The creation of everything... How?

@BillRM,

Quote:

If science can explain love by chemical reactions how in the hell would that turn love into an illusion??????

Love would still be love and not an illusion no matters what it inner workings turn out to be.

It is the same with God. Only difference is that you have no emotional associations to the word, as you do with love. But some people do have a very real emotional relationship with the universe by means of a concept they call God.
There are people who do not believe in love. They think in terms of chemical processes in the brain, and seek to suppress the whole emotion because their state of "rationality" to the exclusion of everything else has left them unable to cope with the phenomenon.

Quote:

Once more your logic is strange and of course I had faith but to the best of my abilities the things I had faith in have some evidences for being a part of the damn real universe.

Where is the evidence that love is a part of the damn real universe?

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

It is the same with God. Only difference is that you have no emotional associations to the word, as you do with love. But some people do have a very real emotional relationship with the universe by means of a concept they call God.

You thinking is so damn alien to me.

I had feel the emotion love and it is a state of being and bonding no more magical then any other emotion we had evolved to have but what the hell does that have to do with believing in some magical super being!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

Where is the evidence that love is a part of the damn real universe?

You got to be kidding me emotional bonding “love” is seen all though nature in higher animals.

A mother cat that went back into a burning building time after time to save her kittens in spite of suffering server burns herself is more then enough proof of love being part of higher animals.

Below is an article that moved on the PR Newswire.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scarlett, the World-Famous Brave Mother Cat Who Survived a Fire and Saved Her Kittens, Passes Away

PORT WASHINGTON, N.Y., Oct. 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Scarlett, the cat, whose story of bravery, uncompromising love and triumph over all odds, has passed on. The heroine calico, who in 1996 made headlines around the world for pulling her five kittens to safety from a raging fire, lost her battle with multiple illnesses this week after living with her adoptive family in Brooklyn, New York for over 12 years.

Back in 1996, Scarlett was tending to her kittens in an abandoned Brooklyn garage when a fire broke out. Having extinguished the blaze, firefighters sighted the mother cat, slowly carrying her four-week old kittens from the building. Badly scorched, her ears radically burned, she lined up her babies. With her eyes blistered from the inferno, she was seen touching each with her nose, to reassure herself that her litter of five had made it to safety. She then collapsed unconscious.

Firefighter David Giannelli transported the little feline family to North Shore Animal League America where the mother, who was named Scarlett, and her kittens, were treated. The weakest of the kittens died of a virus one month after the blaze. However, after three months of treatment and recovery, Scarlett and her surviving babies were ready for adoption.

In the flurry of worldwide media attention to the heroic feline mother and her family, the Animal League received more than 7,000 inquiries about adopting Scarlett and her brood. Ultimately, the kittens were adopted in pairs and Scarlett herself was adopted out to Karen Wellen, whose story of losing her own cat, shortly after an accident in which she herself was injured, struck a chord at the Animal League. Wellen said her experience made her a more compassionate individual, and, if ever she was to adopt another cat, she wanted to devote herself to one with special needs.

Once in Wellen’s care, Scarlett continued to be a media darling, capturing the attention of regional, national and international outlets as far away as Japan, and including the most powerful voices of CNN and Oprah Winfrey. She was the subject of numerous books and articles and appeared in the first aired segment of Animal Planet. She was even honored by Great Britain’s Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Living in Wellen’s Brooklyn home, Scarlett was a cherished family member, given run of the house and abundant love.

"She was the most precious and loving cat, and in our household, it was all about Scarlett," said Wellen.

Scarlett, who required ongoing care as a result of her injuries, and who was diagnosed with a heart murmur during her recovery at the Animal League Veterinary Medical Center, became a Sponsor Pet, and the symbol of all the real and wonderful pets in the Animal League’s care. She was the guest of honor at the Animal League’s Christmas Tree Lighting and was a surprise for a little boy whose birthday wish was to meet her. The Animal League created an animal heroism award in her name and recently unveiled The Scarlett Room, an online site showcasing the animals in the organization’s Sponsor Program. This month, National Geographic Kids’ Magazine, circulated around the globe, honored Scarlett as one of its "Ten Cool Cats."

