|
|
Slapzech
Adventuring Hero
that didn't vote for Kaczynski
|
posted November 21, 2007 02:19 PM |
|
Edited by Slapzech at 14:22, 21 Nov 2007.
|
Quote:
No other theories about afterlife or what u expect after your death from some more "hardliners" ? (ZanJerusalem, Shadey, TheDeath...)
Let me put my own 3 cents about the afterlife:
Human consciense is limited due to it's foundation - the brain. We cannot "observe" more than 3 dimensions (hardly 4). If our conscience would be base upon something greater and more complicated that the brain (talking about soul)- this limit wouldn't exist.
And - Imo: I would rather simply fade away after death (the same way You don't remember the moment You fall asleep), than exist WHOLE ETERNITY. Those bonds of our mind/soul won't let us understand anything that surpasses 4 dimensions. That means - after several hundreds of years You will learn everything you can.
What to do after?
[EDIT] Also - I fail to imagine how one does posess any knowledge in the afterlife, as the neurons and the brain itself dies and rots. And it is the brain which holds gathered information.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 21, 2007 03:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, we don't know if all of it goes there, or where those bacteria go. We can't be certain. That's what I was trying to say.
What do you mean, we don't know? We do know. They convert the chemical energy in the dead body to nutrients usable by plants. And the bacteria itself dies or splits.
Quote:
how it was created
How can energy be created? That would violate the Law of Conservation of Energy.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Lord_Woock
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Daddy Cool with a $90 smile
|
|
posted November 21, 2007 04:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And - Imo: I would rather simply fade away after death (the same way You don't remember the moment You fall asleep), than exist WHOLE ETERNITY. Those bonds of our mind/soul won't let us understand anything that surpasses 4 dimensions. That means - after several hundreds of years You will learn everything you can.
On what do you base your assumption about the total amount of knowledge that you'd be able to accumulate, given infinite time?
Possible information is defined by the contextual system that it describes. There is a large amount of already existing ones, as well as an arbitrarily large number of unconceived ones. I'm not saying that potential knowledge is infinite, but it most certainly wouldn't run out in a matter of centuries. And if the theoretical afterlife allows for interaction with other deceased, then the time required to know everything knowable is further extended.
____________
Yolk and God bless.
---
My buddy's doing a webcomic and would certainly appreciate it if you checked it out!
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 21, 2007 04:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Precise. Are You talking about radiation, kinetical energy, potential energy, electromagnetic field, gravity, Dark energy, or something diffrent?
Let's put it this way:
mass is energy (it can be converted, so it's energy)
every energy has a type, but at the roots it's still just plain energy (converted from one type to another, but doesn't matter, it's still energy, same amount).
therefore everything material is energy (fields and forces are not energy, they are simple "interactions" that we know happen).
I think this is what baklava meant.
Quote:
Star does not give life. Star can help produce conditions for life to manifest itself. It can however spell unavoidable death.
In fact, we all came from the Sun (matter 'puked' out so to speak) in the Big Bang theory. 
Quote:
If You state that all types of energies share the same essence - You can probably tell what is it? It would be good to know that, hence no-one found such a thing up to now.
Well - tell us what is the thing so characteristic to both "chemical energy" and the Dark Energy, upon which no scientist dream of precising what it actually can be? (apart from that it is not matter)?
Dark energy is different because it doesn't interact with other energies. It's a different kind of energy, and to be honest, can be considered a fairy tale as much as the Bible if you don't believe in it (yep, if "fills" the gaps in explanations, but then again, God fills the gaps too, so it's the same if you don't believe)
Quote:
In case You would want to know - this would be a proof to the Unified Field Theory, which could DRAMATICALY change the way humans see the existance.
Not necessarily because fields are not energy, they modify or 'appear' because of energy (or mass, which is energy).
Quote:
And have in mind that the laws of physics formed themselves AFTER the Big Bang. Discussing about what was "before" big bang have the same doze of sense and intellect as "gt4r5y46y5y54y6gyy6u76r875w6y24yf6g762y6yg65wy6y65uy2y6". After the Big Bang laws of physics were exotic, which means You cant even classify them, not mentioning comparing them to today's laws.
