ProHypster

Banned...... because I'm cool.

 

Most models state that time didn't exist before the big bang. This is because general relativity was a result of the expansion. People often want to apply a cause to the big bang, but even if this seems reasonable, you need to understand that in a state of being without general relativity, everyday concepts like "cause and effect" don't apply.

It's confusing, I agree.

Why would a Big Bang happen though.

Why didn't the ball just stay a ball of energy and matter.

This is the confusing part.

That action or force that made the Big Bang expand would be god to me.

I think god in the end is really the same thing as purpose and reason.

 

What do you think?

 

Is the non-believer position that it just happened and there is no explanation for it?

I'm not mocking, I'm seriously considering and comparing.

Wouldn't the action still be there. Wouldn't the action be god anyway?

So how is atheism possible?

I want to hear some answers.

 

It seems to me there is a god in any case to everyone's philosophy even if you are atheist. :/

I want to ask you a question first. How exactly do you justify drawing a positive conclusion (a prime mover in your case) from a lack of data?

Why is "a god did it" a better position than simply saying "I don't know"

Actually most intelligent monotheists (sorry) say "I think god did it, but I don't know"....

Because it seems like life/world is something rather then nothing, therefore I assume there is something behind the universe rather then nothing.

But maybe the whole atheism movement is because there is a huge misunderstanding of what god is. I think god has been used in as many variations as communism has.

@Daniel, I don't believe life is perfect, life is a prison with limited freedom, and we are powerless to the laws of life.

Banned for banning a paradox.

Personally I find the big bang idea rather odd and incomplete. Even if one day it is proven that the universe started as a tiny "ball" of matter and energy, where did matter and energy come from? The mere thought on this subject makes my mind hurt. . .

 

Most models state that time didn't exist before the big bang. This is because general relativity was a result of the expansion. People often want to apply a cause to the big bang, but even if this seems reasonable, you need to understand that in a state of being without general relativity, everyday concepts like "cause and effect" don't apply.

It's confusing, I agree.

Why would a Big Bang happen though.

Why didn't the ball just stay a ball of energy and matter.

This is the confusing part.

That action or force that made the Big Bang expand would be god to me.

I think god in the end is really the same thing as purpose and reason.

What do you think?

Is the non-believer position that it just happened and there is no explanation for it?

I'm not mocking, I'm seriously considering and comparing.

Wouldn't the action still be there. Wouldn't the action be god anyway?

So how is atheism possible?

I want to hear some answers.

It seems to me there is a god in any case to everyone's philosophy even if you are atheist. :/

I think it's because the concept of infinity is actually very hard to grasp. Maybe there never was any beginning.

..which would suggest infinity time

But yes, the "there never was any beginning" would fit our understanding of physics.

So I'm going to quote my previous post:

Big Bang:

Will it answer any why questions: Most likely No.

Does it explain life's origins: No.

Does it really explain the beginning of our universe: No, it's just an event that we think happened in the already made material universe.

So, honestly I think what will explain more questions is when we create or understand how artificial life can be made.

Not the virus and cell we made but life from non living material.

Or was life material always around?

Milkshape?

 

Cool train, used a real model for it?

Is it going to be an NPC entity or just a model?

I think the door is too small though.

And how would someone be able to go inside though!?

Maya 2011

 

Deustche BundesBahn Baureihe 23, last steam engine built and operated by the German National Railroad in 1950. 10 Survivors exist, several of them still operational. Notably No. 23-023, 23-042 and 23-104.

You have no idea how much I wish I could make an NPC out of a Vehicle in Source Engine. To be a model, I'll be having to crush down the detail be a factor of 5- MDLs have a ceiling of 20,000 tris.

It's the perspective that's skewing how big the cab is. Then again, fiction usually gives us a poor impression of how large most steam engines are.

 

Gorgeous thing, isn't she?

The reason I don't have Maya is because of it's ridiculous cost, and I don't feel like pirating such an expensive tool, I almost feel guilty for that and I don't need it that much

Have you tried the realism city mod for Half-life 2? A project which I'm looking forward to very much.

http://www.moddb.com/mods/city-spb

It really brings city/life art into and uses the engine to the fullest. Any constructors or philosophers dream.

Put this train on a train station, it would be very awesome.

By the way, she has a nice big nose.

GL, HF!

The thing is, natural climate change is always caused by a number of factors. It does not just appear like magic.

