first off just smoked a bowl of trainwreck from a medical grower down the street so feeling good there was no first humanbeing, just a series of changes of the species through long periods of time, there was no "I'm aware of being aware moment" it happened so gradually it just was and is taken for granted. Just becase there may be an argument to be had ie we don't know enough to be certain, in no way gives credence to a thought of god. Check out the theologen professor from Cambridge his name is Denys something there is an interesting yet I feel failed argument for a creator god from this unknown area. Everything we know and see can easily be seen as without god, there is simply no logical room for a god in the natural world. In our minds it makes sense to have a god from our version of reality because of our isness god seems likely. But if you negate the human account and just try and see reality from a non anthropocentric view the natural world reveals itself pulls bakc the veil and the true nature is inherently natural devoid of human abstractions of it, unthinkably random, unimaginably beautiful connected in very real but natural ways. The Higgs boson is a theoretical partical in quantum physics that essentially bestowed mass, google it is very interesting!
Originally, the term was coined and used in a relative sense. If one was atheist, it meant that they didn't believe in whichever God or gods that were specifically claimed. It is a necessarily contextual term. Today, many people use the label or perceive it as those who believe in absolutely nothing. They are simply observers in this world, but they see no patterns, can form no conclusions, and therefore have no consistent direction. One quote can summarize my feelings on using the term in this sense: Karen Armstrong writes that "During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the word 'atheist' was still reserved exclusively for polemic ... The term 'atheist' was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling himself an atheist."[7] In the middle of the seventeenth century it was still assumed that it was impossible not to believe in God;[30] atheist meant not accepting the current conception of the divine. I agree with the perspective that it is impossible not to believe in God. We all believe in something, though that something may be constantly changing. They may believe in themselves. They may believe in embracing a temporary experience. They may feel nothing, think nothing, but believe only in what they see around them. But at any given point, whatever fuels us, whatever motivates us to move forward, that is our God. Atheism truly means "without God," and that is impossible. To truly be without God would be to be absolutely nothing, pure void, which is impossible.
I've definitely had hallucinogenic trips like this. However my beliefs have always stemmed from the beginning. Creation. Where does life begin in the equation? Evolution has never answered that for me.. Another question is big bang.. I believe it did happen, however what caused it? Even if you argue bacteria as the beginning of life, where did it come from and how did it begin? Also, what caused it to evolve into mammals? As for being high, I'm there with ya bro. edit: I just realised, how the hell did they learn about the big bang? How can they find evidence from "so long ago"? I've never really researched it..
and you know this how? lol and @WhosGotTheHerb - despite the fact that nobody can really answer the question you're asking, it doesn't mean the answer is a creator.
Does this mean we can call science god? I would agree with this 100% IF there weren't people that only believe in science/nature, unless we can agree that nature is god?
which question? how did the big bang happen? Yes I know, but isn't it interesting to try to imagine what caused it?
Kind of have to define life, which is a rather hard. How much can you take away from "life" before it become "non life" and what can be taken away? I think of life as a system that's capable of Darwinian evolution. From the theoretic science at the forefront it looks like the first forms of life that really fit that definition are nucleic acids. Here is a pretty nice little article about the beginnings of life Observations: How did life begin on Earth?. Big bang has a lot of theoretical precursors look into cosmology and physics there is so much out there. What caused life to evolve is evolution brought to you by natural selection. I have very limited formal training in the sciences being discussed so please excuse some of my gaps if they show up. I know the data is out there and the so are the theories, just might not be able to recall them at the moment but I assure you a little bit of investigating will show you. Off topic for a lot of things I try and learn I use some of the free university/college courses online MIT, Yale, Tufts and quit a few other have a mass of free courses one can take to learn about philosophy, natural sciences just about anything covered in university studies if you have the time it is well worth it.
Because pure void is nothingness. Look around you. There's not nothing. There's something. Science shows us that even in a vacuum, particles seem to "blink in and out of existence." I don't even believe they blink. The "blink" is an explanation for when the particle becomes so small our most observant instruments are incapable of detecting it. There is always something. It can physically appear to get bigger or smaller, but it's only relative to perception.
Very interesting article! Really got the imagination going.. But there's still questions I have to these hypothesis. All the required cell structures required, they have to come from SOMETHING right? I mean you could go on and on listing things that came from such and such, but there has to be a beginning right? Also, imagine a single cell growing all the way to a being, ok? Now once it grows into something... anything. Living beings require a heartbeat to function, along with many more requirements. Do you think the blood would evolve along with the heart? You need blood to live, which is what the heart is there for. Also, what caused the shock to start your heart/brain? These kind of questions are what make me believe there is some greater force in this. After asking yourself these questions, can we not agree there are things we just do not know to be true, and therefore have to rely on faith of what we believe?
The origin of faith is from Latin meaning to trust. I do trust the current scientific consensus and feel the inferences made off scientific fact and the theoretical possibilities of the "scientific future" lead to a natural and "great mystery" free answer to everything. To me and a lot of others science and the logical conclusions (which can be argued is Bell's interconnectedness theory reasonable or logical sounding?) it brings is more then enough evidence to make the decision there is only nature, no divine being whatsoever. It comes down to how you judge trust, you can trust in what you feel or the reality one has created for themselves or have been indoctrinated to or on the other side trust in the reality outside of your head that is objectively true no matter what you feel, think, or want to believe. I humble myself, pull back the part of me that wants to have meaning or a defined purpose in the universe and see what the universe is onto itself.
Fair enough.. It just doesn't set well with me.. I mean you could argue all this to be true, these "theories", but I believe it ALL has to come from something. Living or not, could we not agree this "single cell" would be our creator? Also, about trust. I will always trust what I have made my reality to be. Outside forces will never take away a belief until I have allowed it to.
You seem to be a reasonable person which I like but I feel your definition or idea of a theory is different from mine. My theories that support my "faith" if want to label it are a hypothesis, ability to be probed, replicated, tested, you have to be able to make inferences about it, and lastly it needs to have firm, acceptable evidence. It is not a wishy washy emotionally charged "theory" of what I feel (not saying thats what it is to you).
I see what your saying.. but it just doesn't fit with my beliefs. well just have to agree to disagree on this one..
It is hard to reconcile our beliefs with the natural reality or how we tie into the universe or fit into the big picture. The reason I believe it is so difficult is it's a man made concept to begin with, there is no tying into the universe, belonging in a metaphysical sense because it simply doesn't exist outside of our consciousness.
but at what point of your creation I wonder? Reading this post again really has me confused. You say in order to believe in natural reality (tieing together us and universe correct?), we must release our faith in a creator.. but then you say that it is a manmade concept and that it only exists within our consciousness? Am I miss understanding this?
Intro to psychology in college covers this, if you're interested. You can probably even download courses for free online, lots of universities now a days offer this.