Are you sure? Where did you get this from?
Regarding the last quote above, I'd like to share my view on the afterlife:
"reward" is something humans always want due to their greed, etc.. I'm not going into that, but I'd like to mention a few things about "rewarded in Heaven" and "punished in Hell" (my view). Jesus and Saints never actually did those good things just to be 'rewarded', they did it by heart; it was in their good nature to be kind. The problem with most people (even christians) is that they think "heaven" is a place for you to get rewarded if you work hard enough to be good. This mentality completely contradicts the idea of "goodness" altogether. You can't be good when you only want some kind of reward. You are good only by heart. It is only then that you see the real 'good' and how it feels. Afterlife is just a different world where you have been "freed" and where you can feel far beyond. There is no "reward" in afterlife, it's only that you can be at peace with being good. You "express" yourself directly. I know it sounds a bit weird, maybe I'll explain better below (or worse).
Likewise, "punishment" in Hell can be interpreted in many ways. I, for example, see it as some kind of "place" for evil people (so to speak). Evil people who do evil by heart are just evil themselves. They are Hell itself (if you'd like me to use the word Hell in context), they suffer because they are the suffering. I know it's hard to understand with "conventional" logic, but it is the very essence. It is not suffering in the usual sense, but spiritual (or mind) suffering. If you are 100% evil, then you enjoy when you torture someone; you enjoy suffering. In the afterlife you're freed from this "body" and feel yourself in the true sense. Evil people should not be afraid of Hell, as it defines them. So many "ex-evil" people think that by forcingly being good they will get to peace (since they're afraid of themselves/Hell). The problem is, it is only when you do it by heart (and likewise repent perhaps by heart) that you truly get to add yourself into a state of peace, a state of mind which feels free (in the afterlife). People (especially young christians) that are afraid of Hell and are doing good just to avoid it are simply not actually good in the true sense of the word. It is only when they grow up that they see the difference between this (meditation helps a lot to understand your inner self) or something else (like converting or becoming atheists ).
That is to say people who do not believe in God are not evil either (necessarily, obviously both atheists and theists can be evil). They just sin like any of us (do you think I sin less than some atheists? I doubt it  ). However the problem with this is that, since they don't believe in God, they won't repent of their sins either, which is bad (at least from a religious point of view). Sometimes it can be enough just to admit the sin in your own heart and be sorry honestly about it (and obviously trying your best to avoid it again). Note: evil is NOT to be confused with sin. We are all sinners.
Also, the afterlife uses a different world and logic altogether than the "conventional" one we all know and love. For one, the laws of physics do not apply. This means that:
1) matter doesn't exist
2) fields don't exist
3) 3-dimensional space is not guaranteed
4) time as we know it, doesn't exist
What is time? We associate it with events happening in a given order. Yet, relativity tells us that if we move fast enough, we might be able to make time go slower than 'usual'; and yet again, we don't "feel" the effect. This is a paradox but true. The afterlife is a difficult concept to understand (I never said I am supreme and know how it works ) because there are a lot of paradoxes if we use conventional logic. The afterlife is a whole different world, with different 'logic' (if you can call it logic), and well too many paradoxes to be understandable with conventional logic.
Now let's think of our conventional logic. We take it for granted, yet we never actually doubted it's validity in the whole concept of the world. Logic is subjective. I know, most humans (let's say 80%) can understand the conventional logic. But why are we even speaking numbers? (like 80%, or most) Quantity is not a factor in classifying something as being objective. So remember that while some humans think that the conventional logic is objective and true, from a monkey's point of view (or alien) they could be complete nonsense. Therefore it is subjective. It's not only that, but what might seem logical to you can be extremely illogical for me, and vice-versa. Further, if you were a Fish and I was a Monkey and we communicated in some sort, we'd have two completely different logics. Either logic wouldn't be able to prove the other one, and vice versa. You can't use logic A to explain (prove) logic B, and likewise for logic B. That's why we can't explain the afterlife with out conventional logic; or for that matter what happened before the Big Bang.
