle analogy, there probably isn't a reason for the hole's existence, so, why must there be a reason for the universe's existence? Why can't it just be "there"? Again, this presupposes an intelligent force of some sort that is not in evidence. I don't like to assume things that aren't in evidence and the atheists I've talked to (I've talked to a lot) aren't atheists because they misunderstand "god"...it's because they don't see any evidence of one. If you want to go Biblical, Thomas, Jesus' apostle, refused to believe that Jesus has been resurrected until he had evidence for himself. It's not until later that Jesus gave him evidence: That's what atheists want. That's what I want.

Think of it like you're in a train. The train is going 50MPH (or about 80 KPH). You're at the back of the train. You move from the back of the train to the front of the train at a speed of 5MPH (about 8KPH). From the vantage point from outside the train, you are traveling at a speed of 55MPH (about 88KPH). But no human can walk at 55MPH/88KPH, right? That's similar to anthropogenic climate change. Yes, climate changes naturally, but there is evidence--conclusive evidence--that we are ADDING to the natural course of events (50+5=55). The atmosphere is "fricking huge", of course, but think of it like poison ivy. Poison ivy contains a substance called urushiol. 50 micrograms (about the size of a grain of table salt) will cause a rash in a great majority of people which could spread and impede on the daily functions of life for a while. A single drop of dimethylmercury, even on a gloved hand, will kill you. Just because something is "huge" doesn't mean that we can't have an effect.

I always like to go back to the puddle analogy that Douglas Adams proposed (paraphrased below): A puddle suddenly gains sentience. It looks around itself and says, "My, what a fortunate circumstance I find myself in. Oh, look at this hole! It's perfect for me. It follows my contours perfectly. Every single nook and cranny of myself is perfectly aligned with the hole." The puddle shudders at the realization and continues, "Why, it's almost like this hole was made especially for me. If any of the contours of this hole were off by a millimeter or it was rotated less than a degree, it wouldn't fit me at all. It's just too perfect to have happened by chance."

I'm just wondering how many pregnancies are aborted as a result of war.

[citation needed]

Thank you, Rover. I hate that word "proof" when talking about science. Science is not about proof; it's about evidence. And we have evidence that we are causing climate change that's in addition to what normally happens on this planet.

Dan-95: I know. That's why I was pulling this face: ThatSmartGuy: Action without purpose? What do you mean? Can you elaborate?

So, why can't we create our own purposes? This is what you posted. "Alleged purpose"? "Believing [your life has purpose] doesn't make it true"? Why not?

I think that climatologists take natural climate change into consideration when making their findings and their findings show that anthropogenic climate change (which is in addition to natural climate change) is happening. The mere existence of "natural climate change" (including "sunspots") does not mean that anthropegenic climate change is NOT happening.

Then what is "purpose"?

"If there is no purpose in that then there is no purpose in anything we know of." This is where I take issue. "Purpose" is something we, as intelligent beings, create for ourselves. "Purpose" in the universe would posit an intelligent being or force for the creation of the universe....something not in evidence. One can have purpose in a purposeless world. It's not illogical.

Why does "no purpose for the universe" lead to illogic? That makes me do this face:

Why must there be a "why"? Why must there be a "purpose" for the universe?

I am not trying to start an argument or anything; I'm just providing my views here, but simply saying that "religion solves everything" is a completely backwards way of looking at things. I can come up with just about anything to explain the unknown. I can say that the universe was sneezed out of a large dragon and that the end of reality would come in the form of a giant handkerchief (apologies to Douglas Adams). I can say that the entire universe was created to bring about the Dorito chip ("nacho cheesier!"). What is that light in the night sky? Aliens! The problem with using religion, in my view, to explain the unknown is that it can be anything. Again, not trying to start an argument. That's just how I feel.

I have no problem with people beliefs but I do find it curious why they have them if there's no evidence. I have never been able to believe something unless there was evidence beforehand. And, to me, "too complex" is an argument from ignorance and "purpose" is something we create for ourselves. Many of our top minds are working on the origin of the universe but there just isn't enough data to formulate a theory behind it. There are hypotheses galore, of course, but nothing that rises to "theory" yet. I'm just uncomfortable ascribing the unknown to a deity...but if it works for you, I'm happy.

My thoughts? They are "so invested in denying it" because they believe the rhetoric that "doing something about it" would mean loss of jobs, revenue, and would (somehow) destroy the country, that it's "just fearmongering", or that it's somehow completely political (read: "left wing") so it doesn't exist.

That's a bad study. I have so many comments about it that I don't even know where to begin....such as, did they study whether they were already violent beforehand? Or how about whether simply being "desensitized" to fictional violence makes you desensitized to real violence. I can only speak for myself but I know others are like me, but I've seen more than my share of gory and violent movies and played more than my share of gory and violent video games. I've watched Dead Alive, which ranks up as the goriest, most violent horror movie of all time (the lawnmower scene?), and it didn't affect me much. Have I been desensitized to fictional violence? Probably. But then, later, I saw a real life video of a truck driver getting pulled out of his truck by three people, and the three people began to beat the shit out of him...and that disturbed me to no end. You see worse on prime time television shows, so why did that bother me much more than the lawnmower scene? Because this was real life, not some special effect.

I personally don't see why logic should necessarily "impede" ethics or vice versa.

Any evidence of that?