This little selection is from a speech Sean Carroll, theoretical physicist, gave at a Freedom From Religion function recently.
So as the early atmosphere and the early oceans sloshed about, occasionally there would fluctuate into existence just the right thing to do all the chemical reactions in the right place. Increasing the entropy of the atmosphere that caught on and became the first living being. That's what life is. That insight is crucial, not only to the scientific definition of life but to our actual lives.
This is the thing that the audience didn't understand when Steven Avella and I were debating Eben Alexander and Raymond Moody. The thing they didn't get the most was, "But when you die, where do you go? Isn't energy conserved, don't you have energy, doesn't it go somewhere?" The answer is that life is not an energy, a force, a spirit, a substance. It is a process. It is a chemical reaction.
The end of a life is putting out a candle. When you put out a candle, the energy doesn't go anywhere. The reaction stops. When you die, you don't go anywhere. Your atoms are still there, with all of their energy, but you stop happening. That's what it means to die. It will happen to you. If you wait long enough, we will all reach equilibrium.
It's very possible, by the way, that medical science will extend our lives by an enormous amount. It's not at all in violation of the laws of physics for human beings to live thousands or tens of thousands of years. But we are not there yet.
We, like other mammals on Earth, get roughly 1.5 billion heartbeats per life span. Then that will be it and you will go away. This is why the afterlife is a false consolation. This is why this wishful thinking, this hope that life is eternal and will go on forever, is not the right hope to have. This is why I like to say that heaven is a bad idea.
Just like [previous speaker] Anthony Pinn pointed out, this wisdom can be found in poets and songwriters. Heaven is a bad idea because you reach thermal equilibrium and nothing happens. It's boring! David Byrne knows this: "Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens." Leonard Cohen knows this: "The place was dead as heaven on a Saturday night."
I'd much rather be spending my Saturday night with the infidels talking about things than in heaven with the angels.
There is a fantastic novel written by Julian Barnes called A History of the World in 10½ Chapters. In the last chapter, he puts forth his idea of heaven, in fictional form. And there's always a catch if you're in a novel version of heaven, right? His hero, who is sort of a working-class, blue-collar British duffer, dies and goes to heaven. He has a guide who explains, basically, here's how it works: It's heaven, you can have whatever you want. The catch is that you have to figure out what you want. It is up to your imagination and capabilities to ask for things. We're not going to make suggestions.
This guy knew what he wanted. He wanted to play golf, he wanted to have sex, and he wanted to have breakfast for three meals a day. So that's exactly what he got. For hundreds of years he became very good at it. He had sex with all sorts of women in various different combinations. He became so good at golf that he got a hole-in-one on every single shot on every single course in heaven.
Then he got bored and told his guide about it. The guide said, "Well, everyone has the option here of dying, of truly ending their lives."
"How many people ask for that option?" The guide responded, "Everybody asks for that option, eventually."
What really struck me was when he indicated that life is not a thing or a state--it is a process. I used to think each of us are a bundle of energy and since energy is not gained nor lost, 'we' must go somewhere. But like a candle going out, so do we. The process stops. And that is that.
And I appreciate what he had to say about happiness. If one strives for happiness all the time, one is destined to become bored. If one does as Joseph Campbell suggests, and follow one's bliss in life, happiness and contentment will be a byproduct of that process.
I always thought most Christian notions of Heaven sounded like Hell. Even if it was paradise and might be cool for the first few centuries and you'd get to see all your dead loved ones and whatnot, it would get old. It's like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day, where continued life (or afterlife) is just continued agony.
Personally I'd lean more toward reincarnation. People get recycled, and have another go at life. As someone different.
Heaven sounds kind of dull. Not just because it's eternity, but it seems like it's just worshiping god all the time. Which sounds like hell. A cooler heaven would be getting to be god of your own little world I think. Maybe that's what we're living in. Someone else's heaven right now.
Quote from: TomFoolery on August 31, 2015, 11:39:01 AM
I always thought most Christian notions of Heaven sounded like Hell. Even if it was paradise and might be cool for the first few centuries and you'd get to see all your dead loved ones and whatnot, it would get old. It's like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day, where continued life (or afterlife) is just continued agony.
That was my thought about that, as well. I especially like Mark Twain's thoughts on heaven in Letter's From Earth. It had to be published after his death and is a satirical look at christianity thru the eyes of satan who was banished from heaven to Earth for a celestial day (1000 yrs) via letters to the Arch Angel Michael in heaven. Great stuff!
when we die, it will be like when we sleep at night without dreaming. absolute nothingness.
or
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on August 31, 2015, 12:21:16 PM
when we die, it will be like when we sleep at night without dreaming. absolute nothingness.
or
Yeah, I think you are right. As for the 'or'--my mother told me she would come back and tell me what's what after death. (No, she was not a believer--but she did have a good sense of humor) So far, nothing. But I'm not hanging around with a great deal of anticipation, either. But I tell you what--when I kick the bucket, if I can, I will come back to this board and tell you guys what's up.
: )
i would write after ''or'': i don't know either you had an operation(surgery) or not. it's similar to death experience when you are under the influence of narcosis and lose consciousness. i know this situation.
Everyone knows the "little death" of sleep. Time is neither linear nor circular ... but more complicated. Abrahamic time forces us to go from point A to point B. And Indian time forces us to go in circles until we move off the circumference of the wheel, to the axel of the wheel. Indians (Hindu/Buddhist) differ as to what the axel is like. So I prefer Chuang Tzu ... death, after a little rest, is like waking up. The prior life is like a dream. But what you wake up to, isn't necessarily some existence on Earth.
There is no past or future, just the present ... and for each of us, it is centered on our selves. The usual Heaven/Hell are just projections and dreams ... Heaven is an emotion not a place ... happiness ... and Hell is an emotion not a place ... sadness. Heaven and Hell are realized in the present.
It will be peaceful, with no pain and no regrets. This world can do its worst to me now, but once I'm gone you can all do whatever the fuck you want because I won't be there, I won't care! If I had my druthers, I'd be left naked and ass-up on the steps of my State Capitol, so that all may kiss it, but sadly I know I'll have no satisfaction should that happen.
Riverworld
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverworld
Quote from: stromboli on August 31, 2015, 03:03:43 PM
Riverworld
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverworld
I have been threatening to read that series. Have you? Is it worth the time and effort to start it?