The biggest success of science is that the majority of humans can understand the logic/idea in the "conventional" sense. But it is still subjective. If only one person was smart and the other were monkeys (using different logic), then the smart person would be unable to prove to the monkeys how he achieved some results. This isn't to say that the monkeys are dumber either, I just chose an example (probably would've been better if I used some kind of aliens in the context). Majority and quantity and popular doesn't make up, no matter how much, for an objective thing. Everything was first made up from ideas. Ideas are subjective. Just because most people feel the 'same' idea (and understand it) doesn't make it any more objective than a single person understanding it. If, for example, a guy named John was found guilty of a murder (when in absolute truth he never commited it), and 99% of the population said he did it, then that wouldn't be objective at all in the true sense of the word.
Here I was talking about subjectivity as a "group" not as a single individual, because philosophically, they are both the same (i.e we are all pieces of an island).
To end this afterlife thingy, I'll just use one of my favorite quotes in philosophy: "I think therefore I am"
|
|
Slapzech
Adventuring Hero
that didn't vote for Kaczynski
|
|
posted November 21, 2007 06:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
mass is energy (it can be converted, so it's energy)
every energy has a type, but at the roots it's still just plain energy (converted from one type to another, but doesn't matter, it's still energy, same amount).
(...)
Dolars can be coverted to Euro, does it mean both are exacly the same?
True - Matter can be converted to pure energy (exacly 100% of mass, mostly to heat and light) only in the proces of anihilation where a particle gets directly confronted with it's anti-sibling (electron/positron etc). If everything would be pure energy - there would be no static material objects. Nothing would resist such enviroment.
Also - what kind of energy does we even speak of?
Energy taken from E=MC^2 Theory? If so then Yes, we can say everything is energy. But this energy is not created only on the sun... And if we are talking about "The Energy", as taken from early 90's sf than I'll pass.
Quote:
therefore everything material is energy (fields and forces are not energy, they are simple "interactions" that we know happen).
Everything material has energy. Not Is energy.
Quote:
In fact, we all came from the Sun (matter 'puked' out so to speak) in the Big Bang theory.
Some part of us was created in the Sun. But most of our mass consists of elements which were created before our Sun shined for the first time.
Quote:
Dark energy is different because it doesn't interact with other energies. It's a different kind of energy, and to be honest, can be considered a fairy tale as much as the Bible if you don't believe in it (yep, if "fills" the gaps in explanations, but then again, God fills the gaps too, so it's the same if you don't believe)
Dark matter, to be actually honest - cannot be taken as a fairy tale.
It is the name for thing that "owns" about 70% of the mass of the universe (can't tell exacly now, I forgot ), that we know is not matter at any rate. The existance of dark energy cannot be denied, even if We do not know it's slicest details. We don't know if it does not interacts with other energies.
Quote:
Not necessarily because fields are not energy, they modify or 'appear' because of energy (or mass, which is energy).
You didn't felt into my trap 
Yes - forces are not quite energies, as they usually possess particles which spreads them (as photon for electromagnetic field) that are called bozons. Usually as we don't have proofs for the existance of some of them (Higg's bozon*, graviton**, etc.)
Quote:
Are you sure? Where did you get this from?
Now I trully cannot tell you where exacly.
If from one of Stephen Hawking's books, then I'll find the fragment and tell. If it was one of the XXX science magazines and articles which some time ago I read quite often - probably won't find it.
*Few Years ago a team of scientists statet that they observed Higg's bozon in a circular-torus accelerator. But it's still not confirmed.
Higg's bozon is a particle, which by it's "presence" gives other particles the ability to possess mass.
**bozon of gravity.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted November 21, 2007 08:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
People didn't worship the sun because it gives life; they didn't know the details of photosynthesis, they just saw this big hot thing in the sky that made day day and night night.
They thought "What the hell is that?"
and some guy was like "It's a god. End of story."
"Oh... but what is it?"
"A GOD!!!!! I TOLD YOU!!!!!!!!"
