proteome,
I prefer to be reffered as an "unnatural". "Anatural" seems too... strange...
No thanks...
I prefer to be reffered as an "unnatural". "Anatural" seems too... strange...
I need some answers from Atheists...
- Thread starter ?paradox?
- Start date
Cris, you are so profound!
What is impossible?
Isn't impossibility only limited by ones imagination? Certainly the science and technology of today would categorized as impossible by people living just a 100 years ago. Imagine taking Teddy Roosevelt and strapping him in the co-pilot seat of a B-2 bomber. With our relativley short life spans, what you might conclude as impossible might be possible 100 years from now. Teleportation? Anti-gravity? Invisibility? Already the work has begun. We could argue over its viability but likely we'll be dead before it comes to fruition, if it does so.
No arguement from me on the problems arising from people who are deranged or schizophrenics. As for the spiritual world not being part of "reality". When you are away from a loved one for a period of time and you think of them, is the mental image you draw up not "real"? Perhaps someone you love very much has passed on, or is ill, your memories are now, your emotional status is very up to the minute. Then why do you feel what is described as "heart sick"? You mean to tell me those feelings are not REAL?
The spiritual world is real. The fact that you require or desire physical evidence to satisfy some criteria of its existence only means you lack development of the ability to sense it.
Tap your knuckles on the glass of your monitor as you read this. Recall that it too is only composed of tiny little atoms. What we see around us, what seems so real and solid, is nothing but an appearance of very small particles flying around at high speeds. What we see this with--- our eyes and brains--- are made up of the same small particles. We see an appearance with an appearance.
The reality of the pyhsical world is what you make of it. The reality of the spiritual world isn't much different. Although it might be difficult to imagine us teleporting around the world, the galaxy or the universe, it could happen. While it maybe equally difficult for someone to grasp the idea of a spiritual world outside this physical world, it certainly doesn't render it impossible.
What is impossible?
Isn't impossibility only limited by ones imagination? Certainly the science and technology of today would categorized as impossible by people living just a 100 years ago. Imagine taking Teddy Roosevelt and strapping him in the co-pilot seat of a B-2 bomber. With our relativley short life spans, what you might conclude as impossible might be possible 100 years from now. Teleportation? Anti-gravity? Invisibility? Already the work has begun. We could argue over its viability but likely we'll be dead before it comes to fruition, if it does so.
No arguement from me on the problems arising from people who are deranged or schizophrenics. As for the spiritual world not being part of "reality". When you are away from a loved one for a period of time and you think of them, is the mental image you draw up not "real"? Perhaps someone you love very much has passed on, or is ill, your memories are now, your emotional status is very up to the minute. Then why do you feel what is described as "heart sick"? You mean to tell me those feelings are not REAL?
The spiritual world is real. The fact that you require or desire physical evidence to satisfy some criteria of its existence only means you lack development of the ability to sense it.
Tap your knuckles on the glass of your monitor as you read this. Recall that it too is only composed of tiny little atoms. What we see around us, what seems so real and solid, is nothing but an appearance of very small particles flying around at high speeds. What we see this with--- our eyes and brains--- are made up of the same small particles. We see an appearance with an appearance.
The reality of the pyhsical world is what you make of it. The reality of the spiritual world isn't much different. Although it might be difficult to imagine us teleporting around the world, the galaxy or the universe, it could happen. While it maybe equally difficult for someone to grasp the idea of a spiritual world outside this physical world, it certainly doesn't render it impossible.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Re: Cris, you are so profound!
What are its attributes and how do you know?
The spiritual world is beyond description. If you want to know what its like, then go take a visit there
bridge,
I think you misunderstood my profundity.
The human imagination has perhaps no limits and it is this ability that allows it to conceive of impossible conditions, such as the scenarios often shown in cartoon movies. My implication was not that an alleged spiritual world is impossible but that within the scope of human imagination only a small number of scenarios map to reality. The only way we can distinguish between something imagined and something real is direct physical evidence. There are many things that man has imagined that seemed impossible but were later found possible, walking on the moon for example.
But while some things imagined map to reality or might map to a reality it is not true that everything imagined will acquire such a mapping.
I think you misunderstood my profundity.
