ProHypster

"Why not" is, to me, not an answer to "Why".

 

The word "God" has many different connotations to so many people from a bearded man in the sky to someone who tells you that you should eat your vegetables or what kind of clothes to wear...or whom you're allowed to marry.

 

Wars have been fought over this deity.

 

And most monotheists will tell you that God is not nature... that God is "beyond nature".

Wars are never fought over a deity. Wars are fought over arguments.

No philosopher believes in a bearded man.

Most monotheists are not philosophers while most philosophers are monotheists.

To define god, first define nature.

If you think nature is everything we know for a scientific fact, then of course god is beyond nature.

if you think nature is everything in the world but not everything that we know of for a scientific fact, including all kinds like metaphysical nature, energetic nature, then god may be nature or beyond nature.

If you think nature is everything that exists, then god is either in nature or nature.

Otherwise you just don't believe in god/the force/the reason

Just remember that pantheism is not atheism.

That makes two people who clicked 51+

Why call it "god"? What if the universe is just undergoing "Big Bounces" and the last "Big Crunch" made this universe?

 

Are you suggesting a pantheistic deity?

Why not call it god, after all god is the driving force behind the world (At least to me), hence I'm a monotheist (now), I believe that there is a driving force behind the universe.

To each their god.

To atheism, no god whatsoever.

Pantheism. Pandeism, Panentheism, Panendeism and I will have to check out Dan's view.

The mystery to me right now is explaining what god is not whether he exists.

And what you explain is basically a form of pantheism not atheism.

Dan: Yeah, entropic force.... it seems like just one type of force, I believe the universe was made by an entirely different force. I think I'm going to call it the universe force, the force that made the universe and keeps it going aka God.

Well yeah, that's where philosophy comes in, even if I'm convinced of atheism, I just want to help people, I feel no need to do anything that might harm an entity that I can feel empathy for.

Like right now I'm not going to debate on that subject, on that subject debating is dangerous and can be misunderstood, leading an innocent one to do something foolish. Agreed to just stick to the topic?

As for me, I will continue to live on this earth with the most important mission to get smarter and wiser, it doesn't matter if I find all the answers, just the action to get smarter is enough for me. I will also try not to pollute the environment since it will not require of much strength from me.

I'm not going to blame anyone though like some christians probably will.

My formula is:

With knowledge comes power.

With power comes responsibility.

With responsibility comes irresponsibility.

With irresopnsibility comes Tragedy.

Just a thought

I feel fear for our long passion for activity, knowledge and experiments will eventually destroy us.

We can't do anything about it though.

Yes. Everything is natural, including us and our actions. However, nature has a history of doing away with dominant species... The last T-Rex I saw was a skeleton in a natural history museum.

Yet, in atheism it doesn't matter what we decide, it will be something natural.

I can see this directly brings to Nihilism, all kinds of it. Which brings us to Killing isn't wrong nor right it's a sequence. Surely atheists know that murder won't do them any good, and will bring moral pain, that's the only reason they don't do it.

Brings the question to the point, if there really is a choice or if everything is just a sequence and we think that we have a choice while we don't.

Of course I'm not an atheist yet so I don't think that way.

Alright, then let's talk about near future, how about biological weapon cloning. Creating a virus/monster/harmful entity DNA by altering an already made DNA.

We have evidence that something started them or rather the whole theory (supposing it's true)

Because we are here. We are alive and this universe exists, something started them...

Unless it started itself. But is it capable of doing that?

Too bad it's too hard to grasp what that could be.

If this theory is correct, then I call whatever started that, god.

What do you mean there is no evidence.

It happened, didn't it?

You are alive aren't you? Or are you not, maybe.

EDIT: So the hypothesis would then make the universe never ending matter and energy that lives a circular life? So then life is reborn every universal cycle....

It's a neat hypothesis

Yes, the light seems like very hot rods, it seemed so ridiculous I didn't even want to comment on it.

The starting state of the universe is not stable. It's under a lot of pressure, at very high temperature and is compressed to a small volume. There is no need for a spark or anything of that nature, as the conditions themselves are a cause. The universe cannot stay under those conditions and since the pressure and temperature cannot decrease, the volume must increase.