North Shore Animal League America is the world’s largest no-kill animal rescue and adoption organization. For more information on its Sponsor Program visit www.AnimalLeague.org/Sponsor.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

I had feel the emotion love and it is a state of being and bonding no more magical then any other emotion we had evolved to have but what the hell does that have to do with believing in some magical super being!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Only that if you want to conceptualize the understanding of chemical processes into the experience of "love", you are free to do so, and "love" would not be a false concept.
And if you want to conceptualize the understanding of physics into the experience of god, you are free to do that as well, and that would not be a false concept either.

If, however, you sought to use your concept to account for why someone close to you died, you would be in the wrong. You would have a better chance accounting for it using modern medical understanding.
But that understanding couldn't help you with the grief you are left with. Religion could be a great comfort there though. And if you had taken the trouble to understand it in such a way that you don't have to ignore your rational dispositions, you would have a powerful asset to help you through it.

The thing is that reason has to be used reasonably. You seem like an intelligent person, and I am sure that if you embraced religion the same way you embrace science, you would have little or no difficulty in deciding when what applies.
The belief that faith and reason are opposing drives within humans is a legacy of our culture that has left us without a sense of connection to the cosmos. Science can give us the undertanding, but not the feeling of connection, of being part of it.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

If, however, you sought to use your concept to account for why someone close to you died, you would be in the wrong. You would have a better chance accounting for it using modern medical understanding.
But that understanding couldn't help you with the grief you are left with. Religion could be a great comfort there though. And if you had taken the trouble to understand it in such a way that you don't have to ignore your rational dispositions, you would have a powerful asset to help you through it.

The comfort that religion sometime offer come at one hell of a high price indeed.

Being burn to dead and or torture to death in the name of a god for example.

Whole peoples and whole cultures being wiped from the face of the earth over religious issues such as to what degree is Jesus a human or a god.

Science being slow down for generations for fear of torture at the hands of the religions.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

True. But the understanding the people responsible for this have about what religion is about is even worse than yours. No offense intended.

But the nuclear bombs that were dropped on Japan in WW2 were not in the least motivated by religious beliefs. That was done in the name of capitalism, and as of today capitalism is responsible for far more and worse things than religion. But that is an entirely different discussion.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

True. But the understanding the people responsible for this have about what religion is about is even worse than yours. No offense intended.

So the Catholic church including the Popes for a thousand years had less of any understanding of their faith then I do?

Thanks I guess......

Quote:

But the nuclear bombs that were dropped on Japan in WW2 were not in the least motivated by religious beliefs. That was done in the name of capitalism, and as of today capitalism is responsible for far more and worse things than religion. But that is an entirely different discussion.

The estimates I had seen to recall is that there would have been a half million deaths among American forces and twenty millions or so deaths among Japanese troops and civilians in any large scale invasion of the home islands.

The numbers kill in the two bombings seem small indeed compare to the likely cost of doing it the hard way.

For a personal note, there is a very good chance that I would not had been born if those two bombs had not been drop as my father would had been part of that invasion if it had occur.

2 Replies

Footnote there is a very good book by the title of "The Burning Mountain" that deal with a alternate time line where the atoms weapons was not ready to be used and we did end up doing an invasion of the home islands the hard way.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Footnote there is a very good book by the title of "The Burning Mountain" that deal with a alternate time line where the atoms weapons was not ready to be used and we did end up doing an invasion of the home islands the hard way.

We coud have blockaded and waited around until our nukes were ready.
The Japs were out of stuff.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

So the Catholic church including the Popes for a thousand years had less of any understanding of their faith then I do?

Yes. The benefits of modern methods of inquiry. Smile

That's just it. These new ways don't kill the old. They empower them, and you to become better and see farther than anyone has before. Unless you decide to chose one and continue the eternal battle...

0 Replies

@TheThinker,

It's sort of like asking, who created god?

Well, actually man did. Man also created the idea of the Big Bang, but it's based on some evidence and calculations by scientists.

