Chewy, meaty & philosophical... Here?

[Ceka Cianci]

7 minutes ago, BelindaN said:

It's the Matrix. It isn't real.

None of it.

There is no Spork..

 

Anybody know where I can score a Spork? \o/

[Madelaine McMasters]

6 minutes ago, Gatogateau said:

Why would I want to disprove this fact? Going back into the ancient history of the Forum, I believe at one point in time it was well known that there were only two people posting the whole time: me and Pep. (And I once "won" a write like Pep challenge and threw shadow on even whether Pep was a separate entity.) 

The best arguments (as in debates) are the ones in which I win, and I am legion.

How do you know I'm not Pep, the other believer that this is all neurochemistry?

[Madelaine McMasters]

2 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

Anybody know where I can score a Spork? \o/

 

[Lyssa Greymoon]

5 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

Anybody know where I can score a Spork? \o/

[Madelaine McMasters]

1 hour ago, TDD123 said:

1 hour ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

 I think Your decision to draw a line of demarcation was both arbitrary and incorrect.

You do KNOW I'm not a moderator here nor a judge in any form ?

Point taken. I've added "I think" to put myself in my place.

[Gatogateau]

28 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

How do you know I'm not Pep, the other believer that this is all neurochemistry?

Since we (both you and I, who are one) have concluded, using the most rigorous protocols of teh logics, that I am you (and he is the walrus), we do contain that knowledge, either pro or con, within our combined consciousnesses. Indeed, they could be both simultaneously be The Truth.

Edited September 15, 2020 by Gatogateau

[Rowan Amore]

I am the walrus, goo goo g'joob g'goo goo g'joob
Goo goo g'joob g'goo goo g'joob g'goo...

 

Sorry, total randomness.
 

[Gatogateau]

33 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

How do you know I'm not Pep, the other believer that this is all neurochemistry?

(And now... The news more serious response)

And I'm not saying YOU said this, but there is once again that nasty thing of a false dichotomy for many people that one either believes in Science! or God!

I'm still studying (and hope I always will be able to, on any subject) this whole monotheistic version of stuff. My jury is still out. However, that being said, I see nothing that says "it" has to be one or the other. Why wouldn't a god create things, that with some digging and poking by some species here or there, be found to follow this or that principle or law? Evolution can happen, Big Bangs can happen, etc.

If it HAD to be one or the other, then I would prefer a universe with science and no god, versus one with a god and no science. Luckily it isn't necessary to make that choice (despite what some folks believe).

And going tangential to go back to the OP: If one defines god as Love, that doesn't mean one believes that god is out there throwing Valentine's Day cards at one group of people while smiting another over some interpretation of what the definition of "is" is. That doesn't mean that the tornado saved this one trailer, owned by Myrtle, while leveling the other trailers because Myrtle is somehow superior to the others in the trailer court. (In fact, rumor has it that Myrtle...) Love is sometimes defined as the creative force, or Creative Force, as the case may be, with no more anthropomorphizing than that.  We are just limited in vocabulary and insight: The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao , etc.

 

[Silent Mistwalker]

1 hour ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

The arise of increasing complexity has been a stumbling block for believers of "intelligent design". They'll claim that increasing complexity violates the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, which requires that everything tend towards disorder. While that's true for the entirety of any closed system, the law says nothing about the inner workings of those systems. So long as a closed system has some initial energy, it is entirely legal for that energy to drive increased complexity in subsets of the system.

The singularity of the Big Bang contained more than enough energy to drive the nuclear processes that formed quarks from strings, neutrons and protons from quarks, then atoms and eventually molecules. At each of those steps, the increased complexity of the new building block was made possible by the enormous energy available at the beginning. Though all that energy started out in one place (which maybe shouldn't be called a place, since it had no size), it expanded unevenly. In those regions of the universe lucky enough to coalesce, there is still plenty of leftover energy to drive the fight against entropy. Most of the universe is already where the rest of the universe is headed, a cold, blank void.

We have a pretty good understanding of the creation of hydrogen and the gravitational coalescence of that into stars, from which are produced the heavy elements that form planets and us. We also know that our planet is bathed in energy from the Sun, enough to overcome entropy in endless ways. The trick now is to understand the ways that produced the complexity of "life" here. You said...

"the basic elements of existence grew in complexity when they could have just as easily stayed simple?"

This exposes the unavoidable problem we face in trying to understand entropy. The increasing complexity of the things we see actually IS the easiest way. Nuclear and chemical systems generally "prefer" the lowest energy state (that entropy thing). But if you toss a bunch of energy at them, they can be "forced" to a very energetic form of chaos that "settles" into a less energetic form of complexity. This is a vast oversimplification of the enormous diversity of nuclear and chemical processes at work, but it gets at the basic idea.