The human imagination has perhaps no limits and it is this ability that allows it to conceive of impossible conditions, such as the scenarios often shown in cartoon movies. My implication was not that an alleged spiritual world is impossible but that within the scope of human imagination only a small number of scenarios map to reality. The only way we can distinguish between something imagined and something real is direct physical evidence. There are many things that man has imagined that seemed impossible but were later found possible, walking on the moon for example.
But while some things imagined map to reality or might map to a reality it is not true that everything imagined will acquire such a mapping.
Note that I didn't say that. My point is that you have no way to know whether an alleged spiritual world is real or imagined.
Emotions are real and physical, why try to equate them to something immaterial and supernatural?
If you think spirituality is the manifestation of human emotions, then you are of course free to use such an inaccurate label. But otherwise what is your criteria for such a claim beyond your imagination and an apparent misunderstanding of the nature of emotions? All physical evidence indicates that emotions are primarily the result of neuronal and hormonal processes. Do you have real evidence to the contrary?
If you can therefore "sense it" then presumably you have access to some physical evidence that I do not, or are you claiming that you have additional senses that will mean I can never 'sense' this alleged thing? Either show your evidence or demonstrate the existence of your extra senses. Unless that is forthcoming you have nothing other than your imagination as a basis for your claims.
We should distinguish between absolute reality and reality that we can observe. What we can observe is most certainly just a subset of the total. But without observation we can make no reliable statements about anything else. Claims concerning anything we cannot observe might be true or more likely will be false since there is probably an infinite number of things we can imagine but only a tiny finite number of things that we can imagine that also map to a reality. Without a direct observation you cannot know if your claims have any basis in reality.
Except that for the moment it is in the infinite set of imagined items that cannot be observed and for which there can be no justification for claiming a truth.
I am perfectly capable of imagining such a realm, it is not difficult by any means, in fact it seems that it is so easy to imagine that even the uneducated and people of low intelligence can imagine it. But I never claimed it was impossible but no one has yet shown that it is possible let alone real.
Bridge
Isn't impossibility only limited by ones imagination?
Not true, impossibility is limited by many things – the physical laws of the universe, for example. Our imagination on the other hand is unlimited, but that doesn’t mean that what we imagine can be made possible.
Certainly the science and technology of today would categorized as impossible by people living just a 100 years ago.
So what – we didn’t break any physical laws achieving the technology we have today. We may achieve much more in the future but the physical laws will constrain us.
Teleportation? Anti-gravity? Invisibility? Already the work has begun. We could argue over its viability but likely we'll be dead before it comes to fruition, if it does so.
And if it does someday come to fruition as you say, it will be within the realm of physical laws.
As for the spiritual world not being part of "reality". When you are away from a loved one for a period of time and you think of them, is the mental image you draw up not "real"?
A mental image in our minds is of a physical nature and has nothing to do with a so-called spiritual world. Have you studied any biology?
Perhaps someone you love very much has passed on, or is ill, your memories are now, your emotional status is very up to the minute. Then why do you feel what is described as "heart sick"? You mean to tell me those feelings are not REAL?
They are very real – crack open a book on biology.
The spiritual world is real. The fact that you require or desire physical evidence to satisfy some criteria of its existence only means you lack development of the ability to sense it.
Using this same logic, colors don’t exist because a dog doesn’t have the ability to sense them.
What we see this with--- our eyes and brains--- are made up of the same small particles. We see an appearance with an appearance.
This is known as reality. Hit yourself over the head with a hammer and then tell me it only “appears” to hurt.
The reality of the pyhsical world is what you make of it.
Nonsense. The physical world will exist with or without us.
The reality of the spiritual world isn't much different.
The “spiritual” world only exists in ones imagination; therefore it will cease to exist once we stop imagining it.
While it maybe equally difficult for someone to grasp the idea of a spiritual world outside this physical world, it certainly doesn't render it impossible.
You could argue that. But if we were able to sense the spiritual world in any way, aside from our imaginations, it would become part of the physical world.
So this begs the question, where is the spiritual world? What is made of? Can you describe it in any way?
Isn't impossibility only limited by ones imagination?
Not true, impossibility is limited by many things – the physical laws of the universe, for example. Our imagination on the other hand is unlimited, but that doesn’t mean that what we imagine can be made possible.