I doubt man will ever have a definitive answer for either one.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

The USSR were a worry and I do not think that keeping troops in uniform for who know how must longer would had been sold to the American people.

It was not that simple.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

For a personal note, there is a very good chance that I would not had been born if those two bombs had not been drop as my father would had been part of that invasion if it had occur.

If the nazis had won the war there is a good chance I wouldn't be here either, since my grandfather was a prisoner in Sachsenhausen concentration camp.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

The USSR were a worry and I do not think that keeping troops in uniform
for who know how must longer would had been sold to the American people. [I was acutely aware of that fact. David]

It was not that simple.

U r ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, except that I did not imply anything to the CONTRARY.

In response to your book quote,
I merely said that we coud have n shoud have WAITED until the nukes were ready,
if thay had NOT been.

In point of fact, the second plane of Aug. 9th, 1945,
Bock's Car, was in such a hurry to bom Nagasaki,
that thay did not take the time to fix a fuel leak
from one of the tanks.

Last summer, at the American Mensa Annual Gathering,
I had the Honor of meeting Major Dutch Van Kirk, the navigator on
the Enola Gay on August 6th, 1945. I thanked him for his heroism
and I referred to the fact that millions of Americans are alive now
because he rescued their fathers or grandfathers from getting killed
while invading Japan the hard way.

There was a LONG LINE of predominantly female Mensans
who thanked him profusely for saving the lives of their fathers
thereby enabling their CHILDREN to have been born.

Of course, it is a well known fact
that Major Dutch Van Kirk is the ancestor of Capt. James T. Kirk of the USS ENTERPRISE,
whose 5 year mission will be to go where no man has gone b4.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Of course, it is a well known fact
that Major Dutch Van Kirk is the ancestor of Capt. James T. Kirk of the USS ENTERPRISE,
whose 5 year mission will be to go where no man has gone b4.

Damn right!

0 Replies

@wayne,

It is not just the word God that is capitalized. Even the pronouns can be capitalized. For example it is correct English to write "Why did He create the world?" when referring to God. Moreover other words are sometimes capitalized and sometimes not. For example being or Being, one or One.

First this practice is not one of the features of language that is the same across all languages. In German for example all nouns are capitalized.

Also there are rules of capitalization that have nothing to do with god. For example proper nouns are capitalized. (God is not a proper noun.) The names of the languages (English, Spanish) are capitalized etc.

Nevertheless I think there is a cluster of related words in English that can be correctly capitalized for the same reason. Here is a partial list: God, Good, Truth, Beauty, One, Being, Path, Love. There may be others.

Why are these words capitalized? I believe it is to indicate their mode of reference. Normally one uses a word to refer to something in the world. It has a "world to word" truth condition as Searle would say (I think... may have it wrong a little). Such a word refers to a being posited to exist. One posits the existence of the being and that existence contains its essential properties. Then one can derive predictions about what one will experience if one is, for example, standing in the correct place and the correct signals are available. For example I could say "There is a firetruck over there" and that would mean that if you looked at it and their was light and you were not blind you would see it. If its siren is on you will hear it etc. That allows us to check whether a firetruck exists by looking or listening and the results of the look or listen is said to be "evidence" for the existence of the entity.

However, there is another mode of experiencing in which what is experienced is not distinct from the experiencing of it. Now a pain might be a good example and we do not capitalize pain. Still the feeling of it and it are not distinct. So I do not believe that that is the reason alone for the capitalization.

Rather I believe all of the capitalization of this form refers to a single experience. This experience is usually referred to as "mystical". I believe that the capitalization is used to indicate that it is God, for example, as experienced mystically as opposed to the notion of God as an objective creature. "One" if capitalized refers to the mystical experience again. So if I am right all of the capitalized words are referring to the same experience and it would be right to say things like: God is Love. God is One. Love is One. etc.

This experience is the direct source of religious experience and is distinct from the theoretical positing of a supreme being who, or which, is one of the beings that exist - distinct from the others - and against which the scientific atheists rail. So in my opinion, if you are positing entities then you use the non-capitalized form. But if you are referring not to a posited entity but rather to the source of experiencing itself, or better the Source of Experiencing Itself, then you use the capital letter.