On a macro scale, evolution well explains that a billion years of wandering aimlessly can explain the myriad creatures we know about. What's still eluding us is the first few steps, during which some form of self replication "happened" into existence. When I was young, that was thought to be the "missing link" from inorganic to organic. Now, though we still don't know just what that link is, there seems to be evidence that there might be more than one. Similarly, we once thought that structures like eyes were a one off development. Now we see evidence of such structures arising, vanishing, arising again, vanishing again, and arising in quite separate regions of the world, independently.

I have hope that we'll eventually figure this stuff out. Though the day-to-day advance of our understanding of this seems like a drunkard's walk, the overall trend has been forward, and accelerating.

Back to the larger topic philosophical scope...

I am not spiritual, yet I do experience the feelings of connectedness described by spiritual people. I like to imagine that feeling emanating from the big bang. But, I don't imagine it in the way that spiritual people do. I do not believe in some cosmic thread binding all things here and now. Rather, I think of the entire chain of events, from the Big Bang to me typing at the keyboard, trading energy for complexity as the whole circus slowly winds down. I like to think I have feelings of connectedness and a sense of wonder because those ancients before me who thought as I do were better able to survive than those that didn't. That doesn't mean we're all cosmically connected, just that wondering about it makes us better survivors.

And so... here we are, the survivors, wondering about it all.

A well known scientist once likened the universe (and galaxies) to "pinwheels in outer space, Mother Nature's fireworks". It fits.

 

 

There is more to the phrase "we are all related" than meets the eye.

[Gatogateau]

1 minute ago, RowanMinx said:

I am the walrus, goo goo g'joob g'goo goo g'joob
Goo goo g'joob g'goo goo g'joob g'goo...

 

Sorry, total randomness.
 

Nope, not randomness, twas totally where I was going.

[Silent Mistwalker]

55 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

There is no Spork..

 

Anybody know where I can score a Spork? \o/

May the spork be with you.

[Gatogateau]

[Madelaine McMasters]

2 hours ago, Gatogateau said:

Let's see if I can get this right...

You got pretty close. It's not the push-pull of photons that makes things "solid", it's the push-push of electrons...

 

30 minutes ago, Gatogateau said:

(And now... The news more serious response)

And I'm not saying YOU said this, but there is once again that nasty thing of a false dichotomy for many people that one either believes in Science! or God!

I'm still studying (and hope I always will be able to, on any subject) this whole monotheistic version of stuff. My jury is still out. However, that being said, I see nothing that says "it" has to be one or the other. Why wouldn't a god create things, that with some digging and poking by some species here or there, be found to follow this or that principle or law? Evolution can happen, Big Bangs can happen, etc.

If it HAD to be one or the other, then I would prefer a universe with science and no god, versus one with a god and no science. Luckily it isn't necessary to make that choice (despite what some folks believe).

And going tangential to go back to the OP: If one defines god as Love, that doesn't mean one believes that god is out there throwing Valentine's Day cards at one group of people while smiting another over some interpretation of what the definition of "is" is. That doesn't mean that the tornado saved this one trailer, owned by Myrtle, while leveling the other trailers because Myrtle is somehow superior to the others in the trailer court. (In fact, rumor has it that Myrtle...) Love is sometimes defined as the creative force, or Creative Force, as the case may be, with no more anthropomorphizing than that.  We are just limited in vocabulary and insight: The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao , etc.

 

My Father took Pascal's Wager. Though he could never find specific evidence for God's handiwork, he "felt" there must be something "more". He was raised by his grandfather who, though also skeptical of organized religion, saw God's handwork all about him. I suppose I'm just continuing a long family tradition of growing patience for answers. I see no particular evidence for God's handiwork and I don't feel the need for there to be something more.

If there is, so be it. If there isn't, so be it.

 

Edited September 15, 2020 by Madelaine McMasters
Linked directly to YouTube for the first clip and added a link to Pascal's Wager.

[Gatogateau]

@Madelaine McMasters I had to Google Pascal's Wager (cuz I isn't no collidge gradjeate). I found a few things:

The serious (still reading this one) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

 

The succinct:

I love Calvin and Hobbes

[Madelaine McMasters]

Sitting in church as a child, listening to the last of the "old school" priests doddering on about fire and brimstone while watching parishioners nod off, I wondered...

"What if these people around me are only 'being' good because they fear retribution in the hereafter?"

Believing that would require me to think less of them and even more less (?!) of the priest. It seemed a better bet for me to continue seeing promise in the parishioners (I knew many of them) and discount the priest to fire-sale value.

What a joy to see people behaving well for the pleasure that brings them now, not for the avoidance of pain in some imagined afterlife.