Certainly the science and technology of today would categorized as impossible by people living just a 100 years ago.
So what – we didn’t break any physical laws achieving the technology we have today. We may achieve much more in the future but the physical laws will constrain us.
Teleportation? Anti-gravity? Invisibility? Already the work has begun. We could argue over its viability but likely we'll be dead before it comes to fruition, if it does so.
And if it does someday come to fruition as you say, it will be within the realm of physical laws.
As for the spiritual world not being part of "reality". When you are away from a loved one for a period of time and you think of them, is the mental image you draw up not "real"?
A mental image in our minds is of a physical nature and has nothing to do with a so-called spiritual world. Have you studied any biology?
Perhaps someone you love very much has passed on, or is ill, your memories are now, your emotional status is very up to the minute. Then why do you feel what is described as "heart sick"? You mean to tell me those feelings are not REAL?
They are very real – crack open a book on biology.
The spiritual world is real. The fact that you require or desire physical evidence to satisfy some criteria of its existence only means you lack development of the ability to sense it.
Using this same logic, colors don’t exist because a dog doesn’t have the ability to sense them.
What we see this with--- our eyes and brains--- are made up of the same small particles. We see an appearance with an appearance.
This is known as reality. Hit yourself over the head with a hammer and then tell me it only “appears” to hurt.
The reality of the pyhsical world is what you make of it.
Nonsense. The physical world will exist with or without us.
The reality of the spiritual world isn't much different.
The “spiritual” world only exists in ones imagination; therefore it will cease to exist once we stop imagining it.
While it maybe equally difficult for someone to grasp the idea of a spiritual world outside this physical world, it certainly doesn't render it impossible.
You could argue that. But if we were able to sense the spiritual world in any way, aside from our imaginations, it would become part of the physical world.
So this begs the question, where is the spiritual world? What is made of? Can you describe it in any way?
Relpy to Cris (and Q)
Quote from Cris:
Quote from Q:
You both used the word "imagination" here. So lets use your imagination for an example. Take a few moments for this simple exercise. Don't be in a big rush to reply. If you're correct, or I'm correct, it doesn't really matter to me.
Relax a little.
Close your eyes (not yet, wait until you finish reading this).
Allow some of the chatter in your mind to disipate.
Now with your eyes closed, I want you to develop a picture of something you like. Perhaps a vase of flowers, a pet that you love, perhaps an old friend. Think of that subject as appearing in the form of a Poloroid photograph, as a portrait with a white frame around it. I want you to picture yourself holding the photograph in your hand.
Go ahead go, do it now.
Question: Who was looking at the picture?
Was it you?
or....
Was it you looking at yourself looking at the photograph?
Both you and yourself?
Quote from Cris:
Quote from Q:
You both used the word "imagination" here. So lets use your imagination for an example. Take a few moments for this simple exercise. Don't be in a big rush to reply. If you're correct, or I'm correct, it doesn't really matter to me.
Relax a little.
Close your eyes (not yet
, wait until you finish reading this).Allow some of the chatter in your mind to disipate.
Now with your eyes closed, I want you to develop a picture of something you like. Perhaps a vase of flowers, a pet that you love, perhaps an old friend. Think of that subject as appearing in the form of a Poloroid photograph, as a portrait with a white frame around it. I want you to picture yourself holding the photograph in your hand.
Go ahead go, do it now.
Question: Who was looking at the picture?
Was it you?
or....
Was it you looking at yourself looking at the photograph?
Both you and yourself?
to person wondering on atheist..
are you inteligent? are you made from the nature of the universe? are you waves interacting w/ALL waves that you come in contact w/..whether inside your body or not?
i rest my case..
intelligence is innate in the universe.. and you are the antennae. keep manipulating your chemicals at your neural synapses..and you'll get better and better modes to think w/
as for atheists.. man..they are shallow.. to think you know it all..when we still don't know 95% of our own universe..it's true reality.
atheists don't know if gravitons carry info to us..from other dimensions.. or what REALLY is the scoop on that wonderful, simple, pretty thing..we call light.
to be an athesist..is to be arrogantly shallow..
i saw be open minded and just love this life..this temporary manifestation.. of so called human being..us..wonderful compressed energy..enjoying a wave/particle duality like all matter..
i say..be positive.. catch the positive waves..baby..and ride them right thru to the next plane
are you inteligent? are you made from the nature of the universe? are you waves interacting w/ALL waves that you come in contact w/..whether inside your body or not?
i rest my case..
intelligence is innate in the universe.. and you are the antennae. keep manipulating your chemicals at your neural synapses..and you'll get better and better modes to think w/
as for atheists.. man..they are shallow.. to think you know it all..when we still don't know 95% of our own universe..it's true reality.
atheists don't know if gravitons carry info to us..from other dimensions.. or what REALLY is the scoop on that wonderful, simple, pretty thing..we call light.
to be an athesist..is to be arrogantly shallow..
i saw be open minded and just love this life..this temporary manifestation.. of so called human being..us..wonderful compressed energy..enjoying a wave/particle duality like all matter..
i say..be positive.. catch the positive waves..baby..and ride them right thru to the next plane
Re: to person wondering on atheist..
That being said, one who claims to know for sure that God does not exist is arrogant.
Atheism is disbelief in the existence of God. That means a lack of a positive belief. It is not shallow to not believe that God exists. Rather, it makes sense to not believe it until it is shown otherwise. Likewise, people who don't believe in unicorns are not shallow, but in touch with reality. Most atheists would believe in God if his existence could be scientifically proven, which it in all probability can't.
That being said, one who claims to know for sure that God does not exist is arrogant.
socialistprophet
Registered Member
The problem with most discussions about the design of the universe and the theories of intelligent design is that it always becomes a problem of atheism vs. Christianity. However, that's a question that comes up after the discussions of the creation. The belief that one intelligent being or force created this universe is entirely independent of the question of who this god may be, be she the christian god or another one.
So here's my imput on the most basic question being discussed here::: something had to have been created. Matter doesn't come from nothing. Or, if you wish to discuss the theories of the creation in the study of physics (dempsey), and the possiblities of anti-matter or whatnot phase into this dimension from another, that still had to have been created in that other dimension. Simple logic tells us if something exists, it must have been created.
Therefore, there was a creator. Can you create somethign from nothing? I sure as hell cant. If i could, id have two naked women, a stack of money, a pound of weed, and 10 whoppers in front of me right now. So is this creator superior? Well, in the case of creation, I would say so. Intelligent? Well, then we have to take into consideration the possibilities that the simplest forms of matter were all that were created (though in massively unimaginable amounts) and it took billions and billions of years to finally form into this system through nothing more than chance. For those who think this is impossible due to the extreme unlikelyhood of it, given time everything has a pretty good chance of occuring... even worlds. So open up your mind and try to think of something a little more abstract than some being making everything in the universe exactly as it is now.
anyway, that's enough here. hopefully, i'll have someone to argue with. ha!
Peace. :m: :bugeye:
So here's my imput on the most basic question being discussed here::: something had to have been created. Matter doesn't come from nothing. Or, if you wish to discuss the theories of the creation in the study of physics (dempsey), and the possiblities of anti-matter or whatnot phase into this dimension from another, that still had to have been created in that other dimension. Simple logic tells us if something exists, it must have been created.
Therefore, there was a creator. Can you create somethign from nothing? I sure as hell cant. If i could, id have two naked women, a stack of money, a pound of weed, and 10 whoppers in front of me right now. So is this creator superior? Well, in the case of creation, I would say so. Intelligent? Well, then we have to take into consideration the possibilities that the simplest forms of matter were all that were created (though in massively unimaginable amounts) and it took billions and billions of years to finally form into this system through nothing more than chance. For those who think this is impossible due to the extreme unlikelyhood of it, given time everything has a pretty good chance of occuring... even worlds. So open up your mind and try to think of something a little more abstract than some being making everything in the universe exactly as it is now.
anyway, that's enough here. hopefully, i'll have someone to argue with. ha!
Peace. :m: :bugeye:
I agree with socialist prophet,
the thing that bothers me with these discussions is how religious types think if they can find flaws with the evolution theory they have somehow proved the bible was right all along.
Obviously this isn't the case, the first thing alot of people need to realise is nobody in history really knows how or why there is a universe. Alot of relatively new research has started to figure out how there is an earth and life on it and so on but you can see how far away we are from understanding the universe.
There very well could be a happy ending and some kind of afterlife and all that but there is no reason to be sure there is or isn't.
We simply don't know and we all need to get used to that.
One thing you can be sure of is if there is an afterlife it would not be anything you expect, you will be losing your human body and that includes everything that goes with it. I've heard people saying "in heaven you get to have sex and smoke bongs". Without a human body you would not want to have sex or smoke bongs. The best you can hope for in an afterlife is a consuming sense of well being, with nothing else, not even consciousness.
Even this is unlikely but its the only logical possibility, you won't be wandering around playing foosball with elvis or anything like that, trust me.
the thing that bothers me with these discussions is how religious types think if they can find flaws with the evolution theory they have somehow proved the bible was right all along.
Obviously this isn't the case, the first thing alot of people need to realise is nobody in history really knows how or why there is a universe. Alot of relatively new research has started to figure out how there is an earth and life on it and so on but you can see how far away we are from understanding the universe.
There very well could be a happy ending and some kind of afterlife and all that but there is no reason to be sure there is or isn't.
We simply don't know and we all need to get used to that.
One thing you can be sure of is if there is an afterlife it would not be anything you expect, you will be losing your human body and that includes everything that goes with it. I've heard people saying "in heaven you get to have sex and smoke bongs". Without a human body you would not want to have sex or smoke bongs. The best you can hope for in an afterlife is a consuming sense of well being, with nothing else, not even consciousness.
Even this is unlikely but its the only logical possibility, you won't be wandering around playing foosball with elvis or anything like that, trust me.
There are two problems here:
One is that "there was a creator" really isn't an answer. It only moves the question back one step. If everything must have a creator, if it is impossible for something to come from nothing then where did this "creator" come from? Please note that self-causation is an arbitrary and unproven concept and is equally applicable to the Universe as it is to a creator.
Two is that particles do actually come from nothing. They are known as virtual particles because of their brief duration but they are quite real and their existence has been proven in empirical experiments. They are caused by quantum vacuum fluctuations whereby energy is 'borrowed' from the vacuum and then returned.
One, hypothesis is that the Universe itself was caused by such a fluctuation but the balance of energy is so even that it has lasted quite a long while... however, eventually it will collapse, returning the energy back to the vacuum for a net effect of zero.
~Raithere
I think it's interesting to note that many people who argue for a creator state that it is logical that everything that exists has a cause. However, if space and time came into existence with the Big Bang, as relativity implies, I don't see how it is logical to assume anything was "created", since creation involves a transition from one time (before creation) to another (after creation).
Good point there.
I thought the latest from WMAP indicates that the universe is flat and will expand forever. :bugeye:
Why is it shallow to believe in God until proven otherwise? If my (and countless others') experience has shown belief in God to be consistent with reality?
There is a certain kind of skeptic that I call the notyets. "It might exist, but 'not yet' - until they personally have travelled to Mecca and seen the unicorn on the rock, it doesn't exist. I can sympathize to a degree because I have a healthy skepticism myself. But it does not extend to what I can't possibly deny. If reality consists out of something you have not yet perceived/conceived, does it become less possible?
You will agree that the concept of a unicorn does in fact exist, and that only because it doesn't fit the picture you have in your head, doesn't mean the antelope which inspired it doesn't exist either.
In Christianity we have something that is easily overlooked: hope. These three remain: Faith, hope, and love.
I think Paul put it best in Romans 8:
24For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? 25But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.
The last I heard various dark matter measurements were giving the edge to the collapse of the Universe. But it's such an incredibly near thing I don't think we've heard the last word on it.
Of course, that's just one hypothesis. Hawking (I believe) proposed multiple bangs caused by the collision of multidimensional branes.
~Raithere
Actually, I find the Universe far more interesting, mysterious, and challenging not believing that it was simply magicked into existence, as is, by some superbeing. Nor have I seen or heard any reason or evidence that convinces me that such a being is anything but anthropocentric projection. And if God does exist, I believe it is the totality of existence not some guy judging us from some netherworld.
I didn't say it does... but it does eliminate the need for a creator, just as our understanding of evaporation and condensation eliminated our need to resort to Gods or spirits to explain rain. God is most often used as an explanation for that which we do not understand or refuse to accept.
~Raithere