Why are we here?

Hm... This might take a while to figure out a proper answer for this, definitely is when I could have a better and clearer mind, not now where I'm even so clumsy with my own "normal" thoughts _ _"

What is the view of the starter of this thread anyway? I'd like to know XD

2 Replies

@Greeny,

Greeny wrote:

What is the view of the starter of this thread anyway? I'd like to know XD

The view of the starter is that the more one thinks over the present situation, the more strange it seems.
1. We have the technology, and the knowledge, and the know-how ... and maybe still the feasibility to overcome the energy constraints of the CO2, but most probably we will fail.
2. We will fail to make the energy switch-over not because of the lack of technology and technical feasibility, but because of greed, stupidity and arrogance ... exactly as the Bible predicts (which is rather strange).
3. No ILF has succeeded so far to overcome the energy constraints of space and time (at various levels) ... otherwise it should have conquered significant part of the universe up to now and should have become noticeable (through Hubble, the radio telescope, psychotronic communication, or something else) - and nothing of the kind is or has been 'observed'.
4. If no ILF has succeeded to overcome the energy barriers (in our part of the universe at least) this means that this thing with the evil and wicked CO2 (carbon 666 - 6 protons, 6 electrons and 6 neutrons) is not to be underestimated ... at all.
5. If the Bible is a message of an ILF (that might have extinct already) and they are wishing us all the luck in the world - why is it so important to preserve the life and the intelligence in the universe. If the big bang is so omnipotent (to create the universe without even having the energy to do so, we are not commenting out of what yet); so omnipresent (to succeed somehow to create life here - where the key word is 'somehow') in the capacity of being omnipresent it should be able to create life all over the universe ... without any problems, and nothing of the kind is observed; and so omniscient (to know when and how to create, to develop ... & to fix the things) why is it so necessary to be without intelligence ... and what does intelligence actually mean?
6. The probability for the Earth to be in the center of the universe is 10^-78. Big bang is by definition in the center of the universe (from where everything has been launched). Hence the probability of the equal in all directions red shift that is observed (where the key word is 'isotropic') to be a big bang ever happening (we are not talking at all about creation, evolution of stars ... and of species) is ... 10^-82, which is far beyond the absolute margin of impossibility for existence of whatsoever in the physical world.
7. If an ILF that is sending us psychotronic message (or prophecy or whatever) & that we cannot even understand and interpret properly, is so sure that we will fail (not because of the lack of development, but because of greed and arrogance), most probably it is not the only ILF that has failed on this.
The more one thinks over these things, the more strange it becomes.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

You may write in Google: big bang theory debunked
... and read the references there.

Or in other words, you have not read any version of the Big-Bang theory that is actually put forward by its proponents.

Herald, quoting me wrote:

Quote:
I see no evidence that there ever has been any reason, ground, or purpose to our existence in this universe

1. Does 'this universe' mean that there is another or other universes?
2. What evidences are you looking for? If you are watching through the telescope ('I see no ...') or tapping the universe with the radio telescope you will hardly find any reason, ground or purpose.
3. What is this 'ever' supposed to mean? If information in the universe is continuously lost (in the black holes for example), you cannot claim 'ever' for you are not sure what you are observing.

1. I take no position on the question how many universes there might be, or what this question even means.

2. I'm not looking for any evidence about the god conjecture. That's not how my thought process works. My process starts by looking around among the observable phenomena of the world. Then I ask myself which conjectures, if true, would help explain them. And as it turns out, the existence of a supernatural creator is not among those conjectures. I therefore eliminate this conjecture using Occam's razor. To change my mind about it, someone would have to (reproducibly) observe something that could only be explained by the existence of a supernatural creator. I haven't the slightest idea what that something might be, but I'm willing to let the theists surprise me.

3. "Ever" means "at any time". (In this case, and as a general matter, I try to use words consistently with standard American usage.) It is conceivable that there once was evidence that there is a god that has now been lost. But that doesn't change the fact I'm not seeing any such evidence now, and that the god conjecture need not be not part of my worldview now.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Poor little Carbon 12, its been going around for several billion years quietly kick starting life, and now its the ANTI CHRIST ISOTOPE.
I nominate Herald, to be our NUMBER 1 guy on the subject of NUMBER 2.

2 Replies

Why are we here?

For the poutine.

0 Replies

@Herald,

I suspect because we can won't appeal to you, but then, its the truth !

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Poor little Carbon 12 ... and now its the ANTI CHRIST ISOTOPE.

This is logical fallacy of class 'appeal to ignorance' (We have no evidence that our stupid behaviour can turn our planet into Venus (sooner than expected), therefore this option must be impossible ... somehow).

farmerman wrote:

... its been going around for several billion years quietly kick starting life

This is also misleading. If somethening has been going around quietly for BN of years this does not necessarily mean that fallen into the hands of some retards for example it cannot be turned into a disaster ... with unpredictable consequences.
The fission and fusion in the stars has also been going around quietly for BN of years, but this not necessarily mean that some people cannot make A-bomb out of these (... and enhanced readiation weapons for mass destruction).