But in the theory there is no time, nor general relation in the compressed universe.

And if the universe can't stay under those conditions then why did it?

My favourite moment was when he laughed at the end of FM 34.

That touched all my feelings at once.

So the cause of Big Bang is a logical impossibility though. (As the cause is before the event)

May I ask who your professor is? (What department)

Kharkov is cool.... it has a nice semi circular city center and you're right, that was random, very random.

Welcome to the forums though.

For any interested person:

Kharkov's centre:

I just hope the hazard course will be the mystery episode or some bonus episode later.

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".

 

 

I like the way you put it, my professor simply related it to a logical impossibility, like the color of a number. But that generally just leaves people raising their eyebrows as it doesn't really allow for visualization.

Are you suggesting that the Big Bang came from a logical impossibility?

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".

And another thing I don't understand is why all scientists try to put a geometrical shape to everything, for example you are talking of earth (A sphere) as if it is the same as time.

Why is time a sphere???? Could it not be just an entity that stretches forever, maybe a line if you need geometrical terms.

That wasn't supposed to be evidence but a question daniel,

What is evolution, if not a force.

We are going somewhere with evolution, we came from something, that's the work of a force, do you understand me?

I mean force is all around us if you look, we age, energy transfers happen all the time because of a force, they don't Just happen

 

Or do you think otherwise?

 

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

Depends on if they are somehow connected....

Force could be god for all I know.

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?

That makes no sense, I thought in atheism, humans are nature, why would humans be any special and since when is there a "balance". Isn't everything natural, including us and our actions.

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.)

And that's exactly why I'm talking about rapid cloning technology and not a slow process like the alternative. I don't think it's that impossible as you do and no I don't like Star Wars too much...

The amount of identical staff in Half-Life 1 certainly leads me to believe Black Mesa had succeeded in human cloning before they experimented with interdimensional portals.

+ rep

But seriously, I am kind of afraid what the world will be like once the technology is out....

Definetly the mystery episode is going to be about FM now with 34 revealing it. Just after the beating ofc.

That wasn't supposed to be evidence but a question daniel,

What is evolution, if not a force.

We are going somewhere with evolution, we came from something, that's the work of a force, do you understand me?

I mean force is all around us if you look, we age, energy transfers happen all the time because of a force, they don't Just happen

Or do you think otherwise?

Dolly was cloned 10 years ago, since then we made a virus and a cell through biological engineering (Of course not the full way but still)

Yet, sheep cloning is one thing, once the technology for human cloning is there on the other hand we can just predict or even know the world will be much more vulnerable. What if a madman gets ahold of the technology, it's practically a game of time once the technology is out. What would that do to our ethics?

Will these clones then be used for warfare, as perfect soldiers?

Seems like we are eventually making a weapon that can outsmart us and which can become more powerful then us.

Is that really a good idea?

My question is whether you think this can be a serious problem and whether we should avoid it by stopping science to progress in that area. Or should we just sit back and watch how science reveals the secret of human cloning and worry and question for the rest of our lives?

That was an expression by the way, of course not that dramatically...

PS: I don't know if this is a civilization problem but I feel like it's one of the biggies here noone mentioned.

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.

Are you talking to me?

Of course we are having an effect on the climate, but are we having a +5 or a plus 0.00005 effect and is this effect going to change the result dramatically?

If we are expecting a natural heat apocalypse anyways what would a -2 Years or a +5 Degrees Celcius do to the already 1 million celcisus destructible heat up. (Not that it works that way)

So I'm saying we don't know how Much we area dding and whether it's going for the worse, better, or neutral. So I say, let's slowly try to use other engines without any dramatic economic cutbacks which would kill unnecessary people.

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.

 

Now Thomas (also known as Didymus[a]), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

 

It's not until later that Jesus gave him evidence:

 

A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

 

That's what atheists want. That's what I want.

Evidence of a force behind life?

What else could make life if not a force?

And to WonSul, why would there need to be eternal force behind eternal force? Eternal force always existed in the monotheist theory.