Total posts: 2,193
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You're asking for "your" perspective and there really is no difference if that is how you see it. They would all be the same. But, if you systematically think of each platform... you can separate the more likely platforms from the less likely. Merely people having spiritual experiences, lets say are true, would point towards a spiritual platform that can interact with this world. Just that would put deism lower than other platforms. But it's up to you to use your own logic to peer into these platforms. If you don't care bc none of them, by your standards have evidence, than that is your perspective and i can't change it. I can only point out what i've found and hope you can see it too. You have to look beyond your own perspective to dissemble platforms you naturally don't believe in. Bc each platform, if true, would have implications. I would suggest to start there in imagining what the implications would be and which of them line up the most with our perceived world. I would say you have to think beyond your perspective to see these platforms as just another system.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
It depends on what type of atheism you are talking about. By strict definition, i wouldn't need a strong argument. I could just say i haven't seen any evidence to believe in any gods. If said person never experiences anything that would change his/her mind than they have sufficient enough reason to stay skeptical.
I'm not an atheist by the strict definition, i just understand their concerns. Furthermore, their logic has made me realize what spiritual platforms are man-made. This would be all of the main religions... they are clearly man-made. However, i am not an atheist in the sense of spirituality in general bc i see a very possible if not probable platform of non-duality... a pantheistic type of platform. That i wouldn't be able to confidently disprove. I have also had spiritual experiences so i personally have strong evidence to suspect a manifestation of spirituality. However, to everyone else this is weak evidence and i know that. So i can't confidently disprove an atheist's logic and reasoning they don't believe. All i can do is explain my reasons in what i choose to believe and hope they see it. Most of the world can't see beyond their awareness. There are different levels of awareness and open-mindedness. If a person can't transcend their level of understanding... then they can't put where they are in perspective. Unfortunately, at this point in humanity... many people can't think in a meta level... observing everything from beyond their own perspective. So there is no argument other than direct strong evidence you can give an atheist to change their perspective. Even then it might not be enough. However, there is strong enough evidence to truly doubt the man-made religions. If there wasn't there wouldn't be atheists... so to that level i would also be an atheist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I think the more logical "god" would be a pantheistic type of entity. Deism would still be a creator god and there is no evidence for that type of god. But pantheism, everything is god, is probably the most likely platform. The reason i say that is bc one we can't prove everything and everyone isn't one... i mean, where do i end and something else starts. So non-duality would be an implication of a pantheistic platform. Plus, other evidence, spiritual experiences, would be more of a manifestation of a non-dual type platform working through us and randomly interacting with this world. Furthermore things like souls and anything having to do with your brain shutting down would be most logical if that energy becomes a part of everything when it leaves the body. Of course i know you are skeptical of this, but just wanted to point out deism has its flaws and i would put the most stock in a oneness type of platform where everything would be, if you'd prefer to call it, god. I prefer calling it source since god presuppose a who... i don't think it would be an entity that is any one person or thing... it would be everything simultaneously. Out of all my searching and analyzing platforms... this seems most likely to me and the hardest platform to disprove.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
It doesn't at all actually... only the scientific part. But i don't know. If you think spirituality is a part of lives... but not in a dogmatic way, then you would be fully green. Here, listen to just the first couple minutes. Starting from... 2 minutes
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
It doesn't mean any one thing. Green are people that usually want equality, they want people to work together to build a society everyone gets along, etc. Kinda hippie type mentality of equality and love. Orange are people that are driven, more selfish than green in that they would rather succeed over helping other succeed where green would help others before self, are scientifically minded... think of a corporation CEO's type mentality. I think you are more green than orange, but you also have a curious scientific approach type mind that would put you a little in orange. But i think ultimately you have transcended orange into green. At least, the internet version of you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Haha all good. I was just wondering if anyone knew it or was interested in such things. Don't do anything tedious... it's not good for your health ;p I can just tell you i think your colors are green / orange. Okay... i did that to get you a little interested, won't lie.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
It's a data driven research of society values and worldviews. It talks about how people and/or societies are at different levels of seeing the world. For instance, the middle east is a blue society while the west is a orange society. Blue means that they are black and white thinkers where orange is a little more open minded / scientific society. This can also be applied towards people. The trick is seeing it in the bigger sense of picture. Obviously the middle east has scientific minds too, but as a whole they are at blue level. The higher up you get on the spiral the better you are for the society / world bc the higher up you are the more you realize how everyone is needed and less and less selfish towards one's own gain.