Death will be like being under anesthesia, its black, there are no thoughts and right before you wake up…you don't . So its like that, except forever and ever and ever -amen
I didnt encounter a single problem with non existence for billions of years, theres no reason to think it would be a problem again in the future.
Quote from: Cocoa Beware on August 31, 2015, 03:44:29 PM
I didnt encounter a single problem with non existence for billions of years, theres no reason to think it would be a problem again in the future.
Now see here! The thing is that this is obviously your FIRST life…see, now you does to sit around for a couple hours or years and let the universe inject it's essence into you, you become ONE with the ONE and the ONE becomes da ALL. Got dat? Now that the universe has become part of your essence your atoms and corpuscles and all get up and hibbity jibbity with the wholeness of the plasmic consicuoness thingy. See? Then your quantum magical underwear give yo a great peace and knowledge of the universe and beyond. You will at once be the universe, part of the universe and a right little dab of the universe all at the same time. Dat shit is what they call the quam,..or quango, or duwhopditty. So the yingin and the yangin gets to combusticatin until the whole damn fine ego centricist of your essence is a blaze with knowledge. Then once you reach the ultimate of the 20 or 30 reincarnation shit, THEN, and ONLY THEN do you die…..and then its over. Jes like dat.
Quote from: Baruch on August 31, 2015, 12:57:24 PM
Time is neither linear nor circular
But it curves, so how can it not be circular. I don't believe it is a closed loop or flat circle like the Buddhists or Nietzsche but I do believe there is strong evidence that it curves and therefore is sort of circular.
We live, become conscious and experience life, then old and unconscious not experiencing anything, then die. What possibly could change? No one ever in the history of living animals, and us, has gone into rigor and lived after words! None, nada, no matter how much we wish and pray for it to not be true, the finger of fate writes, and no matter how much crying and weeping it could care less. Have a nice day everyone! :flowers:
Quote from: Cocoa Beware on August 31, 2015, 03:44:29 PM
I didnt encounter a single problem with non existence for billions of years, theres no reason to think it would be a problem again in the future.
Until you are on a hospital bed slowly dying of cancer, then it becomes a problem.
The undiscovered country from whose bourn
No traveler returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all
Quote from: CrucifyCindy on August 31, 2015, 04:09:46 PM
But it curves, so how can it not be circular. I don't believe it is a closed loop or flat circle like the Buddhists or Nietzsche but I do believe there is strong evidence that it curves and therefore is sort of circular.
Well, if it's neither linear nor circular, then it cannot curve - otherwise it would be bother circular
and linear! Therefore, it must be either triangular or rectangular.
Woo...
WOOO!!!!!
:surprised:
:cool:
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on August 31, 2015, 04:55:09 PM
Well, if it's neither linear nor circular, then it cannot curve - otherwise it would be bother circular and linear! Therefore, it must be either triangular or rectangular.
Woo...
WOOO!!!!!
:surprised:
:cool:
Einstien said it curves, he wrote it, I believe it and thst is all there is to it.
Quote from: CrucifyCindy on August 31, 2015, 04:52:14 PM
Until you are on a hospital bed slowly dying of cancer, then it becomes a problem.
The undiscovered country from whose bourn
No traveler returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all
Fear of death has proven to be the ultimate survival mechanism, but you still speak of things that would be happening while you were still alive.
I'm just saying that ultimately there is no rational reason for it.
Quote from: CrucifyCindy on August 31, 2015, 05:01:34 PM
Einstien said it curves, he wrote it, I believe it and thst is all there is to it.
Oh, but now you're spouting blind faith in empirical science (if I had a dollar for every time I heard that from a theist)!
I think energy gets recycled into a new life form. Like reincarnation except more like electricity flowing from one atom to the next.
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on August 31, 2015, 05:05:46 PM
Oh, but now you're spouting blind faith in empirical science (if I had a dollar for every time I heard that from a theist)!
It is not blind faith...it is the evidence. According to the evidence Einstien gives...time curves.
Quote from: Cocoa Beware on August 31, 2015, 05:05:38 PM
I'm just saying that ultimately there is no rational reason for it.
I don't think there is a rational reason for anything to tell the truth. As a theist I think that not only must the gods must be crazy but they must be psychopaths because this shit is absolutely bizarre. If you are going to make a universe why make it like this?
I didn't exist until I was conscious, and I wasn't conscious until I had brain, and I didn't have a brain until I had a body----who in the hell is the I I'm talking about? Really, that is an hell of an important question to be answered. It has been said that by asking that kind of question there is a special place in hell for those that do. :madu: I personally can't think of anything that could be more hellish than never being able to die. There are more things in life that are hellish than in your philosophy Horatio. I have never felt bad for a dead person, whatever that means, and only one alive in pain and agony with feelings of horror like those in a mental hospital. Loved ones suffer, and the more love, the more suffering, and God is love, and love is pain. :eek:
Quote from: Solitary on August 31, 2015, 05:17:19 PM
I didn't exist until I was conscious, and I wasn't conscious until I had brain, and I didn't have a brain until I had a body----who in the hell is the I I'm talking about? Really, that is an hell of an important question to be answered. It has been said that by asking that kind of question there is a special place in hell for those that do. :madu: I personally can't think of anything that could be more hellish than never being able to die. There are more things in life that are hellish than in your philosophy Horatio. I have never felt bad for a dead person, whatever that means, and only one alive in pain and agony with feelings of horror like those in a mental hospital. Loved ones suffer, and the more love, the more suffering, and God is love, and love is pain. :eek:
I have asked that question to several peoplw.."why would you want to live forever?", doesn't seem like a prospect I would enjoy.
If (big if) human beings possess something (soul, spirit, or whatever else you would like to call it) that does not have its source in nature, then one can incur that this "something" will survive physical death as it is not subject to decomposition which is associated with nature. Think of it as the light reflected in the mirror. You can break the mirror but it will have no effect on the light.
Quote from: thebesttrees on August 31, 2015, 05:31:08 PM
If (big if) human beings possess something (soul, spirit, or whatever else you would like to call it) that does not have its source in nature, then one can incur that this "something" will survive physical death as it is not subject to decomposition which is associated with nature. Think of it as the light reflected in the mirror. You can break the mirror but it will have no effect on the light.
Why postulate on that "if", why not just deal with what we know...we are all going to die. Someday our being, our self and our history will end.
Quote from: CrucifyCindy on August 31, 2015, 05:36:25 PM
Why postulate on that "if", why not just deal with what we know...we are all going to die. Someday our being, our self and our history will end.