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

... in other words, you have not read any version of the Big-Bang theory that is actually put forward by its proponents.

You cannot verify a theory with the same rationale, used for its creation.
The classical method in developing a theory usually comprises:
Step 1. Comprehend the fundamentals sciences (not only one of them, for example)
Step 2. Be very observant (not only through Hubble and the Radio telescope)
Step 3. Write down the observations (and try to understand them, ... if you cannot understand something, ask somebody who can)
Step 4. Create hypotheses (not only one hypothesis) that are plausible in explaining the observation and the facts (the big bang theory cannot explain our intelligence for example, not to say thet we don't even know what intelligence actually is)
Step 5. Choose the best explanation (to do so you should have a definition of 'the best' in the case concerned)
Step 6. Run as many verification & validation tests as you can find ( ... rather than denying the applicability of verification & validation, for example).
Even if you read a theory 'from a book', you can verify & validate what you are reading.
The greatest mistake is to accept arguments from authority as face value just because they are published in a book.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

The greatest mistake is to accept arguments from authority as face value just because they are published in a book.

Such as, for example, the ludicrous fairy tales found in the bible.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

It is very revealing that Setanta singles out the Bible for that type of infantile pronouncement. It has the look of a reflex of the type that goes looking for rubber hammers to get itself some more exercise.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Strike "bacteria". 530 million years ago, photosynthesis of any kind would have been available, be it from archaea, bacteria, or plants.

Sorry , I have missed this and it is very interesting to understand the present day situation.
You don't have anything of the kind (archea, bacteria, etc.) ... as a biotechnology to deal with the increase of the CO2, because it is not simply some bacteria feeding on CO2, it is a whole ecosystem ... in equilibrium, and you not only don't know what the ecosystem has been ... and how it has 'done the job', but also don't have almost anything sivived from it onto the present date.
Becides one cannot introduce into the biosphere (at industrial scale) anaerobic bacteria without the risk of causing a biocatastrophe. These anaerobic bacteria will not stay there in the smokestacks of the TPPs - they will be everywhere, incl. in our body metabolism at microbiology level.
If we return to the prehistoric example about the decrease of the CO2, the decrease of the CO2 from 7000 ppm to 200 ppm has happened for a period of 230 MN years, at average rate of ... 0.00003 ppm per year. Just for comparison, the speed of increase of the CO2 at present (driven mainly by the TTPs and the vehicles) is around 2 to 4 ppm per year, and the level of CO2 in the air is already steadily above 400 ppm.

2 Replies

@Herald,

What are you talking about? Sorry, I'm not so smart, but I meant to ask this:

Herald wrote:

What is the purpose of life?
Does life have meaning?
What is better: to be a person with purpose or a person without purpose ... in life?
Where are we going, where are our perspectives, where are our dreams ... where are we?
Can one believe both in Money and in God?

Whats your view on THAT?

1 Reply

@Greeny,

Greeny wrote:

What are you talking about?

If this means that you cannot understand the questions, what is the next question - Whats your view on THAT? - supposed to mean?
If you cannot understand the questions, my answer (to the questions that you don't understand) is irrelevant to you.
This is not like telling a story. The questions are similar topics and are not supposed to tell you a story and to be arranged in a sequence ... in some scenario.
Just choose one of them and say what do you think on the issue ... or why you cannot understand the question (by disputing its legibility or validity, etc.)?

Example Q: Does life have meaning?
Example A: IMV this is not a valid question, because my life has no meaning, your life has no meaning, our lives could hardly be viewed as having any meaning. We are all driven by the big bang ... and its casino 'activities', our global economy is driven by casino investors having no idea where they are going ... and we all know that a casino has no meaning, except for to rob your money and to deprive you of the opportunities in life ... etc.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

If this means that you cannot understand the questions, what is the next question - Whats your view on THAT? - supposed to mean?

No, it was meant to ask what I saw from your lastest post you replied for me, in which you "answered"(I supposed) my questions "what is the view of the starter of this thread?" by like 7 points that I cannot understand.

P/s: Sr, maybe you just answered my question, though I don't understand your "answers", I suppose it can absolutely be summed into something more simple, like, "Example Q: Does life have meaning?" can be answered by

Herald wrote:

Example A: IMV this is not a valid question, because my life has no meaning, your life has no meaning, our lives could hardly be viewed as having any meaning. We are all driven by the big bang ... etc

Instead of by:

Herald wrote:

The view of the starter is that the more one thinks over the present situation, the more strange it seems.
1. We have the technology, and the knowledge, and the know-how ... and maybe still the feasibility to overcome the energy constraints of the CO2, but most probably we will fail.
2. We will fail to make the energy switch-over not because of the lack of technology and technical feasibility, but because of greed, stupidity and arrogance ... exactly as the Bible predicts (which is rather strange).
ETC

0 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

You don't have anything of the kind (archea, bacteria, etc.) ... as a biotechnology to deal with the increase of the CO2, because it is not simply some bacteria feeding on CO2, it is a whole ecosystem ... in equilibrium, and you not only don't know what the ecosystem has been

You appear to believe that it's very hard to have negative feedback --- the phenomenon that brings ecosystem into equilibrium. But it's not. In a minimalistic, proof-of-concept, two-species ecosystem, it's as easy as fox populations multiplying, depressing rabbit populations, depressing fox populations in turn, multiplying rabbit populations in turn, multiplying fox populations in turn ad infinitum. Now add an additional species, say, carrots. Rabbits eat carrots, adding another layer of predator-pray population cycle with negative feedback. Subsequently add the whole food chain of the entire planet and watch an entire system of interlocking negative-feedback cycles emerge.