It's sorta similar to the Briggs myers personality tests. But this looks at peoples level of awareness and values. The interesting part of the test is that wherever you are in the spiral you will likely view the other colors as deluded or shortsighted. Where, it's just a different level of understanding the world around you. For instance, red is a very selfish level. Normally gangs, killers, basically people that don't care who they hurt to get what they want fall under. Where blue is a right and wrong, value justice, a monotheistic god, patriotic, etc. type people fall. In order for red to put its ways behind it, it needs to evolve to blue (which is the next step). It needs to realize its detriment to society and by doing so it evolves as a person / society better for all. Interestingly, orange is after blue. Orange being what they west mainly is. Science driven, ambitious, i need to be number one type mentality. For blue to evolve it needs to wake up that things aren't so black and white making it orange. Then there is green which is best characterized as hippie type mentality. Equality and love. That's higher than orange bc it isn't as selfish as orange and tries to do things for the benefit of all instead of just self. Above those is tier two. Yellow and turquoise. Tier two is people that start to notice the rest of the spiral and are aware of it. It's the intellectuals and systemic type thinkers.
The important thing is to see this in the bigger picture. Bc obviously the stuff i listed as being characterizations of certain colors other colors can also share. It's seeing it as a level of awareness. I'm likely yellow bc i can clearly see this in people. I can see what stage people / societies are in, but that makes it harder for me to explain it. So, i was hoping someone else look it up and help me out a little in finding strengths and weaknesses.
Created:
Posted in:
What do you guys think of it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
Okay... i don't see where i even would hint that i disagree. Dude i'm done here. You are too scatterbrained for me to entertain. None of that has anything to do with my main point. I say "that's besides the point" and you ask me two questions in what's besides the point... lol, wow...A leap of faith or logic implies a chance. Of course there is a chance they'd be okay. The point is that there is also a chance that they would NOT be okay, and they have no evidence to suggest that there is a chance they would be okay.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Too bad now that i know how to play really well.... they rarely take my money. They have secret poker nights without me now lol. His excuse is that his dad and uncle come to play and it's just family... bs, they know i'll take their money. I've won the last 4 times out of 6 we've played so far this year. Ended in top 3 out of 10 people every time if i didn't win haha. You would think they'd watch some Youtube videos and learn how to play properly... Nope, always the same which is easy as hell to read. The only thing in their arsenal against me is luck.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
That may have been the case if it wasn't with friends that wanted to take my money regardless.That's called a con. The others knew it was your first time so they let you win in order for you to get hooked so they could later take your money.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Sure if he truly had no knowledge of what he was doing. Humans learned not to jump off a building. And probably to test things in a little safer manner. That was a cool video anyways. I had no knowledge of poker the first time i played and i remember winning a big pot. That's what got me into poker. It happens.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
You're focusing on my example which i can easily retract... fine, bad examples, whatever... the start of your comment is what's been at issue and why i started to think of examples in the first place. It didn't make sense to anything i was saying. That's the whole point. And i'm sure there are people that took a leap of logic with zero knowledge and turned out not only okay but gaining new knowledge or insight. But that's besides the point.
Created:
-->
@Vader
Nice. I like how you didn't end it with any hope.. I favor those types of poems ;p
Created:
-->
@Vader
Post a poem you think is darker... about loss or heartbreak. You can probably find it easier than i can.
Edit; Actually hatred sounds pretty cool too if you can find it.
Created:
-->
@Vader
That's a lot. I usually wrote free style too, but every once and awhile, wrote technical but those took a lot of thinking and time. Doing them in an extemporaneous way felt more creative to me. But i wrote dark to very dark poems. Those are the type i usually like. I'm an EAPoe type of poems fan. Stuff like this one i can remember:
Waiting through the creek,
slow, swamp like, dark
like the corner street with
no lights flickering.