It is common for all fanatics to disregard and demean people of ages past. We are a higher race than ancient civilizations cause we have cellphones and the Internet. We are smarter cause we collect our dogs' poo in parks and have way more interesting ways of killing each other than the Greeks ever did.
People knew from the furthest reaches of history that the Sun makes the plants grow. They knew it affects crops, it heats us, and has a subtle effect on many aspects of life.
Not to mention astrological achievements of Celts, Mayas, Chinese etcetera.
Quote:
Precise. Are You talking about radiation, kinetical energy, potential energy, electromagnetic field, gravity, Dark energy, or something diffrent?
Like I said, energy cannot be created or destroyed, it just changes form. By energy, I mean all types of energy. In the entire universe.
Quote:
Star does not give life. Star can help produce conditions for life to manifest itself.
Are you really unable to understand a simple metaphor or did you say that just to counter me on something?
By "giving life", I meant "help produce conditions for life to manifest itself"; I didn't mean that Sun pointed a finger at Earth and created stuff. I just thought it wasn't necessary to write all that.
I was wrong, obviously.
Quote:
Well - tell us what is the thing so characteristic to both "chemical energy" and the Dark Energy, upon which no scientist dream of precising what it actually can be? (apart from that it is not matter)?
Exactly that. It is not matter. Is that not the essence? What is the essence then? Just like everything material shares the same essence - chemical elements for instance, so energy also shares the same essence; it's just that it isn't anything material and for some reason you don't want to think about what it IS, then. Cause it seems that's the slippery ground. Theists are proportionally harder to beat on unexplained and immaterial issues.
I am the first to admit that I do not know what energy is made of. I can just say that it is logical to assume that energy can change form. Plants turn solar into chemical energy, don't they?
Quote:
And have in mind that the laws of physics formed themselves AFTER the Big Bang. Discussing about what was "before" big bang have the same doze of sense and intellect as "gt4r5y46y5y54y6gyy6u76r875w6y24yf6g762y6yg65wy6y65uy2y6". After the Big Bang laws of physics were exotic, which means You cant even classify them, not mentioning comparing them to today's laws.
You can't comprehend what happened before the Bang, you don't even WANT to THINK about what happened then (again, cause the theists would be hard to beat on that matter, for obvious reasons), so it's automatically dumb to talk about it?
Come on. You can do better than calling people with different opinion stupid.
Quote:
How can energy be created? That would violate the Law of Conservation of Energy.
Oh, but MVas, have in mind that the laws of physics formed themselves AFTER the Big Bang. 
Quote:
What do you mean, we don't know? We do know. They convert the chemical energy in the dead body to nutrients usable by plants. And the bacteria itself dies or splits.
Yes, and what happens to the bacteria when it dies?
It's energy also goes out etcetera etcetera. It goes in circles, for now. But we cannot predict WHERE exactly the energy on Earth will go, for example, when the Sun goes out (as all stars do), and we all die. When it empties itself.
And dollars and euros do have the same essence
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 22, 2007 01:03 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Oh, but MVas, have in mind that the laws of physics formed themselves AFTER the Big Bang.
The central tenet of the Theory of Relativity - All Physics laws are the same in all reference systems. ALL. Including the Law of Conservation of Energy.
Quote:
Yes, and what happens to the bacteria when it dies?
They go to bacteria heaven. Seriously, though, they are eaten by other bacteria.
Quote:
It's energy also goes out etcetera etcetera. It goes in circles, for now. But we cannot predict WHERE exactly the energy on Earth will go, for example, when the Sun goes out (as all stars do), and we all die. When it empties itself.
When energy will be evenly distributed, nothing will happen. Remember that the world is not powered by energy per se, but by the transfer of energy. So there can still be energy when the sun goes out. It just won't be usable after a while.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted November 22, 2007 07:32 AM |
|
|
I agree, eternity... 
Maybe having a second chance at life (a different life) with the same memories would be better.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Slapzech
Adventuring Hero
that didn't vote for Kaczynski
|
|
posted November 22, 2007 09:10 AM |
|
Edited by Slapzech at 09:14, 22 Nov 2007.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Star does not give life. Star can help produce conditions for life to manifest itself.