There are some things about us that I have a hard time finding the source of in nature. I have free will which I cannot find in nature. How was nature able to give us free will when it did not have it in the first place?
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 31, 2015, 03:07:32 PM
I have been threatening to read that series. Have you? Is it worth the time and effort to start it?
Yes. Old series, Farmer is dead, should be cheap. Read the series starting with "To Your Scattered Bodies Go" novella in Fantasy magazine. Then they made a series out of it, 3 books. In the first book the protagonist is Sir Richard Francis Burton reincarnated, to give you some idea.
We die and then we are dead. We don't exist any more. That's all.
Quote from: CrucifyCindy on August 31, 2015, 05:15:37 PM
I don't think there is a rational reason for anything to tell the truth. As a theist I think that not only must the gods must be crazy but they must be psychopaths because this shit is absolutely bizarre. If you are going to make a universe why make it like this?
Very interesting!! I believe exactly like that. But that belief leads me to think there are not any god/gods, rather than there are gods and they are crazy. For me, I have never seen a single fact that leads me to accept anything as divine. But I have seen many facts that lead me to think are no gods. Why do you think there are god/gods???
Quote from: thebesttrees on August 31, 2015, 05:31:08 PM
If (big if) human beings possess something (soul, spirit, or whatever else you would like to call it) that does not have its source in nature, then one can incur that this "something" will survive physical death as it is not subject to decomposition which is associated with nature. Think of it as the light reflected in the mirror. You can break the mirror but it will have no effect on the light.
Yes, I agree with what you said. But that only goes so far--I have not seen any evidence of any kind that suggests that such a thing exists in any way, shape or form. I have seen some evidence that the human body does not possess such a thing. And I don't think there is anything outside nature. If it exists, it is natural. If it is not natural it does not exist--an nothing can exist outside nature.
Quote from: stromboli on August 31, 2015, 05:58:11 PM
Yes. Old series, Farmer is dead, should be cheap. Read the series starting with "To Your Scattered Bodies Go" novella in Fantasy magazine. Then they made a series out of it, 3 books. In the first book the protagonist is Sir Richard Francis Burton reincarnated, to give you some idea.
Thanks, Strom, I will, indeed look the series up and get it. We have a great second hand bookstore here and I should be able to find it there.
Quote from: thebesttrees on August 31, 2015, 05:31:08 PM
If (big if) human beings possess something (soul, spirit, or whatever else you would like to call it) that does not have its source in nature, then one can incur that this "something" will survive physical death as it is not subject to decomposition which is associated with nature. Think of it as the light reflected in the mirror. You can break the mirror but it will have no effect on the light.
Hey, trees, why not go to the intro section and tell us a little about yourself--if you are going to stay awhile, that is. I'm sure you would be a welcome addition to our little world.
Quote from: CrucifyCindy on August 31, 2015, 05:15:37 PM
I don't think there is a rational reason for anything to tell the truth. As a theist I think that not only must the gods must be crazy but they must be psychopaths because this shit is absolutely bizarre. If you are going to make a universe why make it like this?
Maybe these "gods" are just bizarre aliens conducting some kind of experiment? I thought about writing a book like that once.
I enjoyed Riverworld on TV in 2003. I had read a little of one of the books before that.
So when you die, you are gone. But "you" is just a role you are playing. When the player leaves the stage after the character he is playing dies, does the actor die? The question I have is how many masks are each of us wearing ... actor within actor ... or is it masks all the way down ;-)
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 31, 2015, 06:05:52 PM
Very interesting!! I believe exactly like that. But that belief leads me to think there are not any god/gods, rather than there are gods and they are crazy. For me, I have never seen a single fact that leads me to accept anything as divine. But I have seen many facts that lead me to think are no gods. Why do you think there are god/gods???
Well in my point of view I only describe something as divine as something as "All Powerful", other theists might define divinity as "All Powerful and All Good and All Knowing", but I don't do that. When I say "God" I am describing a force that is "All Powerful"
Quote from: CrucifyCindy on August 31, 2015, 06:59:27 PM
Well in my point of view I only describe something as divine as something as "All Powerful", other theists might define divinity as "All Powerful and All Good and All Knowing", but I don't do that. When I say "God" I am describing a force that is "All Powerful"
There is a simple model in metaphysics. There is potentiality and actuality. Not everything that is potential, happens. But anything that actually happens, was potentially actual in the first place. So what does omnipotence mean? It isn't about force per unit time (power) ... it is about this model. Omnipotent means that a god is capable of anything ... the potentiality is unlimited (particularly in time and space, but in other ways). The G-d of the Bible is clearly not omnipotent (see Genesis 1-2). Not even omniscient. But a very potent Being could be the potentiality from which all actual beings arise in actuality. In a small way, we see this in physics, where potential energy is converted to kinetic energy, in a child's swing.
Quote from: Baruch on August 31, 2015, 07:04:24 PM
There is a simple model in metaphysics. There is potentiality and actuality. Not everything that is potential, happens. But anything that actually happens, was potentially actual in the first place. So what does omnipotence mean? It isn't about force per unit time (power) ... it is about this model. Omnipotent means that a god is capable of anything ... the potentiality is unlimited (particularly in time and space, but in other ways). The G-d of the Bible is clearly not omnipotent (see Genesis 1-2). Not even omniscient. But a very potent Being could be the potentiality from which all actual beings arise in actuality. In a small way, we see this in physics, where potential energy is converted to kinetic energy, in a child's swing.
Where death converts life into more death
Quote from: CrucifyCindy on August 31, 2015, 07:29:50 PM
Where death converts life into more death
Pessimism and optimism are the same. Where life converts death into more life ... like the vision of the dead soldier in that recent version of John of Arc.
Quote from: CrucifyCindy on August 31, 2015, 06:59:27 PM
Well in my point of view I only describe something as divine as something as "All Powerful", other theists might define divinity as "All Powerful and All Good and All Knowing", but I don't do that. When I say "God" I am describing a force that is "All Powerful"
Okay, with you so far. How do you know that there is an 'all powerful' force?
Quote from: Baruch on August 31, 2015, 06:50:04 PM
I enjoyed Riverworld on TV in 2003. I had read a little of one of the books before that.
So when you die, you are gone. But "you" is just a role you are playing. When the player leaves the stage after the character he is playing dies, does the actor die? The question I have is how many masks are each of us wearing ... actor within actor ... or is it masks all the way down ;-)
Most likely masks all the way down. And then when we die, all those masks just hang around and clutter up the place.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 31, 2015, 07:44:52 PM
Okay, with you so far. How do you know that there is an 'all powerful' force?
