curse of having to think in temporal terms.why we need god, big bangs and beginings

[drug_mentor]

I don't claim to fully understand this type of theory because I'm not an expert in physics, but why is it that time "slows down" for the experiencer in a heavy gravitational field or when the observer is moving through a large amount of space during the event? Then extrapolate that space out to size infinity and have the "observer" be a "point" that covers size infinity, (or a very large size, lets say the size of the universe). Then what happens to time?

Time slowing down doesn't change time being an ordering relation though, does it? Perhaps to make sense of time in the way I attempted in my previous post we need to identify not just a time but a spatial location and/or moving speed as well, I still think that we can view time as a relation that maps on to a certain way events are ordered.

what happens to time when 3d space is the size of an electron or smaller, like at the big bang. trying to imagine this is as "crazy" as imagining that the universe has an edge or endpoint. its either that case or its infinite in some way. both are equally impossible to imagine for us

thats what causes the question for me of that the absolutist view of time that you illustrated is only a result of normal 3D space. since it starts to break down a bit according to physics

If events are occurring in space then the size of the space shouldn't really matter; if some event x precedes another event y then these two events stand in a relation such that y occurred at some time after x. It isn't clear to me why you think shrinking the spatial domain might change the fact that events which don't happen simultaneously have a certain temporal order?

have i been influence by Kant? I Kant say.

In The Critique of Pure Reason Kant argued that space and time are intuitions which are presupposed by all conscious experience, and that it is not possible for us to know the true nature of reality. The passage from one of your previous posts which I quoted above the question seemed to echo these themes. If you are interested, this is a pretty solid read on Kant's views on space and time which situates his position against the views of Newton and Leibniz.

 

[-=SS=-]

have you ever bothered to even research that question or just assumed that science had not looked into it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment

I studied Biochemistry at University. That experiment doesn't prove anything other than that you can create some of the building blocks that organic life utilizes, through a particular set of conditions. It says absolutely nothing about how those building blocks come to form self-replicating machinery.

There is no explanation as to why organic molecules should gain the desire to replicate - the idea that if you just tumble these building blocks together eventually they'll somehow gain coherence, is fucking ridiculous.

 

[LucidSDreamr]

1) so you think that god is "keeping all these biochemical processes going" (that are currently occurring in every living organism) since chemistry and existing physical law alone is not enough to keep molecular machines self replicating and perpetuating life?

2) or do you believe that god need not interfere anymore at this point....molecules just needed a "kick start" in the beggining phases of evolution to start self replicating?

If you believe the top 1)....that god is currently "forcing" every chemical reaction to happen so that we all stay alive....I don't know what to argue to that.

if you believe the second 2), that makes no sensse that a simple combination of small molecules couldn't start self replicating but a living organism is able to keep doing it without falling apart.

Look at crystals for example, they replicate their crystal lattice structure based on existing physical/chemical law. Heres an example of a very small RNA that can make more RNA....once you have buidling blocks sitting around and different RNAs being produced through mutation or other variation...its not far fetched at all to imagine something more complex evolving

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/332/6026/209

you seem to think some sort of miracle happened on earth. Given infinite time in infinite areas of space, something unlikely can happen, such as life

 

[-=SS=-]

1) so you think that god is "keeping all these biochemical processes going" (that are currently occurring in every living organism) since chemistry and existing physical law alone is not enough to keep molecular machines self replicating and perpetuating life?

2) or do you believe that god need not interfere anymore at this point....molecules just needed a "kick start" in the beggining phases of evolution to start self replicating?

If you believe the top 1)....that god is currently "forcing" every chemical reaction to happen so that we all stay alive....I don't know what to argue to that.

if you believe the second 2), that makes no sensse that a simple combination of small molecules couldn't start self replicating but a living organism is able to keep doing it without falling apart.

You're missing the point.. what impetus is there for a bunch of organic molecules to replicate? Where is the impulse for that coming from? If you want to insinuate that somehow the right combination of molecules, in the right ratios to each other, at the right angles/configuration to each other, etc, will give rise to replicating machinery then you are actually inadvertently implying a case for intelligent design.. unless you still wish to maintain it is just pure luck/chance that the universe formed this way that you could have that 1 in a trillion chance event of molecules coming together in just the right way to start things off.. which to me, is more ridiculous than just conceding that actually there may be some intelligence built into this thing we call reality.

you seem to think some sort of miracle happened on earth.