Are you really unable to understand a simple metaphor or did you say that just to counter me on something?
By "giving life", I meant "help produce conditions for life to manifest itself"; I didn't mean that Sun pointed a finger at Earth and created stuff. I just thought it wasn't necessary to write all that.
I was wrong, obviously.
Quote:
You can't comprehend what happened before the Bang, you don't even WANT to THINK about what happened then (again, cause the theists would be hard to beat on that matter, for obvious reasons), so it's automatically dumb to talk about it?
Come on. You can do better than calling people with different opinion stupid.
You just made the same mistake You pointed me in the first.
Ok, perhaps now I shall explain my thoughts: Primo the phrase "What was before the big bang" is simply invalid. Time was created in the process of big bang. Asking about what was "before" the beginning of time is simply wrong. (If You still have problems about understanding this - imagine a simple school ruler, with a scale of 0-10cm.
Now - Do you have any number indcation before the 0?)
Secundo: Forces and laws of nature which we know now are quite abstract to what originaly was spawned by the big bang - exotic laws of nature.
Now answer me - Is it wise to discuss a matter about which we have absolutely no information, and - moreover - we have 0% chances of guesssing it's conditions and characterstics? Discussing anything with no bases at all - even abstract ones, is dumb.
I just thought it wasn't necessary to write all that.
I was wrong, obviously.
One more thing:
Quote:
(...)
(again, cause the theists would be hard to beat on that matter, for obvious reasons)
(...)
True - It's impossible either for anyone to beat them, nor them to prove their right.
Quote:
The central tenet of the Theory of Relativity - All Physics laws are the same in all reference systems. ALL. Including the Law of Conservation of Energy.
If it goes to the time where the laws of physics were, let's say "diffrent" from now - Theory of Relativity, just as ANY theory is just as right as statement that the universe was filled with cherry bubblegum. Theory of relativity is based on observation of laws which now rule the world. Those are not the same laws.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted November 22, 2007 09:14 AM |
|
|
Talking about what was before the big bang is like asking "What did God do before he created earth?"
|
|
Slapzech
Adventuring Hero
that didn't vote for Kaczynski
|
|
posted November 22, 2007 10:08 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Talking about what was before the big bang is like asking "What did God do before he created earth?"
Not quite
If reffering to God - it's more like the:
"If god is all powerfull - can he create a rock so heavy that he himself won't be able to pick up?" paradox
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 22, 2007 10:13 AM |
|
|
That's only functional if you tie power in with physical strength. A better question would be, can god create a rock that he can not erase from exsistance. Since god does not need to be physically powerful, I would say yes. Creating a rock that is too heavy for him to lift would be extreamly possible. Then if for some reason he needed it moved, he could just will it into non-exsistance, then create it elsewhere. Yes, I know it also meant he could not move it with his powers or mind, but that wouldn't interfear with him causing it to cease to be.
That is, if the concept of an all - powerful being is your thing.
____________
Message received.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted November 22, 2007 11:35 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Time was created in the process of big bang.
Or at least that's your belief. Which, I believe you'll agree, cannot be proven any more than a theist's beliefs.
How can one bang, just one bang, create everything? Was it an explosion, an implosion, what? What sort of event can turn utter chaos (however you define that term) into an infinite system, full of laws, indications, order, elements, etcetera - which even EXPANDS its infinity?
That sounds like a religion as much as Christianity, just without the church.
Quote:
Talking about what was before the big bang is like asking "What did God do before he created earth?"
Which proves my point.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted November 22, 2007 01:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Talking about what was before the big bang is like asking "What did God do before he created earth?"
Which proves my point.
Oops *quickly rushes back to change whatever I said*
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted November 22, 2007 01:47 PM |
|
|
lol
What I meant was, your attitudes are also a religion in its own right. One can ask both theists and atheists a question which is basically same, and there can be no answer to it.
What did God do before he created Earth? and What happened before the Big Bang?