An immovable object told her ;-P
Quote from: CrucifyCindy on August 31, 2015, 07:29:50 PM
Where death converts life into more death
I don't know how long it would take me to google this, but I recall somebody explaining how the arising of life makes sense according to the laws of thermodynamics. Life forms don't just consume energy, they all in some way re-radiate energy out of the atmosphere, and back into space. To make it really brief and without attempting to explain it beyond my understanding, plants take energy from the rocks, animals take energy from the plants, energy is extracted for more efficient re-radiation out. Because the Earth isn't really a closed system, as say the creationists who love to harp on the 2nd Law, and the true physical laws will be obeyed!
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 31, 2015, 07:44:52 PM
Okay, with you so far. How do you know that there is an 'all powerful' force?
We are all going to die.
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on August 31, 2015, 07:54:00 PM
I don't know how long it would take me to google this, but I recall somebody explaining how the arising of life makes sense according to the laws of thermodynamics. Life forms don't just consume energy, they all in some way re-radiate energy out of the atmosphere, and back into space. To make it really brief and without attempting to explain it beyond my understanding, plants take energy from the rocks, animals take energy from the plants, energy is extracted for more efficient re-radiation out. Because the Earth isn't really a closed system, as say the creationists who love to harp on the 2nd Law, and the true physical laws will be obeyed!
This is what Sean Carroll has to say about it:
The reason why we are here and life arose on Earth is because the sun is a hot spot in a cold sky. What matters is not that we get energy from the sun, but that we get low-entropy energy. Orderly energy, which is able to do useful work. We chew our cuds and we photosynthesize and we have conventions, all of which degrades that energy. We raise its entropy and then we send it back to the universe.
For every one photon of light we get from the sun, we radiate 20 photons back into the universe, with 20 times the entropy. We give exactly as much energy back to the universe as we get: On average, each photon we radiate out into the sky has one-twentieth the energy of the ones we receive. What matters is not that the sun is a source of energy but that it's a source of energy in a low-entropy form.
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on August 31, 2015, 07:54:00 PM
I don't know how long it would take me to google this, but I recall somebody explaining how the arising of life makes sense according to the laws of thermodynamics. Life forms don't just consume energy, they all in some way re-radiate energy out of the atmosphere, and back into space. To make it really brief and without attempting to explain it beyond my understanding, plants take energy from the rocks, animals take energy from the plants, energy is extracted for more efficient re-radiation out. Because the Earth isn't really a closed system, as say the creationists who love to harp on the 2nd Law, and the true physical laws will be obeyed!
Personally I dont think we give life enough credit;
It really is a fascinating, efficient and clever system plants and animals have collectively come up with.
Quote from: Cocoa Beware on August 31, 2015, 08:38:30 PM
Personally I dont think we give life enough credit;
What more credit can you give it? We all suffer then we die.
Quote from: Cocoa Beware on August 31, 2015, 08:38:30 PM
Personally I dont think we give life enough credit;
It really is a fascinating, efficient and clever system plants and animals have collectively come up with.
And beyond cruel at times, as well.
Quote from: Baruch on August 31, 2015, 07:46:16 PM
An immovable object told her ;-P
Nah...an iresistable force told me.
Quote from: CrucifyCindy on August 31, 2015, 09:01:12 PM
Nah...an iresistable force told me.
I know of only two irresistible forces in the universe--ice cream and the New York Yankees. Where and when did your irresistible force meet up with you?
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 31, 2015, 09:05:42 PM
I know of only two irresistible forces in the universe--ice cream and the New York Yankees. Where and when did your irresistible force meet up with you?
When I first came into awareness of such things as death and entropy
Quote from: CrucifyCindy on August 31, 2015, 09:13:57 PM
When I first came into awareness of such things as death and entropy
I am quite aware of death and entropy. But that is part of what convinced me there is no god--only nature and that's it.
Seems like we look at the same things and come up with opposed ideas.
Quote from: CrucifyCindy on August 31, 2015, 06:59:27 PM
Well in my point of view I only describe something as divine as something as "All Powerful", other theists might define divinity as "All Powerful and All Good and All Knowing", but I don't do that. When I say "God" I am describing a force that is "All Powerful"
that's great we can all speculate on what god is or isn't. No matter how you define a god or gods there is 0 evidence that they exist. When you present some evidence then come talk to me.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 31, 2015, 06:09:50 PM
Yes, I agree with what you said. But that only goes so far--I have not seen any evidence of any kind that suggests that such a thing exists in any way, shape or form. I have seen some evidence that the human body does not possess such a thing. And I don't think there is anything outside nature. If it exists, it is natural. If it is not natural it does not exist--an nothing can exist outside nature.
1. Is it admissible logically to attribute an unknown source to an effect/outcome when every known source is discounted? If O is the outcome, and all known sources are S then a subset of S has caused O. If however, the whole set of S is discounted as yielding O, then O should have another source outside of S. Is this a logical approach?
2.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 31, 2015, 06:09:50 PM
I have seen some evidence that the human body does not possess such a thing.
Please share some of this evidence.
Quote from: doorknob on August 31, 2015, 10:04:07 PM
that's great we can all speculate on what god is or isn't. No matter how you define a god or gods there is 0 evidence that they exist. When you present some evidence then come talk to me.
Like I said God is how I describe an All Powerful force like death. You want evidence of that? Ask me that question on your death bed...then come talk to me
Quote from: CrucifyCindy on August 31, 2015, 10:10:13 PM
Like I said God is how I describe an All Powerful force like death. You want evidence of that? Ask me that question on your death bed...then come talk to me
that is not evidence of anything that is just you redefining what god is or your opinion of what god is nice try. And no death is not a force it is a natural out come of the life cycle.
Quote from: doorknob on August 31, 2015, 10:13:21 PM
that is not evidence of anything that is just you redefining what god is or your opinion of what god is nice try. And no death is not a force it is a natural out come of the life cycle.
You know as a pessimist I could accuse you of redefining life as a natural outcome of the death cycle Once again our words describe thing and are not actually the things themselves. I see death and entropy as an irresistable force...you may be more optimistic.