Variations in earth's orbit, precession and solar output are called trigger effects. These effects each on their own are not enough to produce significant changes in climate. However, they are enough to get the ball rolling. After such triggers, positive feedback effects come into play, such as the release of greenhouse gases such as CO2. This is why in past natural climate change CO2 seems to lag behind temperature, this is because it is a positive feedback effect, not a trigger in natural climate change. One of the properties of CO2 is that it absorbs heat, CO2 will always do this whether it is released naturally or through human activities. The chemical properties of CO2 will not change based on how it is released into the atmosphere.

Today we observe a warming trend so there should be something causing it. Now scientists are not the idiots that some armchair "experts" from google university seem to think.

Astronomers know earth's orbital quirks very well, they also know about earth's precession. So we can actively predict these trigger effects. And we have established that these effects are not in play, they won't be for thousands of years.

What about solar output? Scientists have been measuring something called Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) for decades, has there been an increase in TSI which correlates with the warming trend we are detecting? It is still a subject of ongoing study but much work has been done. It seems at best the sun can account for about 14% of the observed warming.

Like I said earlier, CO2 will always absorb heat and we've been pumping extra CO2 into the atmosphere on top of the natural CO2 cycle. To say this has no effect whatsoever is to deny basic physics.

CO2 is also an important regulator in the control of water vapor, which also acts as a greenhouse gas. CO2 and water vapor form what is called a positive feedback loop. An increase in CO2 increases evaporation, which leads to more water vapor in the atmosphere, which increases temperature. Of course this also leads to increased precipitation.

So it's not JUST CO2, the CO2 we pump into the atmosphere causes feedback effects which increase the effects.

 

Is climate very complex with all these intertwined factors and effects? Yes. Do we know everything? No, more study is always needed. Is there a chance climatologists are wrong? Yes, in science nothing is ever 100% sure. Does not being 100% sure mean we know absolutely nothing? Of course not, we can't just dismiss the things we do know.

What's important here is that we let the scientists do what they're good at, science.

Do a couple of non-scientists, who never read a peer reviewed science paper in their entire lives, sitting in a bar drinking beer complaining about how it's just another scheme by the "gub'mint" to control and tax people even more add anything useful to the debate? Do I even have to answer that?

I don't understand, all I say is if by the time we find out what we actually did we will have already done it and there is no reverse then we can't honestly say it was our fault, we didn't know. It happened, but people who warned otherwise and "knew" will have no right to say that they were in any better position since both sides don't have sufficient evidence to support their claims at the current moment.

It's the same with god. If we do find out in the end there is a god, it doesn't mean believers can justify themselves and say it was our fault, there was no clear evidence for god or against god so there are only beliefs.

Besides, we are trying to change to an alternative source just in case we are contributing to something unnatural, (if you think humans aren't part of nature by the way) so I don't see any problems, we can't just stop immediately and turn backwards, people will die due to overpopulation. So we are switching slowly to a more sufficient and safe energy form anyway.

I can imagine if we do get ourselves in a mess we will probably/most likely be able to set up sucking factories which literally will clean the environment by reversing our effect with whatever CO2 they get. I mean, I know it's possible.

http://www.moddb.com/mods/hls-enhanced-shaders-2010-custom-enb/downloads/hls-enhanced-shaders-lite-v10

Ross Scott.... you need this!

Yeah, I think I will ask that question to myself.

Keep debating the Big Bang...

That's true but when the problem arrises and we do understand it was our fault, we can reasonably say that at the time there was no proof of that and thus, justify our actions today unless there is some secrets which reveal the truth already.

Don't answer it, I will rephrase later.

More un-philosophical Nihilism:

Radical nihilism

 

Radical nihilism is the belief that there, in the last instance, is not given a foundation for knowledge, ethics or justice, and not even this lack of foundation, can serve as a starting point for (a rejection of) knowledge, ethics or justice. Radical nihilism, turns in the light of the missing universal, objective and ahistorical certainties, towards the historically and culturally transmitted possibilities of cognition and moral / political action, well aware that the true and the good are in the last instants based on faith.

Ok, seriously, Nihilism is a loophole philosophy to me, nonetheless, I guess it is a philosophy since people do think that thinking is non existential:

Nihilism of an epistemological form can be seen as an extreme form of skepticism in which all knowledge is denied.

My source for that quote is some christian web page and actually I reform it, I don't think it's right, Daniel's last post makes sense.

Still, we are back to nothing.

