Do not confuse "Sentience" with "intelligence" or "communication". They are entirely different concept. Dolphins are NOT sentient, and neither are elephants. They lack the cranial capacity to even possibly be, in my opinion.



You can't create it. You can't destoy it (cold death of the universe - all energy has spread out over the universe, resulting in almost none inside matter). Ergo, it was always there.




Not at all. I'm not the one worried if I'll get into Heaven or go to Hell. I'm not the one worried if my life so far has pleased some supernatural entity. Religion can't prove their entity exists, and I bet it drives them crazy to see science explain away, bit by bit, every single thing their simple minds couldn't bear before and they thusly attributed to their God(s).

Your spirit becomes one with the earth.

Not really interested in taking part in the argument but I have so many animals preening in front of a mirror I have a hard time believing they don't know it is them!

... I must have written up about half a dozen replies to this but I can't find the words to describe the difference between the concepts of identity and self-awareness I was trying to illustrate. If my argument is so weak I must concede that I do not truely know is animals possess a sense of self-awareness or not.

I am bested.

Now I'm going to go pet my cats for a while and ponder the meaning of their lives.

So God made it, right?

I hate to say it, but science can never prove where it all started. I like to call the starting point "God", whether it has a consciousness or not. You could also call it an Origin or something like that.



The stupid stuff that people attributed to God, such as eclipses, are disproven, but many other things, like what we discuss in this topic, science can barely touch. All we can say at this point is what part of the brain controls this and that, and how we can manipulate it all, so God must not exist. At this point, science is no better off than religion. Face it...just as people are beginning to panic with a lack of God, there are people who panic because science can't explain (or we lack the capacity to explain as humans) the biggest, most important questions of them all.

No. It was just.. there. It always has been, for as long as time existed. Nobody made it.

You realize you describe the "God of the Gaps"? That's lovely. Keep proving my points, you're doing a bang-up job.


I call these people "idiots". I don't care how the Universe actually started. If it wasn't the big bang I won't lose any sleep over it. Science adapts, it admits where it was wrong. It will revise its theories accordingly. God CAN'T because you chose to define him as being UNABLE to be wrong. Religion is a roadblock on the way to enlightenement, NOT the path. It is NOT the rationnal who suffer from anxiety.

What do you have to back this up? That's as rational as the Christian God. Theories can only go back so far, but the truth is that the law of conservation of mass and the cell theory are absolutely fucked when you discuss the origin of existence.



Yes, I agree that religion sucks. But even the rational suffer from anxiety? Why? Because we are all human, and that is natural.

One thing we can all conclude from this topic is...no matter what your beliefs, this life you live, this very form and identity you have now, along with this world...is only going to exist right now. Whether you believe in nothingness or heaven or reincarnation, you will not get to live this life again. Ever. Now that we can all appreciate that, we can get along and stuff, right?

I see myself as a scientist (-in-training) and I'm not suffering from any anxiety. Not any related to the truth and death and such, anyway.

Our current understanding of space-time might back him up. The compression and decompression of time is still a tough subject, but the word "beginning" might be somewhat irrelevant.

But those are just approximations of the world as we are used to perceiving it. They're not absolute and they don't pretend to be. And even if we never find a theory of everything, it doesn't mean that it was God who did it all, it just means that we don't know because there may be some shit that should be taken into account that may not be available to us due to either our particular position in space and time or to the limits imposed on us by our perception.


Eternal recurrance - the idea that everything happening now has already happened and will happen again over and over into infinity.

So basically, scientists don't know shit about it, but will pretend to anyway. Science has made some amazing breakthroughs, but they absolutely don't know shit at the beginning. Fuck that. As far as I know (kindly correct me if I'm wrong) this is the popular scientific answer to the origin and end of the universe.

There was a big bang, and the universe will infinitely accelerate until to and after the point that life cannot exist, due to dark energy.

The problem with this is that all of that matter can't just come out of no where. Nothing material can simply "always exist". It also fails to show why life would be created (on Earth) after 11 or so billion years. To this day, we cannot fathom making a single cell from inorganic material, especially using the harsh environment and few compounds that the Earth consisted of as a new planet. Also, dark energy is a very strange thing. Empty space in the universe contains dark energy? Ha. What about all of the matter in the universe? what lies outside of it? Truely empty space that goes on forever? Another universe that lies beside ours, like an Andromeda to our Milky Way? No one knows. All we know is that there is a shitload of shit out there, and mankind will never get to see even a trillionth of it. All we can do is enlighten ourselves, chipping away at religion while leaving the possibility of a God unscathed.