Quote from: CrucifyCindy on August 31, 2015, 10:10:13 PM
Like I said God is how I describe an All Powerful force like death. You want evidence of that? Ask me that question on your death bed...then come talk to me
I don't see death as an all powerful force. It is the result of a process. This universe started out in balance and it will end up in balance. Between those two times, there will be unbalance in the universe and that is what accounts for the process we call life. It is totally natural and we can learn more of it's nature by discovering it's physical laws. There is no room for an outside force--and no need. All can be accounted for by nature much more easily than by a god or gods.
And if I'm on my death bed, I don't think I'll be able to come and find you. But if I were, what about dying would change my mind?
Quote from: CrucifyCindy on August 31, 2015, 10:21:26 PM
You know as a pessimist I could accuse you of redefining life as a natural outcome of the death cycle Once again our words describe thing and are not actually the things themselves. I see death and entropy as an irresistable force...you may be more optimistic.
Death and entropy are part of the process of the universe that causes life. As Sean Carroll, theoretical physicist says:
The answer, as he quite correctly puts it, relies on my favorite law of physics, the second law of thermodynamics. This law says that the entropy of the universe or of any closed isolated bit of the universe increases as time goes on.
Entropy is simply a measure of the disorderliness, the messiness, the chaotic nature of stuff. If you start with an unbroken egg, it is easy to break the egg. That makes it more disorderly and disorganized. It's easy to turn that broken egg into scrambled eggs. Again, more disorganized. It's very difficult and would never happen by itself to take the scrambled egg and make it back into the pristine form of an unbroken egg, Humpty Dumpty notwithstanding. This law is very profound and captures people's imaginations.
At a scientific level, it also captures the imagination of creationists. They say, look, there is a fundamental law of physics. You're telling us, one of the famous laws of 19th century science says that things run down, that things become less and less organized over time, that ultimately the universe will reach "heat death." Yet you expect me to believe that all of the marvelous complexity of life and the biosphere and this evolution that you guys talk about all just happened starting from some disorderly primordial goo. How is that possible?
There is a simple and perfectly correct answer, which focuses on the phrase "isolated systems." The Earth is not an isolated system. T
But there's another question, somewhat more subtle. It doesn't seem to violate the letter of the second law of thermodynamics for life to arise on Earth. But does it violate the spirit of the law? Why is it that complicated elaborate complex organisms arose just through the impersonal working out of the fundamental law of physics? If there is no guidance there, if anything, the tendency seems to be towards messy disorder.
So visualize life here on Earth, a lively landscape on a sunny day. The sun is a hot spot in a cold sky. If the whole sky were the same temperature as the sun, Earth would get a lot more energy. Energy is good. But the Earth would soon come to be the temperature of the sun, and we would all die. On the other hand, if the whole sky were the temperature of the night sky, the Earth would come to be the temperature of the night sky â€" and we would all die.
Why life arose
The reason why we are here and life arose on Earth is because the sun is a hot spot in a cold sky. What matters is not that we get energy from the sun, but that we get low-entropy energy. Orderly energy, which is able to do useful work. We chew our cuds and we photosynthesize and we have conventions, all of which degrades that energy. We raise its entropy and then we send it back to the universe.
For every one photon of light we get from the sun, we radiate 20 photons back into the universe, with 20 times the entropy. We give exactly as much energy back to the universe as we get: On average, each photon we radiate out into the sky has one-twentieth the energy of the ones we receive. What matters is not that the sun is a source of energy but that it's a source of energy in a low-entropy form.
This is not just here in our biosphere. This is something that is characteristic of the universe as a whole. Let me remind you of the history of the universe. If you took a picture of the universe one second after the Big Bang, it would simply be a featureless bright glow in all directions. Sometimes you'll see the Big Bang, which happened 13.8 billion years ago, portrayed as like a bright dot on a black background. That is completely wrong. That makes you think that the Big Bang was an event with a location at a place in a preexisting space/time, which is not right. The Big Bang is the whole universe beginning. One second after the Big Bang, the universe was hot, it was dense, it was smooth, and it was the same everywhere. It was shining with a brightness of, I don't know, some really bright thing.
We can take a snapshot of the universe 380,000 years after the Big Bang. This is the moment when the universe became transparent. The radiation from that moment, the cosmic microwave background, has been imaged by astronomers. And what we see is the gradual formation of structure. The universe is growing increasingly lumpy and inhomogeneous. Some spots are a little bit emptier, other spots are a little bit heavier, a little denser. And if you go on, gravity increases the contrast of the universe, until we get the wonderful collection of galaxies and stars and superclusters we see in the current universe.
We now live roughly 10 billion years after the Big Bang. (Really it's about 13.8 billion years, but only the order of magnitude concerns us for now.) We live in a world with hundreds of billions of galaxies, and who knows how many conventions are going on with extraterrestrials fighting to keep church and state separate in their local environment. The universe will continue to evolve, even after we're not here.
Above us only space
Now picture the universe 1 quadrillion years (1 followed by 15 zeros) after the Big Bang. Ultimately the stars will burn out. After about a quadrillion years, the last star will stop shining. We'll have nothing in the universe but cold rocks and black holes. But even that will not be the end. Because all those rocks, those planets, those dead stars, those comets, will fall into the black holes.
Stephen Hawking in the 1970s taught us that black holes do not last forever. They give off radiation, they will evaporate and will eventually disappear. That will take one googol (1 followed by 100 zeros) years. The last black hole will have evaporated and there will be nothing left but empty space. Our best current model is that empty space lasts forever, infinity years into the future.
That's the history of the universe. I want you to notice something about this story. Entropy increases as the universe expands, so soon after the Big Bang, the fact that the universe was very smooth was actually in that physical circumstance a reflection of the fact that it's very orderly. It was so dense and the gravity was so strong that keeping everything smooth is a very rare and finely tuned state of affairs. Entropy grows as the universe expands, structure forms, stars shine, people live and die, and eventually you reach empty space. Which turns out, if you go to the math, to be a very high-entropy state.
But complexity, the organization of the stuff that is going on, is a completely different thing from entropy. In the beginning, the universe was a very simple place, just hot and dense and smooth. And the end, a googol years from now, the universe will be a simple place once again. It will be empty space. It is between when the entropy is increasing from low to high that the universe became complex, forming planets and stars and galaxies and living organisms.
That behavior is not an accident. That is a universal way that complexity behaves. Entropy just goes up, but complexity first goes up and then fades away once you approach the final state, which we call thermal equilibrium. So the right answer to the creationists is that not only is it allowed by the second law of thermodynamics â€" that complex structures like living beings arose here on Earth â€" but the reason why is because of the second of thermodynamics. We are parasitic upon the increase of entropy of the universe.
