Let's Get Metaphysical Baby

Well, I tried to post a graph that I think explains everything very well, but it didn't paste right. Oh well, I have to run and won't be around much during the day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

Just because people share a common emotional response doesn't answer the fact that its a state of consciousness instead of an instinctive (genetic or preexisting) response.

---

To make a point...

When my dog was a puppy (~8 weeks old at this point), we were looking at him on a table. At some point, he ran off the table. You see, he had never jumped from a high place before (the height differential was therefore new to him). He did not associate the height differential with pain. However, on hitting the floor, he began to wimper for about an hour, limping horribly around the apartment. After about an hour, he stopped wimpering, and started running around playfully. Needless to say, he is now aware of the dangers of height differentials, and before he jumps, he looks at his destination and hesitates.

Point being, I do not think that someone who had NEVER experienced a fall would have an emotional response to jumping out of an airplane. I'd suppose that the fear of falling originates either from falling out of a high chair, or repetitively falling when just learning to walk, or something else. In my experience, it is absolutely not an innate feeling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Getting back to the Big Bang, what preceded it is unknown. What we do know is that our time, space, energy, and matter matrix started at that point. We can deduce anything we want about what caused the Big Bang but we can't prove it. Hence, any opinion regarding the source of the Big Bang is just as valid as any other opinion, including those which contain elements that transcend our knowledge of our current physical universe.

So, if somebody wants to believe that God created the Big Bang because of deductions concerning knowledge gained from the senses concerning the current space, time, energy, matter matrix, that opinion is just as valid as the opinion that holds that there is no evidence of any supernatural origin of the Big Bang.

---

Well, I'd say that at this point for me to say that THIS is how things were before the big bang would be arbitrary, but we can deductively ELIMINATE some theories. Creationism via the Big Bang is one of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

Well, I'd say that at this point for me to say that THIS is how things were before the big bang would be arbitrary, but we can deductively ELIMINATE some theories. Creationism via the Big Bang is one of them.

---

No need to go to the creationism vs. evolution debate since there is already a thread on that. What theories can we eliminate concerning the source of the Big Bang?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

No need to go to the creationism vs. evolution debate since there is already a thread on that. What theories can we eliminate concerning the source of the Big Bang?

---

List the theories with their appropriate scientific bases, and I'll deduce any theories that can be eliminated. I'm no "expert" in the field, meaning I do not know enough about any "theories," other than the argument that "God said BANG," which I will deduce to be wrong if it also suggests what I believe it suggests "before" (used very loosely) the Big Bang. Otherwise, it is simply arbitrary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

List the theories with their appropriate scientific bases, and I'll deduce any theories that can be eliminated. I'm no "expert" in the field, meaning I do not know enough about any "theories," other than the argument that "God said BANG," which I will deduce to be wrong if it also suggests what I believe it suggests "before" (used very loosely) the Big Bang. Otherwise, it is simply arbitrary.

---

You are proving my point. Science is based on theories that can be tested, i.e., proven or disproven. If you can't do that with an idea you don't have science, you have a plain old vanila idea.

Certainly, you can't deny the possibility of a Supreme Being ( an invisible one that likes to keep a low profile) capable of producing a Big Bang. Extremely unlikely, one might say, but to assert that there is no possibility is not logical. The fact is that there are plenty of signs that point to our space, time, energy, matter matrix as being just a little bit too good to be true to be just an "accident.":D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

You are proving my point. Science is based on theories that can be tested, i.e., proven or disproven. If you can't do that with an idea you don't have science, you have a plain old vanila idea.

Certainly, you can't deny the possibility of a Supreme Being ( an invisible one that likes to keep a low profile) capable of producing a Big Bang. Extremely unlikely, one might say, but to assert that there is no possibility is not logical. The fact is that there are plenty of signs that point to our space, time, energy, matter matrix as being just a little bit too good to be true to be just an "accident.":D

---

You are right - if all you say is that some being (a gremlin, for example, that is existing in a definite existence) causes a big bang, I (with the evidence that I have concerning the events surrounding the big bang) cannot refute the possibility. It is simply arbitrary. If you are suggesting that something consciously creates existence from nothingness, I say you are wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

You are right - if all you say is that some being (a gremlin, for example, that is existing in a definite existence) causes a big bang, I (with the evidence that I have concerning the events surrounding the big bang) cannot refute the possibility. It is simply arbitrary. If you are suggesting that something consciously creates existence from nothingness, I say you are wrong.

---

This place is so weird that anything is possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

This place is so weird that anything is possible.

---

nope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

nope.

---

I'm reminded of what Albert Einstein once said. Something to the effect that it was amazing that our space, time, energy, and matter matrix makes any sense at all.

While pure consciousness without physical being is not something I have knowingly encountered, I would say that in an infinite universe I would not discount the power of the universe to attain consciousness.

Assume that our space, time, energy and matter matrix is conscious, how and why would it wish to communicate with us.

^If you would like to live in your fantasy world where the arbitrary is just as valid as what you perceive, good luck to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Well, I tried to post a graph that I think explains everything very well, but it didn't paste right. Oh well, I have to run and won't be around much during the day.

---

dangit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

^If you would like to live in your fantasy world where the arbitrary is just as valid as what you perceive, good luck to you.

---

Fantasy world? Hmmmm. People who lived 200 years ago would think that you currently live in a fantasy world.

The plain fact of the matter is that the word 'arbitary' is not a correct choice. Obviously, you perceive the universe to be 'dead' or unconscious. What do you say to those people who perceive with their senses that the universe is alive and conscious. To them, your choice is arbitrary or wrong. If I had to make a choice, I would say that the universe is more alive and conscious than it is dead and unconscious.

^To say either way is arbitrary. To say it is SOMETHING in particular that is more than what we perceive is arbitrary regardless if you try to characterize it as live or dead. That is what I have been trying to say.

The idea of giving existence attributes other than what is objectively perceived or conceived is the problem.