If you want to call it a miracle, that's your choice of words. I can't escape the conclusion that what we see is so evidently way more than just blind luck/chance in a purposeless inert universe.. not because I want that to be so, but because it's a conclusion I can't escape.. all things considered that's the conclusion I have ended up at. The dead inert chance universe that militant atheist science loving dorks promote is retarded.

Given infinite time in infinite areas of space, something unlikely can happen, such as life

Rubbish. That's a cop out and you know it.. and it's pretty much a distillation of the whole argument too. It is actually more logical to propose that there is some sort of impulse, force, 'God', design, machinery, whatever.. than proposing what you've just described.

 

[swilow]

Rubbish. That's a cop out and you know it.. and it's pretty much a distillation of the whole argument too. It is actually more logical to propose that there is some sort of impulse, force, 'God', design, machinery, whatever.. than proposing what you've just described.

How is proposing god logical? It doesn't answer the question, it just changes the premise.

 

[LucidSDreamr]

what impetus is there for a bunch of organic molecules to replicate? Where is the impulse for that coming from?

the same (except a much simpler version) for the reason that gigantic macro molecules interact and replicate in super complex ways to sustain life....because they just work based on physical and chemical law.

if we had self sustaining life based off of some other system (lets say hydrocarbons copied themselves and replicated) This would be a "miracle" because it doesn't happen naturally as a consedquence of physical and chemical law that exists, the way it does with dna/proteins etc.

Im surprised a person with a biochemistry education can't accept that these molecules could form and start some kind of repeating process given billions of years and almost infinite types of conditions throughout the universe to develop.

The hard part with religious people that understand chemistry is usually arguing where matter or energy "started" or came from....not that it is a actually automatic for it to form life once it exists, so I'm a bit surprised about what we are arguing about here.

 

[-=SS=-]

How is proposing god logical? It doesn't answer the question, it just changes the premise.

Because no matter how you try to spin things you eventually end up coming back to the point of having to explain how/why matter suddenly goes from being inert to dynamic. It's far more logical to concede the idea of a motivating factor than keeping up the charade of saying "Oh, someday we'll discover how matter animates itself without external influence". As I stated previously if you believe that matter can somehow fold in upon itself and become animated, and then evolve, then surely you have to acknowledge that the odds of the universe existing in this current setup, with all its physical laws and arrangement of atomic and molecular orbits etc in the just the correct and precise fashion to allow for that process to even occur is beyond calculation.. I can't see how anyone can hold that position and say its "mere coincidence".

It doesn't seem logical to you because you're purposefully biased against the idea of a motivating force. It's not that you can't see it.. it's that you just don't want to see it, because it changes a lot of things in ones paradigm of life.. namely that you may not be an autonomous sovereign individual with free-will that can indulge in anything without consequence.

In respect to reality and beginnings itself, likewise you always end up coming back to the point of explaining how nothing came from nothing for no reason e.g the Big Bang theory. It's nonsensical to suggest an impulse can arise from nothing for no reason.. at some point, at the deepest level of everything, that 'thing' has to have some quality beyond inertness.. inertness can not beget dynamism. I'm saying it's more logical to concede that, than keep up the pretense of a purposeless inert system that man can batter with his projections and grandiosity.

 

[swilow]

You just propose god because you're scared of reality. What if there are no answers?

See, I can make unfounded assumptions about you too.

Its pointless talking to you because you invent arguments constantly. I don't believe in god, as you do, because there's no evidence. What I want is of less importance to what actually is.

 

[LucidSDreamr]

The universe is a very large place...the chances that something as complicated as life arose over trillions^trillionth power millenia over a possibly infinite area of the universe filled with every possible permutation of matter possible...worlds that differ from out galaxy by only a single atom, and every other itteration of matter physically possible, bizzare shit.

you're putting a very small limit on the universe, by saying life could never happen by chance, its sad and cheapens the complexity of the universe think that way. If I thought the universe was that small I would believe in god as well and say it couldn't happen by chance

 

[alasdairm]

^ i tend to agree (and also with swilow's post).

i think its' quite possible that were not (yet) wired to understand the underlying concepts. if you had told somebody in 1850 that a plane weighing 775,000lbs and carrying over 300 people could fly, they'd have a lot of trouble believing it and many would not. we're learning more about space and time every day but our understanding must be limited in a similar way.

i think it's a uniquely human form of arrogance to say "i don't understand how something could possible come 'from nothing' therefore there has to be a god."



related reading: flatland

alasdair

 

[swilow]

There really is no reason for us to be able to understand the universe. Its amazing that we understand what we do.