I see shadows,faces,
desperate smiles with wolf
like teeth,slowly moving
along this calm water way,
blind to the end that awaits me.
I hear only one beat every inch
I move forward,my heart that
has forgotten the way through
this veil, the pearly gates that
await my smile,burnt skin,
and blood red eyes, i drift,
this calm creek to my demise.
This is among the lighter ones too. Do you have darker stuff?
Created:
-->
@Vader
Oh and yeah... i'd like to read your poems. I'm pretty good at giving advise too if that's something you would like.
Created:
-->
@Vader
Take my blood oh frivolous rose,
As you lay on this cold, lone floor,
Most petals cracked, are falling down.
Feel me, empty my blood of veins,
Destructive bloom with beauty'n soul,
Bud show your beauty to my world,
Oh vain white rose with streaks of red.
So weep oh rose, your tears are blood,
frivolous rose, your tears I hold,
We'll be enjoined in soul and mind,
Until the end we'll both adhere,
Still sight of death in this cold year.
As you lay on this cold, lone floor,
Most petals cracked, are falling down.
Feel me, empty my blood of veins,
Destructive bloom with beauty'n soul,
Bud show your beauty to my world,
Oh vain white rose with streaks of red.
So weep oh rose, your tears are blood,
frivolous rose, your tears I hold,
We'll be enjoined in soul and mind,
Until the end we'll both adhere,
Still sight of death in this cold year.
This is the most technical poem i've written in iambic tetrameter. What do you think?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
It takes zen masters years to get there i've heard. But you may be able to sooner or later... i don't know. There is a scientist that wants to test past lives through meditation. Bc there are a lot of zen masters that learn how to transcend this reality and remember past lives. It's a study worth doing i think. But in any case, it's possible to reach these realms through mediation is what i'm saying. I've just heard it takes a long time and dedication. So don't give up on it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
But how does any of that have to do with what i was saying? I didn't say anything that had zero knowledge in order for a belief. Furthermore, everything i said i made sure you knew is just hypothesis. I said i'm sure more than once "i don't know" BUT i think the case could be abc. And i'm also trying to add that one can't say there is zero evidence to suspect spirituality. Sure, i may think this evidence is a little more profound bc i'm bias through experiencing things myself, but even without that, it's my curious nature finding it curious others have experiences. But all i'm saying is you cannot say there is zero evidence. You can say there is weird stuff that goes on but i suspect it's all non-spiritual. Whatever, i can agree there and you don't have to look at it like i do. But, i think it's dishonest and negligent to say there is zero evidence to at the very least be curious about what's going on.
None of that has to do with zero knowledge. I'm saying i have knowledge to suspect what i suspect. It may not be the best or strongest evidence... but it's something in my opinion that i think should be looked into or at the very least build curiosity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I know i may have come off strong, but i was actually doing so with good intention. I want you to know to accept your dark moments as ups and downs so you are reassured they are always a phase. Bc in most cases at your age they are. If i got the feeling you were truly tormented, i wouldn't have come at you like i did. Bc i would know it wouldn't matter what i said. But for you, i think you have a light in you that's why i think it does matter. So i know you will always go up... just reminding you, if you do think about those dark moments, they really aren't that bad... they actually strengthen you every time you beat through them. Of course beating a darkness as i have strengthens one too (so that's a universal rule i think)... but one, it isn't good odds, and two i hope you, or anyone for that matter, never has to.It boosted my spirits now for sure. I mean it is a big deal for me. But I was in a dark place, but I can adapt and overcome it and that is how
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I was one of those teens... don't presume i don't know what i am talking about. From what you wrote and the moment after the happiness you are showing of the book deal, it sounds like an up and down moment. I was only talking about you... If you were tortured this little moment of happiness wouldn't mean anything to you, at all. That's how i know. You very well could still be... i'm only judging off this little instance. But from what i'm seeing, it doesn't look like you have demons that torment you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
It's a typical teenager up and down. Trust me it always gets better. I've seen hell, so to someone like me it's kinda offensive you even think you have it bad. So, cheer up and look at your negatives in life as a blessing, bc trust me they can truly be darker.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
"You've hit the bottom of life" ... that's actually laughable. You have no clue what that truly means.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I don't know if it has to do with speed or disk space. I think it has to do with disk space, bc i wouldn't expect it to have a large one when you buy it stock.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Windows 10 is different in how you find the rate. My rates are the ones i posted.