And talking about ethics vs. logic:

Moral nihilism, also known as ethical nihilism, is the meta-ethical view that morality does not exist as something inherent to objective reality; therefore no action is necessarily preferable to any other. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is not inherently right or wrong. Other nihilists may argue not that there is no morality at all, but that if it does exist, it is a human and thus artificial construction, wherein any and all meaning is relative for different possible outcomes. As an example, if someone kills someone else, such a nihilist might argue that killing is not inherently a bad thing, bad independently from our moral beliefs, only that because of the way morality is constructed as some rudimentary dichotomy, what is said to be a bad thing is given a higher negative weighting than what is called good: as a result, killing the individual was bad because it did not let the individual live, which was arbitrarily given a positive weighting. In this way a moral nihilist believes that all moral claims are false.

Let me ask this question:

Can there be action without purpose observed on earth?

The ultimate aim or a goal of an action.

EDIT: Wikiepdia

Purpose is a result, end, mean, aim, or goal of an action intentionally undertaken,[1] or of an object being brought into use or existence, whether or not the purpose was a primary or secondary effect.

No, it doesn't work that way.

Read:

"Most irreligious individuals, quite understandably, do not like to acknowledge the inevitable and logical consequence of their irreligiosity -- that life is ultimately purposeless." An atheist or agnostic will almost always respond to this argument by protesting that their life does have meaning and purpose. "We create the purpose. I believe my life has a purpose!" This response demonstrates a misunderstanding of the claim. No one denies that atheists believe their lives have purpose. But simply believing something doesn't make it true. The question is whether their lives actually have purpose. Their alleged purpose turns out to be nothing more than a placebo. Their life has purpose only because they believe it to have purpose.

EDIT: Nihilism is not a philosophy, it reasosn itself that it's wrong. It's like believing in the belief that there is no belief.

What disgusting series.... especially the red water part.

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

Well, maybe I'm wrong there but stop me where I'm wrong, I'll elaborate.

 

The universe includes us, life and everything we know. If there is no purpose in that then there is no purpose in anything we know of. No purpose in anything is not true though as by our logic we know that there is at least purpose for some things. Like, I'm writing this for a purpose.

 

Take away purpose and there is still existence.

Take away purpose and you are taking away reasoning.

Without purpose there is no philosophy.

So that would completely kill my fundament

That is basically the only rule in philosophy, everything has a purpose.

Reason, like habit or intuition, is a means by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea. But more specifically, it is the way rational beings propose and consider explanations concerning cause and effect, true and false, and what is good or bad

Read this:

The great arguments of philosophy are as old as man’s ability to think. When man first understood that he was a being, now conscious of his own existence, he eventually realized that he was something both in nature and out of nature at the same time.

 

 

In nature, he was part of some erratic, chaotic order that he himself had no control over. Outside of nature, he tried to understand his relationship to nature and how he would attempt to live in a state of nature with full knowledge that he was outside it.

 

 

Standing outside the natural sphere looking in, man then attempts to define what is his role, purpose or reason for being. He begins to seek the answer to the question of “Why?”

 

 

The history of man is laden with many whom have tried to answer this simple yet impossible question. Failure hence has begotten a slew of philosophies and perspectives that still attempt to answer this question. The creation of ‘isms’ (e.g., existentialism, objectivism, hedonism, etc.) are but niche philosophies trying to understand our existence. Philosophies seem like fragments of thinking deposited like sediment over the centuries which have hardened and taken hold and are now considered niche philosophies.

 

 

Each idea, theory, discourse and so forth, aim at again answering that simple question of “why?” All great wars and subsequent human conflicts have their root in different arrivals to this very same question.

In order to understand the varying perspectives of mankind, one must begin by understanding how each individual or group has answered this very simple question.

 

 

If for instance, a man concludes that the reason ‘why’ is that we are all some part of some master plan, which naturally assumes there was an architect, then he will follow a set of principles that are in congruent with this line of thinking. Let us put a label on this person and call him a religious or spiritual person.

 

 

At the other extreme of this reasoning, we find the human who has concluded that life is a natural accident and that we evolved from a one cell amoeba and that man’s future is the here and now and no architect ever existed. This type of person we will label the atheist; does not having any theistic beliefs that there is a creator.

 

 

The third archetype is the man wrestling between the extremes of these two systems; unable to commit to one or the other. He is not convinced that creation is an accident, but he is neither convinced that there is one chief architect. We’ll refer to this type as an agnostic.