It makes more sense to say the sun orbits earth. Earth seems stationary, sun seems to move. Theres no visual or sensory way to determine that the earth is moving. Of course, this is incorrect. What makes sense, intuitively, has no bearing on what actually is. Its human arrogance to think 'common sense' explains the functioning of our universe.

SS, was god created?

 

[LucidSDreamr]

SS, was god created?

no, don't you know the only eternal thing with no begging or end is allowed to be god, not energy or matter.

accepting that either god or energy/matter are infinite are equally hard to grasp....except that we have proof matter/energy currently exist right now, while with god there is none

 

[Xorkoth]

Yeah, if you accept that there is a god who created the universe/life, then what created god? Seems to me it's got to be one of three things:

1 - There exists a super-god, the god to god. And then there must be a god to the super-god too. And so on.

2 - God has always existed, there was no beginning (which as stated above is an equally difficult proposition to stand on)

3 - God spontaneously developed at some point. If this is the case, it seems no less absurd that life evolving over the course of billions and billions of years given infinite or essentially infinite conditions in which to do so.

I definitely subscribe to the belief that self-replicating matter could spontaneously create itself given the right conditions and enough time due to random events. Earth happens to be the right sort of environment among the hundreds of billions of planets in our galaxy alone, nevermind the hundreds of billions of other galaxies. That's a LOT of scenarios. With microorganisms, a generation takes place in a minute speck of time. Given billions of years, imagine the evolutions, changes and complexity that could form, the number of generations is almost beyond comprehension. In that sort of time you could end up with a system like DNA. Maybe the first thing we could classify as life that ever existed had a few complex proteins that combined together and became the first DNA. The code could have been overwhelmingly simple, but as successive generations came and went, it got slowly more and more complex. It seems overwhelming to imagine that such a massively complex thing that we see today (and even in much earlier periods of Earth's history) could have developed by chance, but it's been going on for a LONG, LONG time, and most of the complexity developed early on, because of the incredibly short lifespan of each individual organism (so change was able to happen very quickly, comparatively speaking to the change that happens in higher life-forms). Fact is, we don't have any way of knowing what was really going on on this planet in the first few billion years, I mean we know it was being bombarded but we don't know that no life was possible. A current theory is that impacts blasted off chunks that eventually came back to earth, seeding and re-seeding it with the earliest of life. To this day there are microbes on the planet that can survive space.

 

[-=SS=-]

You just propose god because you're scared of reality. What if there are no answers?

My position doesn't have anything to do with being afraid. Bored, unsatisfied and unfulfilled by a pointless chaos that the scientific narrative alludes to.. I'll concede that possibility, sure.

There really is no reason for us to be able to understand the universe. Its amazing that we understand what we do.

Don't disagree with that statement, but wouldn't you also say it's amazing that we're aware, and by virtue of that property be able to understand what we do? Knowledge and understanding are one thing, but neither would mean much if we weren't aware in the first place. Half the reason why I find the modern scientific narrative so unsatisfactory is that it has divorced itself from the mystery of mind and perception to a great extent. Natural philosophy at least embraced the mystery. Modern science has tried its damned best to suffocate out of existence any real mystery.

It makes more sense to say the sun orbits earth. Earth seems stationary, sun seems to move. Theres no visual or sensory way to determine that the earth is moving. Of course, this is incorrect. What makes sense, intuitively, has no bearing on what actually is. Its human arrogance to think 'common sense' explains the functioning of our universe.

What is motion anyway? Your point, ironically and paradoxically, is a matter of perspective. At the time we thought the heavens moved about the Earth. Now we've seen a bit more and recognize that's not the case. One day we may find out that actually the Universe does indeed have no beginning or end.. and if that is so, then motion is altogether illusory, as without some sort of boundary for reference all matter is essentially floating in a void.. it may appear to move relative to other matter, but all matter with nothing to move relative too could be moving infinitely fast, or not at all, you could never know.

Motion (and time) being illusory is something sages have suggested, intuitively, since the dawn of time.

SS, was god created? .

No. It is the sole reality and there is nothing beyond it because it is the only thing that exists, that is real. And we are that;

I find most resonance in the strand of thought found in Advaita Vedanta regarding the Atman and Brahman, that essentially suggests we are the alpha and omega - that the thing that is aware in 'us', the observer (or soul if you like), is like a ray of light coming from the Sun (the Sun being Absolute, or 'god'). Thus we are also that Sun, or the Absolute, we just don't know it. Essentially we are 'god', and which is all that there is. The common denominator is awareness.