[Gatogateau]

6 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

What a joy to see people behaving well for the pleasure that brings them now, not for the avoidance of pain in some imagined afterlife.

This is a feeling/belief shared by many atheists I know. They have put it various ways, "If the only reason you are behaving well is because you have a "fear of God", then what does that say about you as a person?" Amen.   Why my jury is still out (reason 492): The whole concept of "fear" of God, or god fearing righteousness, etc.

(And while I've only heard atheists say this, I don't see why this can't also be held by those who believe in some variation of god(s).)

[BelindaN]

If you are all a construct of my mind, and none of you really exist, then I'm in total awe of how complex and random, and intensely irritating some of you, who I constructed, actually are.

I need time to think this through. And invent more irritants.

[Silent Mistwalker]

1 hour ago, BelindaN said:

If you are all a construct of my mind, and none of you really exist, then I'm in total awe of how complex and random, and intensely irritating some of you, who I constructed, actually are.

I need time to think this through. And invent more irritants.

It's your imagination we are figments of.  Ponder that one.

[Akane Nacht]

13 hours ago, Orwar said:

People who tattoo 'Carpe Diem' on their skin, who aren't ready to piss on people who displease them, are no better than the morons who tattoo Chinese symbols on their body without realising they've carved 'Shrimp Soup' onto their buttock. The misanthrope in me would rather see that these people never find love or happiness, so that they may never breed and raise more idiots into our society. 

That seems a rather different description than the "vague-minded hippie types" you mentioned earlier. Even so, the distinction is in their intent/sincerity (I mean that in a morally neutral way, eg. they could have a sincere intent to misuse a phrase in order to be a jerk) - which you can't really know unless you ask them. In the absence of stated intent, I'd assume they really believe what they profess to, even if they profess it cringe-ily. 

[BelindaN]

I only know love as I've experienced it myself.

As a child I loved my mother without understanding the concept, but it must have been love because I ignored her many flaws.

As a young adult I chased the concept of what I believed to be love without understanding. But it was young adult love which found me.

This brand of love changes over time, and what was once hot and all consuming, like the big bang, now is more like glowing embers. Warm and comforting. 

In the middle of all that, a child arrives, and presents the most powerful manifestation of love. One might say the true meaning of love. One's own flesh and blood given a fresh start. 

Maybe all this is just chemical programming. Does it matter?

Tied into love is wonder and contentment. I hike in remote places. I enjoy solitude. I enjoy my own company more than I should. I wonder at the incredible scenery of our planet. The mountains, the sunsets, the colours, the complexity. All of that.

On very rare occasions it all comes together. It's like a warm blanket of peace and tranquility  which is so rare, but so special. I'll give you one example. Sitting with family after a full day walking, overlooking a green lush valley, holding a glass of chilled white wine. It's August. The air is warm but still. The sky is blue as the sun retreats for the night. A meal is in the way. We sit in silence, just taking in every minute detail of existence.  This is loving existence.  Sadly such overwhelming contentment with life is rare. But so memorable.

Doing the dishes is a chore which I will never love. Especially listening to snoring from the sofa.

 

[Luna Bliss]

On ‎9‎/‎15‎/‎2020 at 12:28 PM, Madelaine McMasters said:

The rise of increasing complexity has been a stumbling block for believers of "intelligent design". They'll claim that increasing complexity violates the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, which requires that everything tend towards disorder. While that's true for the entirety of any closed system, the law says nothing about the inner workings of those systems. So long as a closed system has some initial energy, it is entirely legal for that energy to drive increased complexity in subsets of the system.

The singularity of the Big Bang contained more than enough energy to drive the nuclear processes that formed quarks from strings, neutrons and protons from quarks, then atoms and eventually molecules. At each of those steps, the increased complexity of the new building block was made possible by the enormous energy available at the beginning. Though all that energy started out in one place (which maybe shouldn't be called a place, since it had no size), it expanded unevenly. In those regions of the universe lucky enough to coalesce, there is still plenty of leftover energy to drive the fight against entropy. Most of the universe is already where the rest of the universe is headed, a cold, blank void.

We have a pretty good understanding of the creation of hydrogen and the gravitational coalescence of that into stars, from which are produced the heavy elements that form planets and us. We also know that our planet is bathed in energy from the Sun, enough to overcome entropy in endless ways. The trick now is to understand the ways that produced the complexity of "life" here. You said...

"the basic elements of existence grew in complexity when they could have just as easily stayed simple?"

This exposes the unavoidable problem we face in trying to understand entropy. The increasing complexity of the things we see actually IS the easiest way. Nuclear and chemical systems generally "prefer" the lowest energy state (that entropy thing). But if you toss a bunch of energy at them, they can be "forced" to a very energetic form of chaos that "settles" into a less energetic form of complexity. This is a vast oversimplification of the enormous diversity of nuclear and chemical processes at work, but it gets at the basic idea.