The posited entities are often confused with the mystical perceptions. For example love can be seen as a kind of emotion that exists in the world but it can also be seen as the World Itself, or as the World, or as the One etch in which case the capitalization could be used. You can see the arguments where each side is referring to a different experience, calling it by the same name, and then disagreeing on its nature.

I would not push this description too far though. Still I think that there is, in English at least, a form of capitalization that refers to direct Mystical experience as distinct from a posited entity. That type of direct experience cannot be had of posited objects and the capitalization can be used to disambiguate the reference.

0 Replies

@TheThinker,

TheThinker wrote:

There is a theory on how this universe was created... It is called 'The Big Bang' However it is based on the fact that something happened billions of years ago and that before it happened there was 'nothing' But how can there have been nothing because for the big bang to have happened it requires atoms to have reacted and if there was nothing before the big bang it means that there were no atoms so surely something must have started it all? A greater being or maybe more than one but surely something must have been there to start these atoms reacting? Surely there must have been something that made these atoms and decided to make it happen? Surely it is not perceivable for there to have been NOTHING for now at this point in time there is so much and so how could there have been nothing before for all of this to be created surely something must or someone must have started it?!?!

well, considering that matter is super condensed energy, and the conservation of energy law, there was energy in the beginning. energy requires mass (as far as i know...), and cant act in a vacuum, so it created some matter. i dont know how, but thats what i think.

1 Reply

@hamilton,

I once read a paper that said that the statement that either there was a first second or there was an infinite succession of seconds before it was a false dilemma. Why? Because the definition of a "second" is in terms of the frequency of a cesium atom and if the regularity of the atoms break down slowly as we go into the past then at some point there is a breakdown in the definition of a second. Further this breakdown does not have to be all at once.

Not sure I buy it.

Still the idea of time in physics is not the same as an absolute notion of time. For example for one observer there can be a time which for another observer is beyond all time. The physical notion of a time prior to the big bang is not the problem. The problem is that the physical theory will not allow us to make predictions when the universe is very small. If we had another theory we might be able to predict what happened before the big bang and it might predict something about what should be right now if that had happened and we then might measure that quantity to check but we don't have such a theory.

In point of fact there exists no physical theory that can describe not just what happened at the time that the current theory designates as being the time of the big bang but also at the times right after when the universe was presumably smaller than plank's length. What happened at or during the very short time after the big bang is not describable by our current theory. The Big Bang is therefore technically not a a theory of how the universe was created. Rather the big bang is the result of taking current physics and observations about the universe and then predicting what the universe would be like as we decrease the time parameter. We find the universe shrinking for as long as the theory can predict but there are no predictions available for the times when the universe was for example smaller than planks length. So we have an equation for the size of the universe that has a parameter called time that describes when the radius was zero but even before its zero (meaning after! Wink

)we cannot describe the universe. So I am not sure we can predict that there was a big bang even at the moment in time when the current theory says the radius of the earth departed from zero because we know that the theory does not make sense there.

We need a synthesis of quantum mechanics and gravity.

Maybe we need a different word.... predict means make predictions about the future. What do we call making _____ about the past? Postdicts?

1 Reply

@justintruth,

Quote:

We need a synthesis of quantum mechanics and gravity.

It is being worked on. Several different approaches are being tried, but I think they will all ultimately reveal the same thing; the problem is consciousness. Consciousness is not a passive observer of all this, as has been assumed for so long in western materialist sciences. It is an active part of it, and I suspect that where our measurements and predictions stop making sense are at the edges of our categories. In the end, "physicality" is merely a perception experienced by consciousness.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

True. But the understanding the people responsible for this have about what religion is about is even worse than yours. No offense intended.

Quote:

But the nuclear bombs that were dropped on Japan in WW2 were not in the least motivated by religious beliefs. That was done in the name of capitalism,

disagree

it was done because of the lives saved , not religion or capitalism

Quote:

and as of today capitalism is responsible for far more and worse things than religion. But that is an entirely different discussion.

really , in what way has capitalism been worse than religion

0 Replies

The creation of everything... How?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know