We can't know what was before God created us / We can't know what was before the Big Bang.
God made the laws of physics / The Big Bang made the laws of physics.
Laws do not apply to God / Laws do not apply to the Big Bang.
God created the universe / The Big Bang created the universe.
Big Bang turned out to be something like an atheist deity
Face it. We all have the need to believe in something. No matter how much we deny it.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted November 22, 2007 02:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
We can't know what was before God created us / We can't know what was before the Big Bang.
God made the laws of physics / The Big Bang made the laws of physics.
Laws do not apply to God / Laws do not apply to the Big Bang.
God created the universe / The Big Bang created the universe.
Big Bang turned out to be something like an atheist deity
Face it. We all have the need to believe in something. No matter how much we deny it.
We do not pray to the Bigbang every day (sunday).
The BigBang did not create moral laws.
The BigBang didn't had a SmallBang who visited the earth and took all sins from us.
BigBang is called a "theory", while religion is not.
BigBang makes sense up to a specific point, while religion does not (talking about evidences and such...).
While it makes sense if something expands from 1 small point (BigBang) into all directions, and can be shown in an experiement, it still seems pretty senseless to create a full universe with billions of stars and planets and just pick out 1 very very very small planet which is far far far on the outside of the universe and put life on it...
And when on 1 day, a big comet will hit the earth and all living will be dead, there will appear a "GAME OVER PLAYER 1" on the screen of God's computer and he will start a new game then?
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted November 22, 2007 02:23 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 14:23, 22 Nov 2007.
|
Aye.
The religions differ in several ways, that is why they are separate. And all of them so interesting.
Essence is the same. Details will always differ from religion to religion. Christianity emphasizes a person's inside, while Big-Bang-ism emphasizes searching through the outside.
Both beliefs in pursuit for truth and meaning.
But in the end, it doesn't really matter.
What you just said is typical "my beliefs are cooler than theirs" stuff, drawing on arguments that have been seen (and answered to) a zillion times in this thread. You are running in circles. But I guess that's the natural course. Everything runs in circles.
Nevertheless, come on, put something fresh into this discussion.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 22, 2007 06:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
How can one bang, just one bang, create everything? Was it an explosion, an implosion, what? What sort of event can turn utter chaos (however you define that term) into an infinite system, full of laws, indications, order, elements, etcetera - which even EXPANDS its infinity?
1. Who says that the laws of physics didn't exist before the Big Bang?
2. All the matter in the universe was concentrated in an infinitely small space right before the Big Bang. Then it rapidly expanded. There is an infinite amount of space in the universe. There always was. But there is a finite amount of matter.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted November 22, 2007 07:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
1. Who says that the laws of physics didn't exist before the Big Bang?
Slapzech
"Time was created in the process of big bang."
"Have in mind that the laws of physics formed themselves AFTER the Big Bang."
Etc.
I guess that's something like different Bigbangist sects... The Lawists (those who say that laws of physics existed before the Bang, like Slapzech) and the Chaosists (those who say that there were no laws of physics before the Bang, like MVas)
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Slapzech
Adventuring Hero
that didn't vote for Kaczynski
|
|
posted November 22, 2007 08:15 PM |
|
Edited by Slapzech at 20:21, 22 Nov 2007.
|
Lmao
I do not believe in god just like I do not believe in some theories (the exitance of gravitons for exemple). I just know a couple of facts upon which my opinnion is based.
Believing in anything is imo a weapon which can efficiently kill knowledge. If one decides to believe in something there is a great chance that after logical analysis of collected data he will try to find as many proofs for what he wants o believe as it will be possible. And he will not even be aware of his thinking process.
That's why I do not asocciate with neither those who defy the existance of god, nor with the ones who claim he exist.
[EDIT]
Oh - and You mistakenly inserted me into lawist sector, While i stated that after the big bang the laws of nature that we know now had stabilized themselves.
What was the thing from which big bang event had took place?
We don't know nothing above the fact that it's mass was infinite (Why can it be defined, if bozons were created after the big bang - pix me) and that it's size and capacity were equal to zero.
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