On a macro scale, evolution well explains that a billion years of wandering aimlessly can explain the myriad creatures we know about. What's still eluding us is the first few steps, during which some form of self replication "happened" into existence. When I was young, that was thought to be the "missing link" from inorganic to organic. Now, though we still don't know just what that link is, there seems to be evidence that there might be more than one. Similarly, we once thought that structures like eyes were a one off development. Now we see evidence of such structures arising, vanishing, arising again, vanishing again, and arising in quite separate regions of the world, independently.

I have hope that we'll eventually figure this stuff out. Though the day-to-day advance of our understanding of this seems like a drunkard's walk, the overall trend has been forward, and accelerating.

Thanks for all that.  Reading about 'energy' and 'selective attention' now...

[Luna Bliss]

On ‎9‎/‎16‎/‎2020 at 3:42 AM, BelindaN said:

Doing the dishes is a chore which I will never love.

I've discovered that if I'm not able to love something it's because I'm not looking at 'the big picture'. For example, with dishes, this involves a major process of life --  getting rid of waste so the new can enter -- life is a never-ending process of bringing in the new and getting rid of the old.

Likewise with death...imagine what the world would be like if nothing ever died..

Not saying you 'should' feel differently about dirty dishes, or that I can maintain such a perspective all the time, but it's a common awareness I more frequently come into contact with -- that I'm viewing life from an ego 'me' perspective instead of from a grander, 'big picture' perspective. And why should my ego or the human perspective always determine reality?

The snoring on the sofa while another does chores....well that is more complicated.  Trying to imagine, after Thanksgiving dinner prepared and cleaned up by the women, if I could have caused my brothers to help with dishes via describing the grand principles in the process of life....lol.

[Jaide Beck]

In Matthew 24:14 it says....  And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Jesus is the Lord God and he knows everything and is merciful and gives us opportunity to hear. In John 3:16-19 it shows his mercy. he gave his life on the cross and died for us and was resurected. He took our punishment. he died in our place. he has been the perfect sacrifice. He never sinned. I believe he does take aborted children into his arms. I know he has mercy. Yes, there is hell, BUT according to 

Matthew 25:41.

"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels."

So people do go to hell, but it was originally made for satan and his demons. satan fell from heaven like lightning. We see this in Luke... 

Luke 10:18

 

“And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.”

------

Jesus is merciful and wants us to have a relationship with him. He was born like us, lived like us, but no sin, had his ministry, he was beaten, spat upon, flogged and had thorns huge thorns pushed into his head, was pierced by nails huge nails and hung and suffered suffocation. He wasn't even recognizable as a human being. What you see in pictures is not Jesus, and not what he looked like. He was the GOD 'man'. He came because he loved the whole world he wanted us to know him. He bridge the gap. He died and rose from the dead and lives to this very day in GLORY! He would rather we submit to him by repenting and being saved and surrendering our entire lives to him. It's not about some pretense, some fake religion. In the Bible it tells us what religion really is in the eyes of the Lord Jesus Christ/ Yeshua HaMashiach... 

 

James 1:27

 

King James Version

 

 

²⁷ Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

--------------------

Jesus is full of mercy. He didn't have to come here and live sinless. He didn't have to bother, he could've said I'm gonna enjoy all I've made and forget those people, but he has such mercy and love. Other religions say it's based on feelings, works, etc. The Bible says works are proof of salvation, but not to BE saved by. The Bible also tells us in JESUS name we are saved. satan loooves to deceive people, but he can NOT do anything unless Jesus permits him. Look at the book of Job. He asked God about Job. He said he'd curse God, but he didn't and God gave him back everything and more, yes he'd lost his previous kids and so on, but God was faithful. Let us lean on Jesus and repent. He IS the ONLY way. New age is not the way, satanism is not the way, Hinduism, Jehovah's witness and all the others are not the way. Jesus is the way. John 14.  Hugs.   

Sincerely, Jaide Beck

Edited October 12, 2020 by Jaide Beck

[Rowan Amore]

[Seicher Rae]

4 hours ago, Jaide Beck said:

New age is not the way, satanism is not the way, Hinduism, Jehovah's witness and all the others are not the way. Jesus is the way. John 14.  Hugs.

Wow, I missed the emoticon hugs and smiles in John: 14 on my first read through...

(Not to mention "New Age"...) Instead of all the non-quotes and hate filled opinions, wouldn't it be nice in a thread about "love" to be reminded of Matthew: 22? "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" instead of "all the rest of y'all suck"? Not to mention, as the author, I would have preferred this little thread, which has run its course weeks ago, to remain sleepy rather than be startled awake by such off topic nonsense.