CPUScore: 9.1
D3DScore: 9.9
DiskScore: 5.9
GraphicsScore: 8
MemoryScore: 9.1
WinSATAssessmentState: 1
WinSPRLeve1: 5.9
The technical rate it would read for me is 5.9. Bc the rate is off the lowest score. My Disk Score is what is the lowest so that's my rate. But if you notice, the rest of them are monster rates. All way above average. But since my disk score is low... my rate would read as what that number is bc it just goes off the lowest number. So, if i brought that up to an 8 or 9. My rate would probably be 9.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
You got me curious about this so i researched. I guess your WEI score is meaningless. Bc in my case, it's the score from the weakest link which is my Disk score. That's bc it's just stock so i guess it isn't high bc of that. But everything else is pretty high. I actually bought it for the graphics and speed, so i am more glad those two are high than the overall WEI score. But in any case, i can just upgrade the disk score if i ever need it, but i don't see any reason i would need to since this isn't my gaming computer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I looked up a Youtube video for finding out system rating, so if this is what you are talking about i'll post my scores:
CPUScore: 9.1
D3DScore: 9.9
DiskScore: 5.9
GraphicsScore: 8
MemoryScore: 9.1
WinSATAssessmentState: 1
WinSPRLeve1: 5.9
So if it is the average of all that i'm probably around higher 7 or or low 8.
My question is do these numbers deteriorate over time? Seems like i got some good scores.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I don't know how to search that... tell me how to find out and i'll tell you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I use windows defender, haven't added any extra anti-virus. I do have ad block on so that will block most cookies from surfing on the web. I think those two together should be enough. I might download CCleaner a little later on to clean up stuff running in the background. I don't think i need it yet though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
because the fluctuation of the particles composes the empty space
I'm getting it a little more each time. Can there be fluctuations without any particles? Again since i understand fluctuations as changes in energy i think the answer to that question is no since without anything to create energy how can there be. But ultimately, i'm not understanding:
No remaining energy, no remaining space.
It sounds more like no particles, no energy. I don't see how energy has anything to do with space. Well, not anything, but i don't see how space is contingent on energy. Unless, as i am suspecting is the case... space is defined by the energy and particles. In which case i would understand how you can technically say there is no space without the above. But again... i don't understand how space is contingent on energy or even created by energy. Still seems like energy is happening in space not the other way around.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
Okay... so i have to understand quantum fluctuations before proceeding bc it feels like i'm missing something. In regards to particle annihilation, i think i get that. Anti-particles annihilate particles... but these particles, as i am saying, could be a part of space and happen within space. So, i'm left with understanding quantum fluctuations. What i know from a quick search is the QF's are a change in the amount of energy at a certain moment. So how does changes in energy mean QF are fundamental to space? From what i'm saying, there could be no energy in space at some point and no particles to interact or annihilate. So that is how i'm defining things above... which is why i'm thinking how i am so i might be thinking of the definitions wrong so let me know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
That makes it a lot more clear, and i'm kinda getting space is never really empty. But what i'm talking about is empty space. With no energy, no particles, etc. And, that these things manifested into this preexisting space eventually creating our universe. So our universe happened in a preexisting space... and i guess time comes along with our universe in the sense that we have things to measure time after they manifest. Although, the empty space is still space-time since time is just measured by how long it stayed empty. In any case, that's what i'm saying... it seems to me, space-time is the platform for everything else. One thing i probably may be ignorant to in asserting this is if space-time can truly ever be empty. I'll let you tell me i'm wrong there if that's not possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Sure mostly everyone in today's age is a consumer. I personally don't get what the fuss is over... i didn't know anyone whines about it. I guess minimalists try to act all high and mighty... but they're consumers nevertheless. Other than that, i haven't heard anyone have a problem with being one or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whatthef