EDIT: quotes don't work for some reason, so I'm putting usurper's text in italics.

So basically, scientists don't know shit about it, but will pretend to anyway.
Who says they pretend to? You've been talking to the wrong scientists, or maybe none at all.

Science has made some amazing breakthroughs, but they absolutely don't know shit at the beginning.
Yeah, we don't know, and we don't want to jump to conclusions like some people often do.

There was a big bang, and the universe will infinitely accelerate until to and after the point that life cannot exist, due to dark energy.
I think you're thinking about dark matter, which may account for 70% or so of the universe's mass that we can't directly perceive with our eyes/telescopes. I don't know too much about it really, maybe someone else can jump in and explain better.

The problem with this is that all of that matter can't just come out of no where. Nothing material can simply "always exist". It also fails to show why life would be created (on Earth) after 11 or so billion years. To this day, we cannot fathom making a single cell from inorganic material, especially using the harsh environment and few compounds that the Earth consisted of as a new planet.
The big bang theory says nothing about the origin of life, and we've made organic molecules from inorganic molecules in a lab by simulating the earth's environment. Yeah there are a lot of gaps in evolution, but there are a lot of links too, and as far as we know it's the only plausible explanation we can show experimentally.

Also, dark energy is a very strange thing. Empty space in the universe contains dark energy? Ha.
A subatomic particle can be in two places at the same time? Ha.

What about all of the matter in the universe? what lies outside of it? Truely empty space that goes on forever? Another universe that lies beside ours, like an Andromeda to our Milky Way? No one knows. All we know is that there is a shitload of shit out there, and mankind will never get to see even a trillionth of it. All we can do is enlighten ourselves, chipping away at religion while leaving the possibility of a God unscathed.
Yes that's all true, but there's also the possibility that there is nothing outside the universe, and I don't mean that there's a void, but rather that there is no outside at all. I read something somewher by Stephen Hawking where he compared the three dimensional space of the unvierse to the two dimensional surface of the earth. It curves around and back onto itself so if you keep going in a straight line you'll eventually end up back where you started. If that's the case then there are no boundaries to speak of, and therefore no 'outside' either.

What is time if matter does not exist? I know it sounds like the corny "If a tree falls" question but seriously, time and space are intricately linked. One cannot exist before the other.

You do NOT understand the populist answer. The populist answer, the Big Bang theory, states that all matter has always existed. At the moment of the Big Bang,it was almost infinitly compressed into a singularity.

It then simply began to expand rapidly. This is the Big Bang. No matter was created. Since the beginning of time (which began AT the Big Bang. Don't ask me what was "before" that, "before" has no meaning if time does not exist), no matter has ever been created nor destroyed.



When will you finally discard the Cosmological Argument? It's so trite. "Matter" needs no cause, for it is the very fabric of the Universe from which and upon which "events" happen.

As a tangeant, I personnally believe the Muslim faith provides a much more compelling reason for Allah to be the Creator than any other monotheistic faith.

So everything came from nothing?

Everything always was. When there was "nothing" there was no time. Time began when "something" was. It can't have "come from" (implying a precedent time) nothing.

That's not very accurate. The building blocks of life are fairly abundant and are generally found in association with water molecules, such as what we have found in our solar system. The earth as a new planet was largely a molten rock, constantly bombarded by the debris of the chaotic solar system. Some of which were entirely composed of ice, thus most likely bringing the chemical building blocks of life with them. Due to the characteristics of the planet, it was able to maintain a liquid state of water, and therefore allowed life to develop. There is most likely an inconceivable amount of life in the universe.

That's as big of a copout as saying it was God's miracle.



I know that Earth had liquid water, as did Mars. At what point did the water and carbon and whatever become a living object?

It follows our understanding of time and matter perfectly. We have no understanding of God. To make an equivalency here is misleading.

Living object is a loaded term for a specific type of chemical reaction, feel free to start with amino acids and work your way up.

So god came come from absolute nothingness, but nothing else can? Ok

Absolutely not. The point is that everything falls to shit at that point, and since we cannot explain the beginning, we know not what happens in the end.

Our minds probably can't comprehend that there was no beginning, since our whole life revolves around things beginning and ending.

I find it entertaining that, even after I created this topic...after my immature and drunken rant...after reading every post in this thread...I still cling tightly to my original point.

We all believe what we want to believe, and barring a miracle, we are going to hold that belief until we die. Not one of you has changed a single mind on these forums. Even BC, as enlightened and cognizant as he may possibly be...It's futile to try. But it's still a debatable topic.

I was asking for answers to the meaning of life and death on a fucking internet message board. It was a dumb idea, for sure. But I found more than I bargained for, and that has nothing to do with any of the concepts or ideas any of us posted.

-Our general understanding of time is that there is a beginning, and there is an end. You have stated that there may not be either one...that something might always "exist". There is then, great irony in refusing to believe that we may not always exist.

-Our understanding of matter is that it cannot be created, and it cannot be destroyed. Saying it was always there makes no sense. For something to exist, it must first be created, and sentient or not, there must be a creator.

-Try telling a Christian that they have no understanding of God.

But why does existence imply creation if the creator must by definition defy this?

But there are countless definitions of a creator, so I'm not sure just what it defies.

Agreed. And you just happen to not exist anymore.


Nothing else.

You said that the existence of a creator is necessitated by the fact that something cannot "always exist", that it must be created at some point, which requires the existence of a creator. But that creator has always existed.

It's not really something you can work out with logic.

Yeah, this. Logic is a closed system, and is only determinative in a discrete system, where all of rules in said system are known.

Then I suppose faith has a better chance.

If faith cannot explain how the creator can defy the theory of Causation then it is quite a moot point to claim that logic's lack of a creator is somehow a fault.

If anything, this lack of a self-contradicting hypothesis only enhances my theory.

I still don't get why matter needs a creator. Nothing is EVER created in this world; things are only ever converted. Why do you apply the human concept of creation (usually in a sense of "assembling","constructing") to the very building blocks of existence? I see it as both arrogant and needless.

Basically, the explanation is that matter must be created, because it is matter, and is bound to the laws of the known universe. On the contrary, the existence of God lies outside our known universe, and as a result, is not subject to laws that apply to daily life, and not to our origins. It's not self-contradicting, but it does leave more to be desired, which is more than I can say for any pseudointellectual with a mastery of circular reasoning.

If anything, belief in a creator is the opposite of arrogance.

So what if the known universe has always existed in some form? No laws are broken in that scenario.

Just thought about this: people tend to think about time as something outside the universe, but that's kind of a careless assumption. There wouldn't be a 'before the universe was created', since time is an aspect of the universe.

But maybe you're right.

Saying "Well, it's always been there!" like BC believes just doesn't cut it.

That's a good argument, I never thought of it that way.

"Nuh uh, you're wrong" is not ar argument.

I could just as easily say "Saying "God is outside of the Universe" just doesn't cut it"

It's frightening how most theists apply their notions to the laws of physics and then smarmly imply that they must be wrong because they don't account for the mystical "god factor".

Screw you. There IS no law of creation. At all. Go ahead, prove it to me without using St Aquinas.

I dare you.


I hope that was sarcasm. If you're really that easily swayed I have some beachside real estate to sell you in Nevada.

--------

By law of creation I mean "Matter must have been created"
Please considr that by proving this you will have disproven the law of conservation of energy, so I know a couple of thousand scientists who will be pissed.

PM me the details.

It bothers you that much when no one agrees with you?

Out of curiosity, what kind of science background do you have, Usurper? You seem like one of those 'science doesn't explain absolutely everything, therefore x' types.

It bothers me when people are swayed by idiotic and fallacious "arguments". I am quite vehemently opposed to willful stupidity.

To provide material for your next ad hominem attack, I have little scientific background, and most science I know is either earth science (geography, paleontology), or objects of my own independent research. I major in no scientific fields whatsoever.

Hey BC, where are you?

I'm waiting for you to point out at least one of those fallacies.

argumentum ad ignorantiam: when someone argues that because we don't know something is true, it must be false, or because we lack proof that a statement is false, it must be true.

argumentum ad argumentum ad hominem: when someone attacks his opponent, claiming a priori that his opponent is going to use the argumentum ad hominem fallacy.

argumentum ex silentio: arguing that someone's silence is necessarily proof of their ignorance.

poisoning the well: stating a case such that contrary evidence is automatically precluded, and no arguments can be used.

argumentum ad populum: pandering an argument to popular passion or sentiment, or claiming that an argument is popular passion or sentiment.

reading this topic every day is like watchinga very slow basketball game

A spurs game, even.



I didn't ask for a list you pulled out of some glossary. Where did I use these? Also, has B C used any of these?