Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
PSU: Straight Outta Compton
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
Home | Forum | Chat | Wiki | Social | AGN | PS2 Stats |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
2012-07-08, 01:02 PM | [Ignore Me] #31 | ||
Second Lieutenant
|
It should be mentioned that because we lack a solid explanation, at the moment, of why things are the way they are, does not mean that other imagined causes are true by default. God of the gaps, folks. This is junior-high level logical reasoning.
Until there is evidence to suggest that something like gods, or souls, or loch ness mosters exist, they can be dismissed without much thought given to them. All gaps in our understanding mean is that we should work harder to find the truth, and not be satisfied with products borne purely of the imagination. |
||
|
2012-07-08, 07:08 PM | [Ignore Me] #32 | |||
First Lieutenant
|
Also what part of a soul would transition to an afterlife? The thinking, good will towards others (part of thinking), physical appearance? Is that even the soul, or just body and brain?
__________________
|
|||
|
2012-07-08, 07:28 PM | [Ignore Me] #33 | |||
Second Lieutenant
|
|
|||
|
2012-07-08, 11:06 PM | [Ignore Me] #34 | |||
Contributor PlanetSide 2
Game Designer |
Last edited by Malorn; 2012-10-01 at 11:11 AM. |
|||
|
2012-07-09, 08:28 AM | [Ignore Me] #36 | ||
I personally think there is some kind of higher power out there/afterlife for numerous reasons. With that I do think there is something like the soul. In regards to science proving this I think it maybe possible one day, but likely not anytime soon. I just think we are still way behind finding out the true secrets of the universe (small or big), we've only scratched the surface so far.
__________________
SS89Goku - NC - BR33 - CR5||LFO? Want help upgrading/building a new computer? Will your desktop/laptop run PS2? How PhysX runs on Nvidia and AMD (ATI) systems PlanetSide Universe Rules |
|||
|
2012-07-09, 09:41 AM | [Ignore Me] #37 | ||
Second Lieutenant
|
I think a common fallacy that permeates our thinking about the universe is that it needs a reason. That there needs to be a 'purpose' or that there are hidden 'secrets' to unlock. What exactly is there that we don't know? We don't understand everything about the big bang, Quantum is a strange and mysterious realm, and parthenogenesis eludes us. But eventually, through tireless work, our best and brightest in the fields of physics, astronomy, biology and so forth will uncover these mysteries, which will undoubtedly lead to more.
Frankly, when we've got scientists discovering the Higgs Boson or debating the makeup of black holes and compressing the moments of the big bang down to millionths of a second, I find the conversation about whether or not we're all magical ghosts riding around in sacks of meat , having never before existed but somehow existing forever afterward, to be quite silly. |
||
|
2012-07-09, 11:56 AM | [Ignore Me] #38 | |||
First Sergeant
|
Throwing in placeholders is a bad idea, especially when you start throwing in more than one stacked on top of others. |
|||
|
2012-07-09, 12:09 PM | [Ignore Me] #39 | ||||
Sergeant Major
|
As for the bolded part, let me show you a few things: The pancreas, having been discovered by the ancient greeks, had its purpose only recently discovered. Check out The Quantum Activist -- it proposes many questions which most of us have probably never even thought of. On that note, you might find it interesting to know that most theoretical physicists DO believe in larger intelligence and/or souls. Speaking of theoretical physicists, and of what we do or do not know, check out Dr. Michio Kaku's work. His goal in life since his college years has been to finish Einstein's "Theory of Everything," something that still eludes him and his colleagues to this day. There is currently no universal theory. Quantum Physics and Relativity, both essentially proven to be true, have fundamental differences which make both of them simultaneously correct and incorrect (kind of like that dude's cat; pun intended). You're right about the purpose fallacy imo; but that's also not to say that nothing has a purpose and that purpose is simply made up, but that purpose is not necessarily/scientifically requisite; we just don't know. Furthermore one can ask the question "do souls have/have to have a purpose?" or even "what is the purpose of souls?" Neither of these will be answered in our lifetimes is my guess. EDIT: Sorry, I think I misread your first statement and I guess ultimately I'm just agreeing with you lol.