Your advice sounds like a guess if you aren't more specific. In which case, i'll take it into consideration and think of upgrades to keep from that happening. So, why is it this will happen? Is it bc the fans are primitive? I know that at least. Why else do you think that will happen?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
It actually is asking a lot since the CoC is so vague and over-broad. I swear, if this was law, i would object to it on the grounds of over-broad, and burdensome and i'm quite sure the judge would award my objection. That's why it is very easy to over moderate... which makes your job harder and more subjective. Now, i'm not defending Ehtan here. I don't know any of what he did but as i posted to you in messages i'm well aware of his behavior. I'm just giving a warning in regards to over-moderation making people leave. If that happens, this site is gone and done. So you guys really need to think about the CoC or at least how you implement it. There is a reason sites that aren't so stringent in letting people communicate blow up so big. Youtube of course being king of that atm. In any case, i'm just warning what this sites actions could inadvertently cause.limits of the COC (which is not much to ask). But, I am aware that there is a concern about overmoderation, and that is something which needs to continue to be addressed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
And your point is? I hope it's not the your so wealthy so who cares that half the population is making less than 30k a year argument. Just bc i have a laptop doesn't make that okay. We live in this time, presently, on this earth. What you have in life doesn't matter, but if you are unhappy due to inequality... that is an issue and matters no matter what material you have.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whatthef
I overpaid when regularly with tax everyone else pays 14/15k for it? Okay... It would make more sense if you mean i overpaid bc ASUS isn't as good as other laptops... then sure, that's your opinion but i would currently disagree bc it's working more than perfectly for me atm.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Who cares... let whites, which i technically am one too according to surveys, get attacked. White chicks are the hottest and everyone's just jealous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
@bsh1
Actually he said he won't be back. I think he was disappointed at the ban. I've kinda gotten tired of this moderation bashing personally bc i have better things to do irl... but, he's another i don't agree with. You are banning people with this type of personality that we have come to accept over years of interacting with said person. Everyone knows how he acts, and we still engage bc deep down we have probably come to respect said person's resolve. At least, that's how it is for me. All i can say is you'll destroy the site if you keep banning people that are the most active and usually get people involved. It's a dangerous game this site is playing. It's expecting a little more comfort but sacrificing community for that comfort. It's honestly sickening to me bc i have thick skin and i can handle it... and not only that, the internet is the best place to practice dealing with humans that are like the opposition that offends you. It's seems this site wants to bury its head in the sand and pretend offense isn't part of this world. I can understand higher offenses that are malicious... but i would still not want a person banned if it's done within context. If it's malicious and done without any provocation... then i think it deserves a ban. That's how DDO was. That's how most sites with the highest amounts of users are. Bc that's life. People get better for it and i 100% believe that. It's really up to you how you do what you do. Since i am stuck using this site i will use it anyways. But understand, it will be really easy for me to leave this site bc of issues like this. I feel the more you moderate too much, the easier it will be for everyone to leave once another platform becomes viable and in the spotlight. So i guess this is a warning to you and like i said a dangerous game this sites playing at, so i hope Mike reads it as well. He may come back, he may not... all i can say, if not, than that will be a big blow to the site. Hopefully he changes his mind. This site honestly seems like there is more drama bc of this over moderation bw users themselves and in general. The irony.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
So the universe's spacetime currently is expanding at a fixed rate, the Hubble constant.By taking the inverse of this rate, we can trace spactime back in time and in size.If it were a correct rate, the CMB radiation wold indicate that by it's scattering, and it does, so we can take this rate back to zero spacetime.Also, the predictions of the energy density of the first bit of space, confirmed by the measured density of the early light elements with an anisotropy probe, show that from zero space, space with energy density comes.