There is no reason why anything should exist. Even less so the awareness of that existence.

 

[Xorkoth]

I find most resonance in the strand of thought found in Advaita Vedanta regarding the Atman and Brahman, that essentially suggests we are the alpha and omega - that the thing that is aware in 'us', the observer (or soul if you like), is like a ray of light coming from the Sun (the Sun being Absolute, or 'god'). Thus we are also that Sun, or the Absolute, we just don't know it. Essentially we are 'god', and which is all that there is. The common denominator is awareness.

That is exactly what I believe. I agree that we probably won't ever be able to use science to prove or disprove that. But when I think of the word "god", it conjures up the image of a separate, unknowable entity that is a creative force, outside of ourselves. I guess that's not what everyone means by it though. To me what you describe is a property of how existence is, though. Like, I don't believe I'm going to die and become this thing divorced of any subjective experiencer, get up and take a pee and sit back down to experience another life. Rather, existence as the universe is all of these infinite variations of things that are alive, everywhere, happening in one timeless moment. It's not like the universe/god got bored of nothing one day and created the universe. It has always been and will always be "the present", that spot just changes based on the particular frame. The brain of each individual creates the illusion of separateness and past and future based on stored memories, chemical impulses, and so on. You could get knocked on the head catastrophically tomorrow and lose that entire thing, but you'd still be the universe experiencing itself in some way. When you the particular human you are dies, the universe is still experiencing everything, including every moment of your life.

...In my opinion.

 

[LucidSDreamr]

on a level we are all hoping that when we die we are like "whew, i'm glad I'm god and realize it now"


anything else is not what I'm hoping for (the above). but the only reason i'm hoping in such an egotistical way is maybe because I'm not god(like)

 

[-=SS=-]

That is exactly what I believe. I agree that we probably won't ever be able to use science to prove or disprove that. But when I think of the word "god", it conjures up the image of a separate, unknowable entity that is a creative force, outside of ourselves. I guess that's not what everyone means by it though. To me what you describe is a property of how existence is, though. Like, I don't believe I'm going to die and become this thing divorced of any subjective experiencer, get up and take a pee and sit back down to experience another life. Rather, existence as the universe is all of these infinite variations of things that are alive, everywhere, happening in one timeless moment. It's not like the universe/god got bored of nothing one day and created the universe. It has always been and will always be "the present", that spot just changes based on the particular frame. The brain of each individual creates the illusion of separateness and past and future based on stored memories, chemical impulses, and so on. You could get knocked on the head catastrophically tomorrow and lose that entire thing, but you'd still be the universe experiencing itself in some way. When you the particular human you are dies, the universe is still experiencing everything, including every moment of your life.

...In my opinion.

Glad to see I'm not alone here

I don't think science will be able to prove or disprove it as you say, but that it's not meant to anyway - the domain of science is the material realm, though it can (and should) allude to the mystery as the material does interface with another more subtle aspect of reality. That's the problem I have with modern science though.. it has taken on a religious tone of being an anti-religious/spiritual movement that wishes to squash out the mystery and create a new counterfeit narrative that, quite simply, serves the selfish tendencies in man. It is quite plain to see that not only does this narrative not work and is leading to the disintegration of social cohesion, but that it is wholly unsatisfactory in its attempts to explain what we can see, know and have discovered through time.

on a level we are all hoping that when we die we are like "whew, i'm glad I'm god and realize it now"

I'm of the belief that there is no democracy in death, that we don't all experience the same thing and it's largely determined by where your focus was in life. If you're a piece of shit called Bono, and believe you're Bono, then you'll die with that thought and that's all it will be for you.

 

[Foreigner]

I'm of the belief that there is no democracy in death, that we don't all experience the same thing and it's largely determined by where your focus was in life. If you're a piece of shit called Bono, and believe you're Bono, then you'll die with that thought and that's all it will be for you.

I somehow doubt that...

I haven't gone through with it but I've been very near death before. The ego softens so much that it more or less begins to dissolve. Maybe if you die instantly there will be a period when you still believe you're this ego, but it doubtfully lasts very long. If you die gradually, like from chronic illness, there might be more of an opportunity to witness and understand the insubstantial nature of ego.

The mechanism of death is the same for everyone but perhaps after that there are divergences in what happens.

 

[swilow]

My position doesn't have anything to do with being afraid. Bored, unsatisfied and unfulfilled by a pointless chaos that the scientific narrative alludes to.. I'll concede that possibility, sure.