We are little surfers riding a wave of entropy until we eventually scuttle up on shore, and it'll just be empty space forever. And again, the universe is not special, you can see this in a cup of coffee. You take a cup of coffee with the cream separate, that's low entropy. Highly organized but also very simple. If you mix them together, it is high entropy, everything mixed together but also very simple.
It's the "in between" when you see the tendrils of the cream reaching into the coffee and swirling in little complex patterns. That's when you get the complexity of the universe. These little swirls, these little ethereal bits of complexity that are caught between the simple beginning and the simple end. That's us. That's what we are, temporary eruptions of structure and organization as the universe goes from simplicity to simplicity.
So, if you wanted to read all that, then you will see that life is just a part of the process of the universe--just as death is. Entropy and complexity occur in some places as the universe changes from all energy to no energy. It is all a process and there is no need for a force, or god or gods to explain any of it.
Quote from: thebesttrees on August 31, 2015, 10:06:27 PM
1. Is it admissible logically to attribute an unknown source to an effect/outcome when every known source is discounted? If O is the outcome, and all known sources are S then a subset of S has caused O. If however, the whole set of S is discounted as yielding O, then O should have another source outside of S. Is this a logical approach?
2.
Please share some of this evidence.
1. You lost me. I get all tangled in the 'logical approach'. Could you break that down in English? I will say this. All that the universe is, all that it contains is natural. And nothing exists outside of nature. There is no supernatural. To say that god exists outside of nature is wishful or sloppy thinking. There is not one speck of evidence that anything outside of nature exists. None.
2. To give a full answer I'll have to dig up old sources. But, there have been several attempts to measure the weight of the soul, for instance. The weight of the living person and the dead person did not change. Modern brain researchers have searched for a structure of the soul or attempted to find where it may reside and to no avail. There just is no evidence that such a thing as the soul exists. There is evidence that 'we' exist as 'us' within our brain. And when we die the atoms of the brain do not store the 'we' that makes us the unique being we are. Like a candle that goes out, when we die, we die and the process that was our life stops. That's it.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 31, 2015, 10:48:48 PM
1. You lost me. I get all tangled in the 'logical approach'. Could you break that down in English? I will say this. All that the universe is, all that it contains is natural. And nothing exists outside of nature. There is no supernatural. To say that god exists outside of nature is wishful or sloppy thinking. There is not one speck of evidence that anything outside of nature exists. None. I do not know what this discussion has to do with god and why you bring up god. Let me give you an example and hopefully this helps. I am walking in the desert and I see some markings (effect) in the sand. I am able to formulate some guesses as to what or who might have caused these markings (effect). It could have been left by a dog, or a car, or a camel or perhaps made by the sun. Hence nature is the source (cause) of these markings (effect). My question to you is this: Is it possible to find an effect that cannot have nature as its cause or source? Yes or no?
2. To give a full answer I'll have to dig up old sources. But, there have been several attempts to measure the weight of the soul, for instance. The weight of the living person and the dead person did not change. Modern brain researchers have searched for a structure of the soul or attempted to find where it may reside and to no avail. There just is no evidence that such a thing as the soul exists. There is evidence that 'we' exist as 'us' within our brain. And when we die the atoms of the brain do not store the 'we' that makes us the unique being we are. Like a candle that goes out, when we die, we die and the process that was our life stops. That's it. Thank you
Quote from: thebesttrees on August 31, 2015, 11:23:30 PM
You said: I do not know what this discussion has to do with god and why you bring up god. Let me give you an example and hopefully this helps. I am walking in the desert and I see some markings (effect) in the sand. I am able to formulate some guesses as to what or who might have caused these markings (effect). It could have been left by a dog, or a car, or a camel or perhaps made by the sun. Hence nature is the source (cause) of these markings (effect). My question to you is this: Is it possible to find an effect that cannot have nature as its cause or source? Yes or no?
Me--No. Why god? Because, usually when one asks if there is anything supernatural, they are pointing toward god/gods. I don't know if this applies to you or not. As for nature--that all there is. There is no supernatural. All that occurs and is not man made, is nature. (and because man is of nature--all is nature.)
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 31, 2015, 11:34:21 PM
You said: I do not know what this discussion has to do with god and why you bring up god. Let me give you an example and hopefully this helps. I am walking in the desert and I see some markings (effect) in the sand. I am able to formulate some guesses as to what or who might have caused these markings (effect). It could have been left by a dog, or a car, or a camel or perhaps made by the sun. Hence nature is the source (cause) of these markings (effect). My question to you is this: Is it possible to find an effect that cannot have nature as its cause or source? Yes or no?
Me--No. Why god? Because, usually when one asks if there is anything supernatural, they are pointing toward god/gods. I don't know if this applies to you or not. As for nature--that all there is. There is no supernatural. All that occurs and is not man made, is nature. (and because man is of nature--all is nature.)
Now let me ask a question if you do not mind.
There was a point in time that there was no man on earth. In other words, the creature know as man did not exist let's say two million years ago. Man gradually came into existence. Just like the fetus which goes through so many stages of development over nine months, so did man over tens of thousands or perhaps millions of years. Do you agree with this assessment?
thebesttrees - "Is it admissible logically to attribute an unknown source to an effect/outcome when every known source is discounted? If O is the outcome, and all known sources are S then a subset of S has caused O. If however, the whole set of S is discounted as yielding O, then O should have another source outside of S. Is this a logical approach?" May I give a complete analysis?
We are assuming a cause/effect scenario, with an option that the whole is greater than the parts? We are assuming human knowledge is incomplete? Assuming this is so ... then of course we can admit that there is an unknown source.
As Rumsfeld, a known expert on epistemology said ... known knowns, un-kown knowns, known un-knowns and un-known un-knowns ... exhausts the Venn diagram. What is a known known is a cause/effect pair where both are known. What is a un-known known is an effect missing a cause (the point you made). Every effect has a cause and every cause has an effect. What is a known un-known is a cause missing an effect. What is a un-known un-known is something that is outside any known scenario.
Now accepting that a set has a property that a subset does not, is allowable, if the subset is a proper subset. Because a set is defined by its members, and a member is defined as having characteristics that define its subset. But that means that if a set has a proper subset, then there has to be more than one subset in the set, a subset that has different characteristics than the original one. The set can then be defined as simply having those two subsets, each defined as before. So I am assuming that the two subsets are defined as having no common member (intersection is the null set). So for example, the irrational numbers and the rational numbers are distinct subsets of the real numbers, and the real numbers are precisely the union of those two subsets.