Okay maybe asking you to explain was a bad move since i didn't understand most of that lol. I only think of it in layman terms and since i am ignorant to the science i have to go with logic and/or observation. Observing what space and time are... they very well "seem" to have always existed. Bc the alternative would be that there was nothing. And if there is nothing and something just pops into existence, well that's very tricky to say the least. So i don't understand how science can confidently say there was no spacetime at any point. Our space-time, which contains energy, the CMB radiation, and everything else... i can see how that came into existence. But to me it seems like those things came into existence into spacetime. Not that they created spacetime. But of course this will get us speculating about before the big bang and i know that's a problem. I've heard this no spacetime thing before, and without understanding the technicalities as you've explained, i know i'm speaking from ignorance, however, i think the little logic i use gives me good reason to at least doubt that there was at any point literal no spacetime. I do understand the "our" spacetime version. But like i said, it seems like our universe came into existence within a preexisting spacetime... would you say my logic is far off?
Created:
Posted in:
It sounds like the MGB argument, but yeah, maybe because the sheer odds of universes the possibility is there...who knows?
The MGB argument uses modal logic, but that's about all. I'm against any type of one entity platform, well in a way. The only one entity platform i believe could be possible is a source for consciousness. But this source wouldn't be an entity, it would just be a source. More of an "it" rather than a "who" ... it's a pantheistic platform. All other one god type platforms i find to be illogical. But as you say, who knows. But modal logic is simply a watered down fictional realist platform. If we can say "in some possible world santa exists" it's possible that in some possible world santa exists. Fictional realism is the all in version of that. I think with possible world nothing that currently exists goes into it... fictional realism doesn't have that limit.
Hahah, I'm an agnostic atheist as well, and I think there's a better case for santa's existence than god's.
I most definitely agree. When people ask then what is the "atheism" in when i say it, is directly referring to the gods we have. I believe none of the one god or many god platforms in religion have it right. Now i'm agnostic if its just deism or just gods without humans defining them. So i guess it's more an anti-religion type of atheism.
So, you sound sort of Greek, in that when they didn't have an explanation for something, they assumed intelligence. Rather than charged particles, an intelligence, Zeus, was throwing lightning bolts.
One thing many of the atheist here don't understand about me is that i'm really a hard skeptic. It's really hard for me to say something seems like what it is without thinking about everything i can. I've done the same with my experiences. Most of them are easily explained by confirmation bias and the like. But, i have four specific experiences that were very profound and can't easily be explained. I throw in intelligence bc that is something that i observed was needed for the experience to happen. Simple energy fields, from what we know, can't answer questions or demands. Two of my experiences happened with commands / demands. So, that is why i say intelligence seemed to be a part of it. Now, there's of course a chance of randomness seeming to go on command, so i knowledge that too... but it wasn't on its face.
Was it Zeus?
Lol, could be. But this is where i'm different than most people that have experiences... probably bc i am a skeptic.... i have no clue what it is. I can think of some platforms that could answer it, and rule out platforms that just make no sense like god, but ultimately i have no clue. When i say i'm believe in spirituality, i actually mean i suspect a couple platforms might be logical. If i had to say an entity... i would say myself in higher self form. Bc one of the platforms that would make more sense is a higher self doing these things... bc why would anyone else be following me around in this life? It makes more sense that i'm following myself around as a transcendent form. But who knows... i acknowledge that's just a best guess.
Well, for our universe, there was a time when there was zero spacetime, we've confirmed it with the CMB, the energy density of the early universe, and the inverse of the hubble constant. Was there other spacetime in other universes? Maybe.
Can you explain this to me? How do we know for certain there was "no" space time?
The things you mention about drugs are serious, and the implications are real, given this current heroin epidemic.
Yes it is, but it's better to call it a "doctor epidemic" bc it's doctor's that are the drug dealers and/or killers. When people say "gateway" drug... they basically mean vicodin or the like prescribed by doctors. It's only after the person has gotten addicted to that they start seeking heroin and other street drugs. It's sad the pharmaceutical companies don't care about life bc they can easily fix this problem. That's what makes me more mad, is how easy it is to fix but stupid reporters sitting there and yelling epidemic without reporting on the truths.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
See I would think it would be done through some form of electromagnetic radiation, energy all the same.
