It's n-not like we want you to join or anything, b-baka!

Join a laid-back, close-knit community of mixed interests Get a free account!

God, the Origins of Life, and the Universe

  1. #334852012-07-16 12:42:45Hikarigaiden said:

    @lamperogee I would not agree that all metaphysical claims one could make (the teleporting turtle of Sevilla, the levitating elephant circling around himalaya or the invisible kangaroo at... eh nobody knows really, just to make up a few) narrow down to those two versions of the christian gods!

    Things are not scientific or not, you approach things scientifically or not. I mean maybe it is true that some guy somewhere in Uganda can talk to the dead ancestors of everyone in his village, something that would probably be considered pretty spiritual. We could investigate this, try to replicate his technique etc. We could have a scientific approach. But most of the time it seems like the mystery is part of the point in some way, as if actually understanding a phenomenon or part of it would ruin it. (and sometimes, of course, people don't want others to take a scientific approach to their claims because it would be too obvious they weren't true)

  2. #334862012-07-16 12:48:00Hikarigaiden said:

    @AlphaHikari_1A14 It's good to hear you don't think it works that way. Christian heaven is probably (wisely) pretty undefined. The idea of it I have is that they want to get there, but you can't be in a hurry or cheat. I think her views were along the lines of mine, but with maybe an even stronger will too expose bad or weird ideas for what they are.

  3. #335162012-07-16 19:01:27CrimsonAlchemist said:

    Chet... I post once every two months.... and here I go on that kind of thread....

    Well, first and foremost I'll answer the question about the big bang (sorry I only read half of the posts here and so maybe the answer was already given) : scientist can't give a reason for the big bang (well most scientist, some theories give "possible explanations") because that's imposhibible ! Due to the huge amount of energy released (what we now observe as the relic radiation) all previous information are inacessible (like a black/white hole if you are interested in astrophysics). As long as the actual theories is considered correct, it is (and will be) impossible to know the exact reasons behind the big bang. I'm quite a noob concerning all this, so if you want in depth explanation go search someone more reliable than me ;)

    @Trev : The laws of thermodynamics declare the Greatest Being necessarily mortal, fallible, and limited in influence. >>>>>> would you please be king enough to expose me why ? limited in influence is a given but I'd like to see the mathematics reason behind the other two points.

    @Chestnut_Rice I thought most Americans were Protestant. Where are all the "Unitarian" voters? D: >>>>>> protestant don't believe in the trinity ? didn't know.... I should check that out....

    Well, about my point of view :

    God exists but as an architect. He have no clear self-conscience and only act to set the laws of physics in a way most likely to create live at a large-scale (making it pretty much certains that there are extra-terrestrial lifeforms). He created matter out of nothing but don't do it anymore (either because he don't wanna or because he is unable to).

    Being omniscient and immortal, time means nothing to him and thus he lets the world unfolds naturally, the evolution taking care of the stuff for him. He makes sure that every species which mets their dead end in the evolution dies slowly, allowing others creatures to take their places. In the long run, he lets the universe he create fall upon itself leading to a big crunch.

    We are of no interest to him as he looks as life as a whole and thus we are not worse more than the monkeys from which we evolved. Once rotten the body serve as fertilizer for plants which are eaten making every living things the roots for future plants/animal and bacteria. The soul is then given naturally to a newborn (what we call reincarnation).

    Afterlife (as in breaking the reincarnation cycle) may exists but is twisted and non-natural (much like frozen water, which is thus not a part of the active water cycle), maybe taking form in ghost. No heaven nor hell, we are reincarnated indefinetely (and as memories are linked to the brain, there is no way we can remenber of our past lives). One can actually see it (the architect) as a set of rules with no ability to actually act on someone life (what somes call the Nature (don't know if the meaning stays in english ?)).

    Well no proof (that's a given, huh ?) but just a thought ^^

    Much like Ecstasy I'm a bit appealed by buddhism (or shintoism but that's just cuz polytheist religions are cool :P)

  4. #335182012-07-16 19:06:38Trev said:

    @CrimsonAlchemist: Heat death theory would maintain that every STEM object in the universe has an expiration date. Even in a perfectly arranged logical processing unit, the beginning of that physical failure would result in fallibility.

  5. #335262012-07-16 20:02:27CrimsonAlchemist said:

    @Trev Thanks for the quick reply. As I said I'm quite the noob at physics (and english not being my natural language don't help either) but in a nutshell you are saying that (please correct me if I'm wrong) : as everything loses energy over time, there are no such thing as immortality and as information is thus subject to loss/alteration we can't have perfect knowledge either. ?_? Well the second point do make sense but I'm not quite convinced by the first argument (and as the second one depends on it we are in a pinch ^^), indeed the universe have much less energy than at his eve but I think it's due to 1) much less frequent collisions between matter and anti-matter, 2) the size of the universe. The energy is likely to be reduced again (indefinitely actually as we are likely in a big rip, much in contradiction with my theories with the world ending in a big crunch) but if the universe were to have a stable state, global energy would be stable as well. Moreover (well that's not a scientific argument ^^) we are talking about the guys who created the big bang, something as trivial as matters means nothing to Him :3

  6. #335972012-07-17 12:41:35lamperogee said:

    @Hikarigaiden ...well whatever, i didnt know you included monster worship, but i wasnt talking about metaphysical claims in the first place anyway. I dont see why an inspirational God would be metaphysical or maybe i dont really know what metaphysical means :/, :)) As for the other part, no argument there, dont really care on how boring the world of science is, it makes everything stereotype