So we have covered everything you said formally, by defining our terms rigorously. In epistemology, one can have a superset that covers the subset in question, that has other subsets, that has a different and distinct membership criteria each subset from each subset. And that superset and those other subsets, can be in the un-known category, maybe we only currently know one subset. This involves a principle called the Axiom of Choice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice
But one can't extend the superset indefinitely ... there is no mathematical "universal set", without contradiction. No infinite regression of proper supersets.
So your point being ... in cause/effect analysis of the universe, is there a superset that is properly a superset ... and the answer by the quantum mechanics is that there is more than one universe, and that the set of all universes is the final superset. So a being in another universe could be the cause ... the effect of which is another universe. My POV is exactly that case ... that each being is a universe, and being is the cause of being (sometimes it takes two beings ;-) ... though I don't need quantum mechanics to believe it is so. The final proper superset of all beings, is the Buddhakaya.
CrucifyCindy ... When did you learn about life and the regress of entropy? ... if you have learned about death and the progress of entropy? Also aren't you suffering from Aristotelian teleology ... that the ultimate cause is the end, not the beginning ... so the ultimate meaning of the universe is the heat death of the entire universe (assuming it is closed ... but if it is open, then the law of entropy doesn't apply to it)? For me I don't look to the beginning or the end. So your hot coffee eventually gets cold, it reaches room temperature ... we are all doomed! ;-) Also aren't you involved in the theft of fruit (babies) from that coffee plant, and you have deprived the coffee bean of becoming a coffee plant by roasting it? The horror!
Quote from: Baruch on September 01, 2015, 06:44:35 AM
thebesttrees - "Is it admissible logically to attribute an unknown source to an effect/outcome when every known source is discounted? If O is the outcome, and all known sources are S then a subset of S has caused O. If however, the whole set of S is discounted as yielding O, then O should have another source outside of S. Is this a logical approach?" May I give a complete analysis?
We are assuming a cause/effect scenario, with an option that the whole is greater than the parts? We are assuming human knowledge is incomplete? Assuming this is so ... then of course we can admit that there is an unknown source.
As Rumsfeld, a known expert on epistemology said ... known knowns, un-kown knowns, known un-knowns and un-known un-knowns ... exhausts the Venn diagram. What is a known known is a cause/effect pair where both are known. What is a un-known known is an effect missing a cause (the point you made). Every effect has a cause and every cause has an effect. What is a known un-known is a cause missing an effect. What is a un-known un-known is something that is outside any known scenario.
Now accepting that a set has a property that a subset does not, is allowable, if the subset is a proper subset. Because a set is defined by its members, and a member is defined as having characteristics that define its subset. But that means that if a set has a proper subset, then there has to be more than one subset in the set, a subset that has different characteristics than the original one. The set can then be defined as simply having those two subsets, each defined as before. So I am assuming that the two subsets are defined as having no common member (intersection is the null set). So for example, the irrational numbers and the rational numbers are distinct subsets of the real numbers, and the real numbers are precisely the union of those two subsets.
So we have covered everything you said formally, by defining our terms rigorously. In epistemology, one can have a superset that covers the subset in question, that has other subsets, that has a different and distinct membership criteria each subset from each subset. And that superset and those other subsets, can be in the un-known category, maybe we only currently know one subset. This involves a principle called the Axiom of Choice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice
But one can't extend the superset indefinitely ... there is no mathematical "universal set", without contradiction. No infinite regression of proper supersets.
So your point being ... in cause/effect analysis of the universe, is there a superset that is properly a superset ... and the answer by the quantum mechanics is that there is more than one universe, and that the set of all universes is the final superset. So a being in another universe could be the cause ... the effect of which is another universe. My POV is exactly that case ... that each being is a universe, and being is the cause of being (sometimes it takes two beings ;-) ... though I don't need quantum mechanics to believe it is so. The final proper superset of all beings, is the Buddhakaya.
Thank you. How I admire reason! I will get back to you later. Thank you again.
I was admiring your posts (there are a number of people here I admire greatly, even new posters) and thought this one deserved a little unwrapping ... and voila ... it seems I was right ... Nefertiti was wrapped inside ... and is alive ... still fresh ;-) Egyptian tupperware is the greatest. Lots of people praise rationality, but few can actually practice logic (we can't all be Vulcans).
Quote from: thebesttrees on September 01, 2015, 12:24:38 AM
Now let me ask a question if you do not mind. There was a point in time that there was no man on earth. In other words, the creature know as man did not exist let's say two million years ago. Man gradually came into existence. Just like the fetus which goes through so many stages of development over nine months, so did man over tens of thousands or perhaps millions of years. Do you agree with this assessment?
Yes, I agree. (But I smelleth a trap) :))))
Quote from: Baruch on September 01, 2015, 07:29:38 AM
I was admiring your posts (there are a number of people here I admire greatly, even new posters) and thought this one deserved a little unwrapping ... and voila ... it seems I was right ... Nefertiti was wrapped inside ... and is alive ... still fresh ;-) Egyptian tupperware is the greatest. Lots of people praise rationality, but few can actually practice logic (we can't all be Vulcans).
One of my biggest disappointments was the logic class I took in college. And it spilled over into the basic philosophy class, as well. It was that formal logic drove me nuts. I tried and tried to understand and follow all those diagrams and letters and equal/not equal signs from start to finish. I could start, but could not finish. And I was disappointed in me, and not the class. I passed it, but not easily.
You die... then people fight over your crap. The End.
Quote from: CrucifyCindy on August 31, 2015, 08:46:38 PM
What more credit can you give it? We all suffer then we die.
Okay you are creeping me out;
Mission accomplished?
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 01, 2015, 09:25:37 AM
Quote from: thebesttrees on Today at 12:24:38 AM
Now let me ask a question if you do not mind. There was a point in time that there was no man on earth. In other words, the creature know as man did not exist let's say two million years ago. Man gradually came into existence. Just like the fetus which goes through so many stages of development over nine months, so did man over tens of thousands or perhaps millions of years. Do you agree with this assessment?"
Yes, I agree. (But I smelleth a trap) :))))
It does look like the MO of the creationist who does not understand how natural selection works. He probably thinks it could not have been possible to make the first homo-sapiens baby without two homo-sapiens parents, and that it could only have proceeded from a single genetic fluke at a single geographic point, and that anyway it would be born a different species, unable to mate with anyone (CHECKMATE!!!)
