Religion

[gehringer_2]

3 minutes ago, MIguy said:

Thinking about all the tiny little minute details god had to pay attention to when creating man really makes you appreciate all that he was able to accomplish, especially when you take into consideration the whole not existing thing. 🤣

you have two 'inconceivables' up against one another. The first is the depth of complexity and organization we see in the world we inhabit. Not very likely things could have gotten to here. But other is how long the 10+ billion years is we've had for things to get here. In the end it's sort of a fools errand to try to assign a probability to the observed outcome.

[MIguy]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

you have two 'inconceivables' up against one another. The first is the depth of complexity and organization we see in the world we inhabit. Not very likely things could have gotten to here. But other is how long the 10+ billion years is we've had for things to get here. In the end it's sort of a fools errand to try to assign a probability to the observed outcome.

For someone so skeptical of science, you sure are willing to accept god without asking even a single question regarding his origins.   

[Jim Cowan]

1 hour ago, MIguy said:

For someone so skeptical of science, you sure are willing to accept god without asking even a single question regarding his origins.   

You are new here, and will be forgiven some mistakes borne of inexperience.  Your post here is unintentionally hilarious because you don't know that you are speaking to, probably, the pre-eminent engineer of this entire community...and you have called him out for being "skeptical of science".  It's pretty funny but you will probably get a free pass this time.

[Tigeraholic1]

7 hours ago, Jim Cowan said:

You are new here, and will be forgiven some mistakes borne of inexperience.  Your post here is unintentionally hilarious because you don't know that you are speaking to, probably, the pre-eminent engineer of this entire community...and you have called him out for being "skeptical of science".  It's pretty funny but you will probably get a free pass this time.

For a new guy he had some nice refreshing takes. Once he got into this thread he turned into a mocking obnoxious finger pointing troll. 

[ewsieg]

So a person arguing against the belief in a God is using Psychology to refute Chemistry?  This doesn't pass the smell taste.

[1984Echoes]

26 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

So a person arguing against the belief in a God is using Psychology to refute Chemistry?  This doesn't pass the smell taste.

They are brain activity experts.

G2 is a chemical engineer, if I have that correct.

G2 is chasing a ghost, that does not exist, by trying to force chemical engineering into human biochemistry and neural evolution. 

He is not correct.

There are a lot more brain activity experts that agree, not just psychologists.

You need to check on your smell test there...

Sorry.

[gehringer_2]

10 hours ago, MIguy said:

For someone so skeptical of science, you sure are willing to accept god without asking even a single question regarding his origins.   

??. I think if there is any overall argument it's that origin questions are pretty pointless no matter what your theological perspective. The two questions: "Where did the big bang come from?"; and "Where did god come from?" are exactly equal and neither theology nor science can answer either. The bottom line is that there are unanswerable questions no matter what you do or don't choose to believe about them.

Edited December 5, 2023 by gehringer_2

[gehringer_2]

21 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

G2 is chasing a ghost, that does not exist, by trying to force chemical engineering into human biochemistry and neural evolution. 

 

Last comment on the topic then back to our regularly scheduled programming. There is only one set physical laws for the entire universe. There are no different rules for what goes on in a human brain vs what goes on in the roots of trees or the inside of stars or the egg in your frying pan.  You appear to be arguing the brain plays by different rules. The only 'ghost' is consciousness itself and both physical scientists and psychologists are chasing it.

Edited December 5, 2023 by gehringer_2

[1984Echoes]

24 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

... The only 'ghost' is consciousness itself and both physical scientists and psychologists are chasing it.

And I've already argued that our "consciousness" is a combination of our memory capacity and our language skills (Broca's area) ARE our consciousness. I may be wrong on that point. But biochemically speaking... I don't believe so.

I think you are still looking for that "interface" but there is no interface needed between Broca's area and motor skill areas. It's simply one biochemical reaction (Broca's area or our "thought" area) in our neural networks, which we have some control over, to another neural network controlling motor skills.

Yes, last comment:

Just in case you weren't considering this:

You are trying to add an inefficiency into our brains looking for some interface. It's an extra step. And in evolution (at least prior to us, for the most part, conquering lethal threats), an inefficient or "slowdown" step would be fatal, and lead to an ending of that genetic lineage. IE: My thinking neural networks speak directly to my motor skill networks so I am up the tree first... Your thinking neural networks are still searching for that "Interface" and therefore... That Lion just ate your ass. My genetic lineage continues. Yours does not.

"Food for thought".

[pfife]

46 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

??. I think if there is any overall argument it's that origin questions are pretty pointless no matter what your theological perspective. The two questions: "Where did the big bang come from?"; and "Where did god come from?" are exactly equal and neither theology nor science can answer either. The bottom line is that there are unanswerable questions no matter what you do or don't choose to believe about them.

I apologize if this was covered already but is it really the case that science cannot answer what caused the big bang? I get that it hasn't yet but why is it not possible in the future?