You may get more from science if you don't look to it for things its not going to provide. Science will tell you how things work, not why. Of course, you seem well versed in those things that actually do investigate the why.

Don't disagree with that statement, but wouldn't you also say it's amazing that we're aware, and by virtue of that property be able to understand what we do?

There's even thoughts which I really value, the non-verbal ones, such as when I pass through a familiar place, maybe driving to work and it may just be a nameless row of shops on a nameless street but I know this place, it has an identity that is without language. Its just a concept that me and my brain recognise. Like smells, you know what they are but there is no way you can describe them. The problem with scientific examination of the brain and awareness is that it needs to be able to ultimately break its findings into language, and language is often restricting and so the message gets condensed. So much of existence exists only in conceptual thought, like the nameless place that I know but don't. I think we actually know a whole lot more than our language is able to communicate. Its why art is so important as another very different communcation method.

I could propose a utilitarian "use" for our awareness if you were interested. I don't especially like reductionism of that kind, but it is plausible.

I find most resonance in the strand of thought found in Advaita Vedanta regarding the Atman and Brahman, that essentially suggests we are the alpha and omega - that the thing that is aware in 'us', the observer (or soul if you like), is like a ray of light coming from the Sun (the Sun being Absolute, or 'god'). Thus we are also that Sun, or the Absolute, we just don't know it. Essentially we are 'god', and which is all that there is. The common denominator is awareness.

I agree. I am only an atheist in that I don't believe a creating entity-god exists, or that there is a magical source of power in the universe (besides all the bizarre and improbable forces that we do know exists), but I certainly believe there is a divinity in the actuality of my existence. It is without doubt the most amazingly improbable and indescribable thing I cannot even think of.

What you are saying and what I believe rings true to some scientific theories of creation; the universe did "simply" just come to be, and there was no external creator because there is nothing external to the universe. If the universe is god and god created the universe, I imagine from our perspective, it may look something like a big bang of self creation. Why couldn't this have simple just started, given that it definitely has the capacity to keep itself running? Of course, that idea is for a universe that had a beginning.

There is no reason why anything should exist. Even less so the awareness of that existence.

In infinite timeless time something will always exist.

 

[-=SS=-]

You may get more from science if you don't look to it for things its not going to provide. Science will tell you how things work, not why. Of course, you seem well versed in those things that actually do investigate the why.

Yeah I agree it is better for the how, and not the why, and that science should not try to do both. Likewise for the occult/spiritual it shouldn't intrude on to the how. The issue is neither exist in isolation from one another, they have to abut and interface at some points.. my impression is that modern science would rather not acknowledge that fact, which it did used too in a balanced way (natural philosophy), and actually what it largely boils down to is being afraid to embrace the possibility that the overlap may be closer and more relevant to our everyday experience than we care to think of (and IMO is).

I agree. I am only an atheist in that I don't believe a creating entity-god exists, or that there is a magical source of power in the universe (besides all the bizarre and improbable forces that we do know exists), but I certainly believe there is a divinity in the actuality of my existence. It is without doubt the most amazingly improbable and indescribable thing I cannot even think of.

Well why didn't you say so before! Always interesting to find out you're closer in your overall stance than appears to be at the surface level of discussion.

What you are saying and what I believe rings true to some scientific theories of creation; the universe did "simply" just come to be, and there was no external creator because there is nothing external to the universe. If the universe is god and god created the universe, I imagine from our perspective, it may look something like a big bang of self creation. Why couldn't this have simple just started, given that it definitely has the capacity to keep itself running? Of course, that idea is for a universe that had a beginning.

Does it not boil down to the issue we have as human beings of having a bicameral mind that is wholly incapable of knowing the concept of infinity? I think what we've just alluded to here, and in your previous point about not believing in a creator-god, is that in both cases we're suffering the limitations of being a human with a relative mind.. we can't know infinity, and we have a tendency to create god in our own image. The Big Bang Theory just feels too human to be correct? The idea of having a beginning, where all space, time, laws are merged into a point just seems like humans grasping and trying to contain it all.

If you think of the Universe as a sort of dream, couldn't it have just flashed up whole, spinning and moving, in more or less an instant in the same way our dreams do? Sometimes that's how I feel it may be. Interesting to think about, but coming back to the overlap between science and this metaphysical.. impossible to know where the overlap is. Though obviously there's a lot of speculation in religions, traditions or so forth.

In infinite timeless time something will always exist.

For some reason the first thing I thought of when I read that was my alarm clock at 6:30am. God damn it.