 

 

When we enter into a debate, argument or conflict with others, we are at some level differing on these 3 archetypical viewpoints. Our conflicts to this day have their origin in how we perceive our relationship to the world around us.

 

 

Our difference with others may very well be better understood if we took the time to understand their point of origin. All systems of belief are built up around one of these central tenets. Agreements amongst all will not likely be forthcoming.

 

 

And here’s something to ponder on the subject of perfection and normality: If man (or woman) is imperfect (i.e., has defects), and all humans are imperfect, shouldn’t we conclude, regardless of our belief system, that imperfection is normal. In other words, in the land of blind where everyone is blind, isn’t being blind normal? In the land of imperfect people, isn’t it normal to be imperfect? So why seek perfection when 1) we know it’s not possible and 2) everyone is imperfect anyway so why worry about it.

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

Well, maybe I'm wrong there but stop me where I'm wrong, I'll elaborate.

The universe includes us, life and everything we know. If there is no purpose in that then there is no purpose in anything we know of. No purpose in anything is not true though as by our logic we know that there is at least purpose for some things. Like, I'm writing this for a purpose. So, we come to a loophole in logic or otherwise known illogic.

EDIT: We come to two conclusions

Everything has a purpose.

Or nothing has a purpose. (This one makes no sense though)

Don't get me wrong, the question why can be answered with "there is no why".

But if there is no purpose in the universe then there is no purpose for you or me to exist and ultimately then there is no purpose in logic.

The world becomes illogical.

But in the physics world, isn't every "why" question to any action explainable.

Maybe this subject is just to esoteric and personal.

To understand the world one must first understand himself.

So I think I will keep this question a bit quiet and try to understand my surroundings before answering the big question.

What, I can do though is have some comments why I don't find the Big Bang theory important even if it's true.

Big Bang:

Will it answer any why questions: Most likely No.

Does it explain life's origins: No.

Does it really explain the begining of our universe: No, it's just an event that we think happened in the already made material universe.

So I don't think the Big Bang is qualified to be a theory about the begining of the material world but rather an event happening in it.

lont dook its not done

Milkshape?

Cool train, used a real model for it?

Is it going to be an NPC entity or just a model?

I think the door is too small though.

And how would someone be able to go inside though!?

thats what I do actually, but is there a way to modify the system to ignore cheats?

There are quite a few hacks out there that will bypass the sv_cheats scans... You just have to find a good one that isn't full of viruses. (they are multiplayer hacks)

 

I don't recommend this suggestion at all, it'll most probably result in a VAC ban.

I can only concur, don't do it before it's to late.

My friend got banned accidentally by Valve when they thought he hacked in Left for Dead and boy, he messaged them 5 times that he never hacked and they didn't reply or anything. His Steam account is banned forever, now he can't play anything on Steam, so he downloads pirate games.

We're in an interglacial period so of course there's global warming. In a couple thousand or more years it'll be a period of glaciation, Then people can complain about global cooling "Oh noes!!"

 

Really, climate change is natural, as is global warming and cooling cycles. There have been about 8 glaciations in the last 800,000 years alone.

If you're looking for just hard evidence than look at the correlation between CO2 levels and glaciation cycles over the last I don't know, 600,000 years. Whatever tickles your fancy. The evidence is pretty self explanatory. CO2 levels rise, Interglaciation peaks. CO2 levels drop, glaciation begins, then peaks. CO2 levels rise. Rinse repeat.

 

I'm not sure how human activities are going to affect this cycle. But I do know that it can't stop it. We're going to continue to heat up even if every human source of CO2 was eliminated. Then after the peak, we'll decline to the next glaciation.

Pretty much my opinion.

Sometimes I think they conflict though, when two choices arise where it could go one way or the opposite.

A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?

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 think it depends on how one's mental capacity is beforehand. If someone takes the video games differently then most of us here then surely it will affect him.

This is just like the "Has religion affected us badly" question. Irrelevantly.

Hmm... if you are talking about the material/natural begining of the world? Then it's science.

I agree with Alyxx, the why question is much deeper and will solve much more puzzles.

The how question is a little thin.

I think the proper term is emotions in general not empathy but empathy can work too?

Emotional conflict with intelligence example:

Three men stranded on an island, one person is sick two are hungry.

What is the right way to act.

You have two choices: Give in to emotions, give in to intelligence.

In one you share and eat the third person. (Intelligent act)

In the other you stay hungry and keep company to the third person willingly to sacrifice your own health. (Empathy Act)

If you don't think that's intelligence in this case I can provide another example later.