The point is that negative feedback is pervasive in nature. Your notion that it needs careful calibration, lest the ecosystem lose its equilibrium like a house of cards, is ill-supported by biological observation.

1 Reply

@Greeny,

Quote:

What is the view of the starter of this thread anyway? I'd like to know XD

No problems.

Quote:

What is the purpose of life?

Life is short - enjoy it while you can ... but always keep one in mind.

Quote:

What does 'enjoy it while you can' mean?

Life is what you make it.

Quote:

What does 'keep one in mind' mean?

It means that no one can afford to live his/her life anyway he/she chooses for there are a lot of other things that have to be considered, like for example:
- We are living on a planet with highly constrained resources (incl. potable water, arable land, fresh air, living space & energy - all are finite and limited) - handle with care. We are not alone - there are some 7 BN other people (not counting the flora & fauna). Everything is interconnected into the biosphere with other things. Any mistake, any misuse, and any highhandedness of any kind done somewhere causes automatically damages & consequences somewhere else. So this freedom to do what you like is rather deceptive.

Quote:

Does life have meaning?

Definitely yes, but it is much more interesting how far it goes: is it only to me (extreme egocentrism), is it to my family and my friends (the common understanding), is it to my home town (reasoning at mayor level), is it also to my country ('don't ask what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country') ... or at a level of the Bible (if it means anything at all) ... and the big bang (if has ever happened).

Quote:

What is better: to be a person with purpose or a person without purpose ... in life?

With purpose of course, otherwise you will start looking like the big bang theory and the casino economy.

Quote:

Where are our perspectives ... where are we?

At 180 deg.

Quote:

Can one believe both in Money and in God?

Definitely yes.
You can preach all your life ... and without any problems how deeply you believe in God, and to explain to the other people how they should believe in whatever ... and at the same time to worship the Money, only the Money and nothing else.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

You appear to believe that it's very hard to have negative feedback --- the phenomenon that brings ecosystem into equilibrium.

You have an ecosystem with unlimited freedom of experimenting ... and unlimited irresponsibility in terms of consequences - Venus.
You may send there two of your theoretical developments and try to reduce the CO2. You will see what you will see.
The things that work on paper seem much more differently in the real world.
As about the CO2 on the Earth is concerened - you don't need any nano-bacteria at all. It is enough to install solar thermal to decompose the CO2 into carbon and oxygen. The carbon goes into the soil where it should be (to enrich it as fertilizer), and the oxygen goes into the air (to repair the air quality) and everything is hunky dory.
The problem is that this is not as profitable as digging coal & oil ... to the center of the Earth.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Poor little Carbon 12, its been going around for several billion years quietly kick starting life, and now its the ANTI CHRIST ISOTOPE.

I have figured it out. The evangelicals are half right. The born-again Christians are correct that global warming is a scheme to create a world government under Antichrist, but they are wrong to claim CO2-driven global warming is a hoax. What they don't see is that Antichrist is playing both sides. He is controlling the oil companies, making them make us emit his particle (Carbon-666), and his great hope is that we will create a world government to stop the threat he has created. When we do that, he will simply take over.

http://midnightwatcher.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/666-mark-of-the-beast.jpg

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

I SAID
Poor little Carbon 12 ... and now its the ANTI CHRIST ISOTOPE.
TO WHICH YOU SAID
This is logical fallacy of class 'appeal to ignorance' (We have no evidence that our stupid behaviour can turn our planet into Venus (sooner than expected), therefore this option must be impossible ... somehow).

Youre idiotic response didn't even address my point. Are you on a controlled substance?

Quote:

The fission and fusion in the stars has also been going around quietly for BN of years, but this not necessarily mean that some people cannot make A-bomb out of these (... and enhanced readiation weapons for mass destruction).

And youre point is what? The same discoveries that led to an atomic bomb also lead to vast reserves of nergy, medical isotopes, applications in newest and brightest electronics and hybrid computers, ultra accurte clock nd maps of extreme accuracy.

Dynamite was discovered by accident nd was seen s a means to "Stop wars" and have all sorts of applications in industry.

You seem to be a luddite who feels that with "My ole time religion, I don't need nuthin else." Hows that "off the grid "existence working for you.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

You cannot verify a theory with the same rationale, used for its creation

You seem to want to use bold concepts but without any understanding of what youre even saying. Big Bang was compiled as a possible "theory" that fit its EVIDENCE, not the other way around. A Biblical story of creation and "orderly ppearance of life" is a prime example of evidence-free assertion , don't you agree?

0 Replies

Why are we here?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know