Fortunately, natural selection doesn't make such logical complications for itself - it began with silica particles in river bed clay (probably) which were able to bond with base chemicals for RNA, which began to self-replicate. They were the first life forms, no more complex than modern viruses, which probably had to consume each other because there were no large animals for them to prey on. The strong survived, the offspring of their subsequent generations evolved, and eventually there were life forms with DNA, which in turn made possible the complexity and diversity of life as we know it today. When apes which were closely related to modern chimpanzees and bonobos were driven out of their shrinking African forest habitat and forced to forage the steppes in search of food, while dodging predators, the pressure to make the best of any genetic changes which may help any one among them survive was on! Taller apes could see further, spot remote food sources, and avoid predators before they got too near. Better were tall apes who could stand longer on their hind legs. Those which could stand straight up and walk naturally that way were able to go greater distances than any ape, because this requires less energy than the use of four legs. The steppes had a dearth of trees, therefore arms made for climbing became less useful than arms that could throw objects at their prey and predators more effectively. Those who had the most of these traits scored highest in the mating game, and it's how natural selection follows the best suited individuals in any group as they head down whatever environmental path they are moving in.
So, how does this relate to a fetus developing in a womb? I don't think it does at all. It's not only how the "womb" metaphor smacks of creationist woo, when natural selection is no sort of a mother, it violently oversimplifies the process. You only need two sets of gens to create a life form in a womb, and you should not expect one womb in one lifetime to change it by much, if it is to survive at all. The apple really doesn't fall far from the tree unless it's an apple from the 1000th descendant of the tree. Also, nothing that happens under natural selection is properly referred to as the "development" of an end product, and we should not presume to be the final chapter in our branch on the scientific tree of life.
Mike CL ... got an A+ in one semester class in college in Symbolic Logic (general, not limited to math). Taught by an ex-physicist from the Manhattan Project (he left physics because ... ). Just saying ... keep at it, you will grow pointy ears eventually ;-))
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on September 01, 2015, 12:24:45 PM
It does look like the MO of the creationist who does not understand how natural selection works. He probably thinks it could not have been possible to make the first homo-sapiens baby without two homo-sapiens parents, and that it could only have proceeded from a single genetic fluke at a single geographic point, and that anyway it would be born a different species, unable to mate with anyone (CHECKMATE!!!) I actually believe in natural selection. And no we did not need two parents.
Fortunately, natural selection doesn't make such logical complications for itself - it began with silica particles in river bed clay (probably) which were able to bond with base chemicals for RNA, which began to self-replicate. They were the first life forms, no more complex than modern viruses, which probably had to consume each other because there were no large animals for them to prey on. The strong survived, the offspring of their subsequent generations evolved, and eventually there were life forms with DNA, which in turn made possible the complexity and diversity of life as we know it today. When apes which were closely related to modern chimpanzees and bonobos were driven out of their shrinking African forest habitat and forced to forage the steppes in search of food, while dodging predators, the pressure to make the best of any genetic changes which may help any one among them survive was on! Taller apes could see further, spot remote food sources, and avoid predators before they got too near. Better were tall apes who could stand longer on their hind legs. Those which could stand straight up and walk naturally that way were able to go greater distances than any ape, because this requires less energy than the use of four legs. The steppes had a dearth of trees, therefore arms made for climbing became less useful than arms that could throw objects at their prey and predators more effectively. Those who had the most of these traits scored highest in the mating game, and it's how natural selection follows the best suited individuals in any group as they head down whatever environmental path they are moving in. Thank you for the great examples.
So, how does this relate to a fetus developing in a womb? I don't think it does at all. It's not only how the "womb" metaphor smacks of creationist woo, when natural selection is no sort of a mother, it violently oversimplifies the process. You only need two sets of gens to create a life form in a womb, and you should not expect one womb in one lifetime to change it by much, if it is to survive at all. The apple really doesn't fall far from the tree unless it's an apple from the 1000th descendant of the tree. Also, nothing that happens under natural selection is properly referred to as the "development" of an end product, and we should not presume to be the final chapter in our branch on the scientific tree of life. I respectfully put to you that your first assumption that i am a creationist who does not believe in natural selection was wrong. Therefore your last paragraph which is based on a wrong assumption begs for an honorable retraction. And by the way, with all due respect, this thread is about death and what happens afterwards!!!
Please see my comments in red.
Quote from: thebesttrees on September 01, 2015, 05:40:32 PM
Please see my comments in red.
Why do I need to retract anything? You made an awful analogy on evolution, and I unpacked it for you. While I'm sorry you didn't enjoy that, you should be more careful with how you address an idea which has become a point of contention for millions, and a serious threat to the competency of a nation's education system.
Anyway, if you weren't setting up a clever anti-evolution argument, then WTF
were you trying to say?
I think that when I die it won't just be (for me) as though I never existed - it'll be as though existence never existed at all: absolute oblivion. That saddens me not at all, it just makes me realize I might as well enjoy this brief time I have, and get on with it.
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on September 01, 2015, 06:12:56 PM
Why do I need to retract anything? You made an awful analogy on evolution, and I unpacked it for you. While I'm sorry you didn't enjoy that, you should be more careful with how you address an idea which has become a point of contention for millions, and a serious threat to the competency of a nation's education system.
Anyway, if you weren't setting up a clever anti-evolution argument, then WTF were you trying to say?
i seek refuge here from the theists who clubber me on the head with nonsense only to encounter this.
PS - Unbeliever ... I really like your Sam Pascoe quote!
Quote from: thebesttrees on September 01, 2015, 06:47:01 PM
i seek refuge here from the theists who clubber me on the head with nonsense only to encounter this.
Awwwe, don't run away cry'n, not while we're having so much fun with you!
Honestly, and in all sincerity, I believe the question on whatever it is you were trying to say is a valid one - and I'm all ears! Maybe you think I was nitpicking a bit, but I doubt you would if you understood evolution the way I do.
"understood evolution the way I do" ... apparently you haven't evolved enough ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on September 01, 2015, 09:53:24 PM
"understood evolution the way I do" ... apparently you haven't evolved enough ;-)
:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
:anal: :anal: :anal: :anal: :anal: :anal: :anal: :anal:
:axe: :axe: :axe: :axe: :axe: :axe: :axe: :axe: