Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
how you feel about me has no bearing on the validity of claim. to call me stupid you have to address the claim itself.
addressing creation. The is no omni dude going poof there it is. No proof of ID. And we are here now, so something made the earth. so what are our alternatives?
is it more valid to start a line of logic off of observational facts?
or
is it more valid to start a line of logic using person emotional needs? use them to support a "personal belief statement"?
or
is it more valid to pick and choose facts for practical reasons to support a dismissal, avoidance, or minimization of claims about how the universe works?
which do you support?
The funniest part of this is that you arrogantly stand on your own beliefs, mock those who believe other than you, and all the while you'll admit you have no idea how we got here.
The funniest part of this is that you arrogantly stand on your own beliefs, mock those who believe other than you, and all the while you'll admit you have no idea how we got here.
Arrogantly clueless.
Arrogance is thinking you DO know how we got here.
" Removing all real particles from a volume of space does not leave you with "mere" nothingness; it leaves you with something you might call "pure potential-for" particles (modeled as a "foam" of "virtual particles" that don't "really" exist, but still play a role in model)"
I like that. Long since, I have been arguing a nothing coming to be something (or more correctly, give the illusion of being something by taking up space)from what i called a nothing with the potential to become something. I also adopted the term 'numerical value' for this potential. But your term pots it very well and of course, it really doesn'y need to come from anywhere and most certainly could have 'always existed'.
Consciousness, if we must bring that up, is also there in potential, as is life, since they are all just stuff dounfg things and in increasing comnplexity until biochemicals develop replication and an action provokes a reaction. We have life and consciousness as distinct from just matter/energy.
That is of course quite unlike any invisible cosmic conasciousness deciding to start it all off.
" Removing all real particles from a volume of space does not leave you with "mere" nothingness; it leaves you with something you might call "pure potential-for" particles (modeled as a "foam" of "virtual particles" that don't "really" exist, but still play a role in model)"
I like that. Long since, I have been arguing a nothing coming to be something (or more correctly, give the illusion of being something by taking up space)from what i called a nothing with the potential to become something. I also adopted the term 'numerical value' for this potential. But your term pots it very well and of course, it really doesn'y need to come from anywhere and most certainly could have 'always existed'.
Consciousness, if we must bring that up, is also there in potential, as is life, since they are all just stuff dounfg things and in increasing comnplexity until biochemicals develop replication and an action provokes a reaction. We have life and consciousness as distinct from just matter/energy.
That is of course quite unlike any invisible cosmic conasciousness deciding to start it all off.
That, as I have said before, is simply absurd.
You seem quite comfortable with the existence of our imagination, Arq. It is quite capable of creatively producing something from nothing. Just because it is not something your concrete mind considers tangible does NOT mean it is not a definite part of our reality. Why is it so absurd that a consciousness that establishes our reality itself would be capable of creatively producing something from nothing????
It isn't. What is absurd is to pick one option out of a whole range of possibilities that might not be absurd and claim that is not only the most probable one on no valid evidence that I have seen presented, but to claim it as undeniable belief -investing Fact.
when we claim we got here but we don't how that's just a simple fact. No need for god.
when we claim that the earth's life arose because of life. this is why. Life is a series of state changes. the biosphere is a series of state changes. How many state changes are present before it looks like life?
That's what science is answering. We use the following things:
what people blindly believe or reject out of hand without knowing what they don't is irrelevant to what the universe is doing. Minimizing a knowledge claim to make a belief statement more real or "practical" is deception.
the literal Theist religious and the literal atheists religious do this. They don't care, they feel they know what's best for the public. The truth being beyond the scope of a belief statement is what they hope people believe. if I can sell you "the truth isn't practical to our belief" I have control over you and yours.
creation is one great example.
1) We don't know how.
2) we say god did it or nothing did it? oh ya ... see number 1 again.
3) "natural"? everything natural. see number 1 again.
4) "random' ... see number one again. ... 90% of the time people use random wrong anyway.
Doubt is a good thing.
rejecting anything is paranoid.
I enjoyed the you tube - I'll have to watch the rest of it. I'm not sure, buit it would make sense to me is that the puzzle of the photon (light emitting event) caused by two electrons coming together, might be less hard to fathom if physicists stopped thinking in terms of particles being a tiny solid thing and rather in terms of energy doing things - a variety of possible things meaning that you get a variety of possible "particles" (virtual particles) appearing and then vanishing.
You have the potentiality to become apparent matter and if it becomes stable and to all appearances a Thing, you get what we call matter.
when we claim that the earth's life arose because of life. this is why. Life is a series of state changes. the biosphere is a series of state changes.
You summed it up here. Life arose because of life.
That life that originally rose life has to be God. That's the way i see it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