[1984Echoes]

31 minutes ago, pfife said:

I apologize if this was covered already but is it really the case that science cannot answer what caused the big bang? I get that it hasn't yet but why is it not possible in the future?

SciFi version:

Matter and Anti-Matter "universes" held at a pinpoint, separated but completely in balance (like as inside of a "snowball", but separated into left and right "hemispheres" and unable to "touch" the other (in which matter and anti-matter would completely destroy each other, if they "touched" each other... leading to... nothing) by a positive-positive magnetic wall (two positives reject each other in magnetism, therefore creating the "wall"). 

The APPEARANCE would look like "nothing"; but the entire universe is inside that snowglobe. Hidden by the tiny size of the immense gravity of the compacted universe into that tiny space... and the equal and identical (mirror image) anti-matter universe.

One anti-matter proton-neutron-electron particle expires (went past its "expiration date" - haha, just a joke here... but give me some leeway...).

The imbalance, anti-matter side now has one less hydrogen particle then the matter side, leads to...

The Big Bang.

The Matter Universe (which we are in... because, we "matter"... haha) explodes into existence. The Anti-Matter Universe ALSO explodes into existence, but in the anti-matter dimension instead of our "Matter" dimension.

So there you go...

I just created the Big Bang.

 

 

Edited December 5, 2023 by 1984Echoes

[1984Echoes]

PS: Scientists have created anti-matter particles FYI, for an instant, out of thin air or, "nothing". Just for an instant until they contact a particle of matter and then evaporate... but it's been done.

I'd have to go search for that test/ study... this is just off the top of my head...

Edited December 5, 2023 by 1984Echoes

[Tigeraholic1]

31 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

PS: Scientists have created anti-matter particles FYI, for an instant, out of thin air or, "nothing". Just for an instant until they contact a particle of matter and then evaporate... but it's been done.

I'd have to go search for that test/ study... this is just off the top of my head...

Hmm created.... 😅

[1984Echoes]

Just now, Tigeraholic1 said:

Hmm created.... 😅

By scientific methods.

😉

[Tigeraholic1]

14 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

By scientific methods.

😉

I still can't get past the nothing plus nothing created everything. You do a good job presenting your case though.

[1984Echoes]

10 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

I still can't get past the nothing plus nothing created everything. You do a good job presenting your case though.

It's an extremely difficult point to get past.

And we don't have the exact answer to that. At least not yet.

I like my "weird" Sci-fi version though... If I try to get back into my sci-fi writing I would use that scenario to create a novel: "Third Universe".

[1984Echoes]

As it pertains to religion...

If I were to write a novel, "Third Universe", I would write it under the assumptions that the "Universe" has no beginning, and no end, and is actually not the FIRST or the ONLY Universe... but that it is the Third Universe (made of "matter", in sequence) that has ever been in existence. Just to play with that...

[Tigeraholic1]

3 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

As it pertains to religion...

If I were to write a novel, "Third Universe", I would write it under the assumptions that the "Universe" has no beginning, and no end, and is actually not the FIRST or the ONLY Universe... but that it is the Third Universe (made of "matter", in sequence) that has ever been in existence. Just to play with that...

I would not only read that book but I would pony up for the hard cover.

[1984Echoes]

9 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

I would not only read that book but I would pony up for the hard cover.

I believe I have some very interesting sci-fi concepts, and have outlined at least 3 different conceptual novels.

And I have written out some...

But the actual WRITING has proven difficult for me. Primarily the dialogue between characters. Much too wooden.

[1984Echoes]

PS: I'm a CPA, not a writer...

But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night...

[Tiger337]

11 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

I believe I have some very interesting sci-fi concepts, and have outlined at least 3 different conceptual novels.

And I have written out some...

But the actual WRITING has proven difficult for me. Primarily the dialogue between characters. Much too wooden.

Hire an editor to reduce the caps and exclamation points.  You'll be fine beyond that. 😃

[1984Echoes]

1 minute ago, Tiger337 said:

Hire an editor to reduce the caps and exclamation points.  You'll be fine beyond that. 😃

😄  👍  😉

[1984Echoes]

2 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Hire an editor to reduce the caps and exclamation points.  You'll be fine beyond that. 😃

PS: I don't HAVE any all-caps or exclamation points in those writings!!! So maybe I should ADD them???

😉

[Tiger337]

5 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

PS: I don't HAVE any all-caps or exclamation points in those writings!!! So maybe I should ADD them???

😉

Seriously, one of the biggest steps in writing a book is to get all your ideas written down even if they are they are not organized and edited yet.  It sounds like that is what you have done.  

[1984Echoes]

What am I thinking?!?!

FULL DISCLOSURE:

One of my "prospective" novels is "The History of God". I believe I introduced at least a couple of the "novel-pertinent" concepts in this thread... From an Atheist perspective, of course...

 

 

Edited December 5, 2023 by 1984Echoes