Atheism

"Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics: You are all stardust. You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded, because the elements - the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution and for life - weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way for them to get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode. So, forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today." -Lawrence Krauss

A
R
T

2 Replies

@failures art,

Forgetting Jesus requires that a lot of other stuff is forgotten. More than you could cope with fa.

0 Replies

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

"Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics: You are all stardust. You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded, because the elements - the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution and for life - weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way for them to get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode. So, forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today." -Lawrence Krauss

A
R
T

L.K. was obviously too engrossed in his own thoughts here to note how many logical errors his statement contains.
Can one predicate form of material difference? i.e. can one say that time qua time starts or stops? Secondly, K is talking about material difference, yet rationality is based on form.
Third--do these elements qua elements themselves evolve?
T hird, if an element really is an element, saying that it is created in a star is self referential---matter creates matter.

This statement by L.K. apparently just has too many words in it for anyone to actually understand the non-sense of it.

1 Reply

@NoOne phil,

Wait? Stars don't actually die!? Holy ****.

I guess you're right. It's a shame language can't be used figuratively to convey an idea in non-literal meaning. Rolling Eyes

You seem very eager to address lots of things that Krausss doesn't. This must hit some nerve for you to act so sensitively.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

Wait? Stars don't actually die!? Holy ****.

I guess you're right. It's a shame language can't be used figuratively to convey an idea in non-literal meaning.

You seem very eager to address lots of things that Krausss doesn't. This must hit some nerve for you to act so sensitively.

A
R
T

I just feel that non-relevent arguments, pro or con for any idea, just abound way too often in discoure.
What does it matter how a thing came to be, if that thing can not even do its own job, for example, man, us, who cannot even think.
Where does one find a toaster that spends more time wondering who constructed it more than if the damn thing makes toast or not?

Dont you think it is rather odd how people can do so little, understand so little, but they sure and the hell can tell you all about cosmology? Don't you find that to be the actual Cosmic Joke?

2 Replies

@NoOne phil,

Humans have already thought about that.

1 Reply

@hingehead,

cool

The real joke, you can search the internet, language scholars, who cannot even agree or understand the foundation of the simple sentence, yet with that grand knowledge, tell you all about the Universe and all about time.

This makes me believe that they have no real interest in truth, but have other, grossly more primitive agendas. Religious and non-Religous alike. Same methods, same understanding, diffeent results--what is wrong with this picture?

3 Replies

@NoOne phil,

Look at this post, the number of views and responses.
With all the real things to pursue-to accomplish, this is a testimony to man.

0 Replies

@NoOne phil,

I'm a little confused Phil, you're concerned that language scholars are postulating about the universe and time?

2 Replies

@hingehead,

hingehead wrote:

I'm a little confused Phil, you're concerned that language scholars are postulating about the universe and time?

When I was a child, they had these little books in which one could learn to connect the dots.

0 Replies

@hingehead,

No--phil is amused that people who don't know what they are talking about are providing explanations of vast cosmic mysteries presumably because providing explanations of ordinary things when gibbering gets laughed at.

Although I detect a serious intent in "grossly more primitive agendas." He means approaching the trough in a delicate, roundabout fashion so that nobody will notice the animalistic determination to dine well without getting the hands dirty or calloused.

It is a matter of great concern that so many are duped by such things. It increases the price of beer and cigarettes for a start.

0 Replies

@NoOne phil,

Quote:

yet with that grand knowledge, tell you all about the Universe and all about time.

That language is called mathematics. It doesnt have as much of the confusion upon which you seem to dwell.
Also, its difficult to be an asshole in an equation.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
yet with that grand knowledge, tell you all about the Universe and all about time.
That language is called mathematics. It doesnt have as much of the confusion upon which you seem to dwell.
Also, its difficult to be an asshole in an equation.

There is no language, including mathematics, which has a valid theory, or process which violates the original naming convention. Perhaps you have less of an idea of what is going on in math than you imagine.
At least I can do the four basic math moves in Euclidean Geometry, which is more than I can say for those who claim to be expert. .

Several years ago, there was a PBS special, mathematicians looking for guidance, because they could write equations to say whatever they wanted, i.e. they did not know what truth in math was anymore.

1 Reply

@NoOne phil,

Quote:

There is no language, including mathematics, which has a valid theory, or process which violates the original naming convention. Perhaps you have less of an idea of what is going on in math than you imagine

You are all over the map here noone. What are you trying to peddle? Im more a fan of polar geometry and dimensional analyses

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
There is no language, including mathematics, which has a valid theory, or process which violates the original naming convention. Perhaps you have less of an idea of what is going on in math than you imagine
You are all over the map here noone. What are you trying to peddle? Im more a fan of polar geometry and dimensional analyses

I am from a distant planet, one in which language and truth apply to all the languages one thinks and converses in, and without knowing truth in language, one cannot say much with certainty about anything.

However, if you want me to sell you cosmetics, you come to the wrong place.

2 Replies

@NoOne phil,

There is no such thing as "truth" that applies to all languages. You are more confused than you think.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

There is no such thing as "truth" that applies to all languages. You are more confused than you think.

You are confusing the tool, with the tool user. Truth is not different from truth. So there is delusion, but not here.

1 Reply

@NoOne phil,

You can call it whatever you wish, but "tool" has no meaning in this concept.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

You can call it whatever you wish, but "tool" has no meaning in this concept.

I can see, that in your case, by what you wrote, that is very, very true.

What does what I have to say have to do with the topic? Anyone with linguistic skills to speak of, having read the Judeo-Christian Scriptue should be able to tell that "God" is used in the scripture to mean"Truth." Metaphor is one of the processes of class mechanics in language. It is a book about judgment, language, and language use, so, exactly how would you metaphor "God?" A very simple method of teaching.

And since every one who claims there is no "God" it is no wonder they also claim that "Truth" is relative. And every one who claims there is, could not comprehend what truth was if it bit them in the ass. Or, I suspect most are too simple to see the connection.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Im more a fan of polar geometry and dimensional analyses

That's as bad as saying your a fan of Indianapolis Colts and expecting everybody to think you know anything about football. It's meaningless. I'm a fan of non-linear, infinitely directional, exponential, surdistic, indefinite integral calculus. And, as a hobby, cerebral dominance strategies in beta minus segments exhibiting functional disorders in articulation.

So bugger off. Your words are too simple. Get thee to evening classes.

2 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know