That's interesting i didn't think of it that way. It is the same nevertheless, energy. I wonder if there is some sort of interacting, one day we have a way of detecting it. I think that would open up a can of worms in regards to questions. I'm sorta a fictional realist (that's why i like multi-verse hypos). I think everything we have thought of could be possible in some "possible world." Kinda like modal realism too. It's just a fun idea that would be cool if it's true. I always tell friends that are into fiction too that alien sightings are super powered entities in other realities. Super hero/villains with the power to hop bw worlds. That's why it's always in the form of energy. They can pop into our world but can't fully manifest since they will manifest into our realities laws too. They just come by and check things out or who knows... somehow interact. It blows their minds lol. A lot of people wish those things could be true, evidently... seeing how popular super hero movies are.
I'm the most annoying for an atheist to argue. Apart from also being agnostic atheist i also think Santa could actually be real. lol.
What's supernatural phenomena?
I guess that isn't the best way to describe it by saying "supernatural." I would say phenomena we currently wouldn't have an answer for. That very likely could be natural so i acknowledge that. But, i am almost positive there is phenomena that we don't have answers for... which is obvious. But i go as far as this phenomena having intelligence and/or intelligently interacting with this world. I'm bias in this regard since events of the spiritual nature have happened to me. And more than just once. Spiritual would be defined the same way btw... phenomena that we don't have an answer for but with the addition of intelligence also being a part of it.
I would say our universe shows sign of expanding infinitely, but it most certainly had a beginning.
I think you were the one that taught me about how space-time had a beginning if we are defining it as "our" space-time. At least i think i researched it bc of one of your debates. I do believe it had a beginning too, but i most definitely don't believe there has ever been literally "no" space-time. I think that is something that has always existed. Of course an opinion.
Well yeah, I mean humans have reptilian brains and mammalian reproduction and birth.
Yeah, i've always found that interesting that we have reptilian brains. It's the amygdala area right? I learned about it in rehab. Bc people that are addicted to hard drugs shut down their frontal cortex and only function on the reptilian part of their brains. That's why they're compulsive and make bad decisions. Furthermore, i was told that if you started doing drugs when you were 16 heavily until like 28 or something... your frontal cortex stays shut down and doesn't mature until you stop the drugs. So once someone stops at 28... they're brain is only as mature as a 16 year old. That scared the crap out of me. Thankfully, i only had this problem for a little more than a year. I hate anything that has a negative effect on my intellect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
From quantum fluctuations, universes come, so I don't see why it couldn't be infinite, and I don't see why any of those universes would have the same laws of physics...to me the laws themselves are arbitrary, it's all about how the universe forms from quantum fluctuations.
That's interesting. To me, this means the chances of some kind of other intelligence existing out there would be high. This doesn't necessarily mean a "god" type intelligence although it can, but i think the chances of specific intelligences to their universe is quite high. The question is always if these intelligence can communicate / interact with our world. I would think the only way that could be possible is through energy. Since if they fully manifest into our reality then they would also manifest into our realities laws. That's why i find it even more curious that all supernatural phenomena is in the form of energy... even most alien sightings are some type of energy.
How much stock do you put in the possibility of aliens? And/or the possibility of other sentient / intelligent life?
No, if it's truly endless then there's a universe that destroys all conscious universe's and ours is destroyed.
That's precisely why i don't think any two universes are the same in regards to laws. I think it's the same as fingerprints where they all form a little different. And since their laws are different they cannot interact with our universe. There is a wall per se where our universe meets another. Of course this is all just speculation, but i think it makes sense this way or else you're right... one universe would eventually swallow up the others unless it can't. Since we're here that's probably the case... or, maybe there is one swallowing universes infinitely away from us. In that case, it will never get to us anyways.
What do you think of infinite? Do you think it's more on the lines of just not having any boundaries? Infinite would make more sense than finite right?