Unfortunately math is not on your side my friend. There are one of three possible scenarios: Our universe is infinite, there are infinite universes, or both. If something in the universe(s) is possible, with only one of two outcomes, it literally has a .5∞ chance of occurring. And half of infinity is still infinity. Similarly the only people who would discredit the existence of extra terrestrial intelligence (a.k.a. aliens) will soon (imo) find their beliefs severely shaken. In the last decade or so alone we have discovered dozens of planets capable of supporting human life in most ways but a few (some planets will have surface temperatures in the hundreds, while others will have gravity of 15+G's, etc...). This is just within a few hundred light years of earth, and we are by no means done searching just our little corner of the galaxy alone. There is still the rest of the galaxy to explore, and then entire other galaxies (and ours is a medium sized galaxy; slightly smaller if you average all known galaxies). By the way there's an estimated 125 billion galaxies in the known universe. Again, that's just the known universe, and again if we are assuming the first scenario of an infinite universe, then there WILL be infinite galaxies. My question to the nay sayers -- why is it you want to believe souls (or whatever else has not been "proven" yet) do not exist? Not tryin to be a dick I'm just legit curious. Last edited by Saifoda; 2012-07-09 at 12:21 PM. |
||||
|
2012-07-09, 12:16 PM | [Ignore Me] #40 | |||
Second Lieutenant
|
|
|||
|
2012-07-09, 12:40 PM | [Ignore Me] #41 | |||
Sergeant Major
|
Yeah after I typed all that I looked back at your post and went "oh........." lol. I've been sick the last few days so I don't like to open my eyes much lol. <3 EDIT: I kept it up though cause I do think people would get a real kick out of watching the quantum activist and reading up on Kaku's work; my favorite book of his is Physics of the Future -- it's like porn for scifi freaks. Last edited by Saifoda; 2012-07-09 at 12:41 PM. |
|||
|
2012-07-09, 12:48 PM | [Ignore Me] #42 | |||
First Sergeant
|
I honestly don't care if you believe in god, aliens, or the afterlife. It's when someone uses something yet to be proven to support their beliefs I have a problem with. |
|||
|
2012-07-10, 12:07 AM | [Ignore Me] #43 | |||
Sergeant Major
|
|
|||
|
2012-07-10, 01:36 PM | [Ignore Me] #44 | ||
First Sergeant
|
I don't think anyone who disbelieves in aliens would be shaken if we discovered them, so long as their belief stayed a belief rather than some delusional idea that they've convinced themselves without a doubt to be true.
People who also use multiple beliefs to support a series of beliefs might also be shaken by future discoveries if those discoveries contradict their beliefs. |
||
|
2012-07-11, 12:05 AM | [Ignore Me] #45 | ||
Sergeant Major
|
I think I get it now.
I think you and I believe differently about the word belief (pun intended). I was having a conversation recently with somebody about what passion is and means (in reference to work and life; i.e. "my passion is skiing.") A "weaker," as I have termed it, version of "passion" is something that one pursues at convenience (then of course we have to define what convenience means) and as soon as it becomes inconvenient (depending on the individual, but there are ways to measure it) they will cease to do whatever that passion is. A "stronger" version of the definition of passion would be that even once it becomes inconvenient (scaled again) to the individual, they still pursue it. I think this can similarly be applied to the term believe/belief. You are asserting the "weaker" (which does not imply that your definition is less correct -- just different) definition, whereas I have been speaking of the "stronger" definition. But anywho, yes you're very correct about multiple beliefs as well. Another unfortunate thing is that people will hold beliefs based on "facts" or beliefs which later turn out to be proven false and either the "child" belief (the one supported by the previously-but-now-false belief) will be so imbedded as a belief that even the rational acceptance of the former belief being false will not alter said child belief. Furthermore there is just so much damn information that when certain information changes it may go unnoticed -- unfortunately people don't get a facebook notification. |
||
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|