I think it can be said for all of our DNA, therefore all of our cells, therefore all of our tissues, therefore all of our organs
Would you say evolution is proven? And if so, how well do you think it's proven ... Overwhelmingly? Could it also be possible humans evolved out of more than one animal? I always had a crazy thought humans evolved out of all or most animals that's why certain humans look like certain animals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Well, the way you've phrased this i couldn't be confident that you do not have an invisible blue dragon on your right shoulder.. you very well could. I would have to know you in person to believe you, but as it stands i'd be 50/50.And yet it is an absolute indisputable fact that I have an invisible blue dragon perched on my right shoulder, you know this because I have just told you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
How confident are you that the universe hasn't always existed and has just been expanding infinitely? Basically, there was no big bang and everything has just been expanding and moving infinitely?Actually, I don't particularly like the multiverse theory, but it is a necessary result of quantum fluctuations, and so it is one of the scientific theories that I reluctantly accept because the quantum fluctuation principles indicate it and the evidence suggests that a multiverse is very likely.
Which type of multi-verse would you say is most likely? I personally like the multi-verse versions where there are an infinite and/or endless and/or undetermined amount. I also like to think that not all universes have the same laws. What do you think of those two points?
If there are multiple universes that are endless as i describe above... isn't it almost certain there is a Boltzmann Brain (conscious universe)?
No two fingerprints have EVER been found to be identical.
I work in law and defendants usually like to make the argument someone else has their fingerprint. We have to always explain it's quite impossible... but, it could happen as i'm aware just very unlikely.
Do you the same can be said for the human brain? That's why we are all slightly different bc no two brains form the same? Or, is the mind a little more tricky? Bc i guess there are people that have similar personalities... I just wonder if any two people can have the same exact personality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
That may be true, but your examples are real things that can be tested and measured, and they don't violate any laws of nature.Spirituality has never been shown to exist, cannot be tested or measured and most certainly violates a number of physical laws, so there's no reason whatsoever to pursue such foolish notions.
I know you guys like to stick to the "never been shown" but that just isn't true to me. Some people have experienced it. Now, has it every been shown to a large group of people under scientific scrutiny, no. But i don't think that's how it should work to begin with. By what it is, it would be elusive. Now, you have a point in that real things can be tested, but we have no clue one day spiritual concepts aren't real, and can't be tested. They very well can in the future. It's the same as dark energy and matter... well, not exactly if we take your point that we can observe something going on, but both don't have ways for us to test them. It's a big i don't know. I would say there is just as much evidence to suspect spirituality as there is to suspect dark energy. Maybe not dark matter... since most of the universe is suppose to be made out of that. But dark energy is just as elusive so it's sorta like it. But of course not really if i consider what you said. Yes, these forces have an effect we can "all" see, well at least all scientists studying it. Spirituality doesn't, it's more individual accounts very rarely group accounts. All i know is just bc we can't prove it now doesn't mean we never will. I don't think there is a good enough argument for me to not suspect some type of spirituality exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
Yeah that's what my uncle said too when we talked about it... the money aspect. But don't college professors make a decent amount? In any case, he said Republicans say it's the people that tried and failed.. lol. I don't believe that. I believe anyone willing to teach is kinda progressively minded. They push forward knowing you can always learn and grow. But then again, many types of teachers would probably be all about keeping things as they are like math teachers. I don't know.
I'm glad your centrist/moderate... it don't understand how more aren't... actually, i think the majority of people are, but unfortunately the loudest and most passionate are the fringes. I imagine centrist are just like whatever... as i would think most of the population is. It's funny, bc most laws that pass are centrist laws since both sides have to agree... it just takes forever to get to them bc of their idiocy.
Anyways, sorry i don't have any biology questions... i avoided the sciences like the plague when i was younger and stupid. I'm interested now, but more so in physics i guess. I think i've asked you if you believe in multi-verse hypothesis and you said no, but i like what science is doing there bc i think if there is anything spiritual at all... understanding that will get us closer. Biology wise... i don't even know what to ask. Why does every human have unique fingerprints and/or is it possible for there to be the same fingerprints? Lol... i guess that has to do with bio.
Created: