Sixchan
Emperor
What if there IS NO universe?
If there was a Multiverse, then you could exist outside reality but still exist.
If there was a Multiverse, then you could exist outside reality but still exist.
Atheism
- Thread starter Maj
- Start date
Well, an idea is just an neuroelectric impulse in one's brain. For this matter I recommend you the reading of (in French, as you're French) "L'erreur de Descartes" (Descartes's error) by Antonio Damasio. A must-read if you are interested in the issue of mind-spirit/body-matter. The author is a very prominent neuropsychologist that I think has revolutionised modern philosophy.
You cannot touch the light, but it exist and it's part of the universe. The universe is not only matter ; waves, electric current (well they are matter, though subatomic in size) and even the void is part of the universe (otherwise everything would be stuck together in one big mass of matter/energy). Anyway, scientist can't really put the limit between matter and energy ; especially since we always discover smaller division of matter.
Then you consider that the universe is not infinite. How can you know such a thing ?
If there are indeed separated universes, they must be limited. How do you imagine them ? like spheres ? Why shouldn't they have any contact together. What would be between these universes ? Void ? Then the whole would still be a big universe. If the Universe is everything, then just put all your multiverses together and rename them "composed multiversed" or "universe". The void is anyway part of something (universe or multiverse) as it is one of it component. Just tell me how you'd separate everything that is.
As a devote atheist, I'm offically a member of the United Church. But haven't gone to church in 11 years.
And the main idea of Religion is almost laughable. I mean...how diluted do you have to be to beleive in an invisible man in the sky that created everything? It all sounds very childish to me. The whole notion is one of fear and control. The church tries to control it's followers and when they stray they put the fear of God into them. Not something I want to take part in...thank you very much.
Back in the day, Gods were probably necessary to keep people in line and to explain the unknown. This day and age however.....it's not necessary as we make technological and behavioral bounds forward. Religion is now holding mankind back....not helping us.
I'm not saying forget the commandments et al., they are still good rules to live by, but I'm just saying that we need to re-examine what the world around us is.....and are we mature enough to live without a God. I'd say yes....but the danger of saying that is people who are very religious will take up arms "In the name of God" to stop us. Even though we have the maturity, and common sense not to kill....and not to live in fear, the other's have no problem doing so.
And this ends my babblings....for now.
And the main idea of Religion is almost laughable. I mean...how diluted do you have to be to beleive in an invisible man in the sky that created everything? It all sounds very childish to me. The whole notion is one of fear and control. The church tries to control it's followers and when they stray they put the fear of God into them. Not something I want to take part in...thank you very much.
Back in the day, Gods were probably necessary to keep people in line and to explain the unknown. This day and age however.....it's not necessary as we make technological and behavioral bounds forward. Religion is now holding mankind back....not helping us.
I'm not saying forget the commandments et al., they are still good rules to live by, but I'm just saying that we need to re-examine what the world around us is.....and are we mature enough to live without a God. I'd say yes....but the danger of saying that is people who are very religious will take up arms "In the name of God" to stop us. Even though we have the maturity, and common sense not to kill....and not to live in fear, the other's have no problem doing so.
And this ends my babblings....for now.
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
Originally posted by CornMaster
And the main idea of Religion is almost laughable. I mean...how diluted do you have to be to beleive in an invisible man in the sky that created everything? It all sounds very childish to me. The whole notion is one of fear and control. The church tries to control it's followers and when they stray they put the fear of God into them. Not something I want to take part in...thank you very much.
Back in the day, Gods were probably necessary to keep people in line and to explain the unknown. This day and age however.....it's not necessary as we make technological and behavioral bounds forward. Religion is now holding mankind back....not helping us.
And this ends my babblings....for now.
Not babble, noble Cornmeister, but truth, and you are speaking it well.
For religion, fear is the key, conquer fear and your conquer all.
catsmoke
9 lives
Like most of the other respondees, I was raised Catholic. My mother remarried when I was twelve, to a Protestant man. Seeing the radical difference between the Catholics ornate churches and ancient rituals, and the Protestants austere churches and sober services left me wondering how both these groups could claim to get their authority from the same source. Actually, the difference in their interpretations of the Bible taught me its unrealistic that any god would communicate with humans by means of writing, considering there is no universal language. But no, I think there is no god (God).
But if there is, please help me Jesus. Amen.
But if there is, please help me Jesus. Amen.
Hamlet
Manic Depressive
Mother and father are incredibly nominal christians, Granny is devout, although not a headbanger. She's quite tolerant, actually. Everyone else = Atheist or V.Nominal Christian.
Interesting, and I don't want to turn this into a metaphysics thread, but I think the physicalist interpretation of mind-body duality makes a significant error. That is, in one sense I can say that an idea is an electrical impulse in one's brain, but if I say "That's a good idea!" I may or may not even be aware of electrical impulses, or the existence of the brain as an organ, but still I refer to an idea (and have, pardon the expression, an idea of "idea."). To put it another way, if someone refers to something clearly imaginary, say a unicorn, they are obviously referring to an idea, but not necessarily referring to an electrical impulse. As it happens, most of the time when I say 'idea' I don't mean anything physical at all. If it were otherwise, you would have the dilemma of suggesting that people in 721 B.C., when they referred to ideas, really meant electrical impulses. And that's plain silly.
I know there are plenty of philosophers who buy the 'physical mind' solution, but there are lots more who reject it completely.
BTW, I'm not an atheist, because I have definitive proof of the existence of God, which I keep in a small tupperware container next to my bed, and am not allowed to show to any of you.
Originally posted by Thuloid
Interesting, and I don't want to turn this into a metaphysics thread, but I think the physicalist interpretation of mind-body duality makes a significant error. That is, in one sense I can say that an idea is an electrical impulse in one's brain, but if I say "That's a good idea!" I may or may not even be aware of electrical impulses, or the existence of the brain as an organ, but still I refer to an idea (and have, pardon the expression, an idea of "idea."). To put it another way, if someone refers to something clearly imaginary, say a unicorn, they are obviously referring to an idea, but not necessarily referring to an electrical impulse. As it happens, most of the time when I say 'idea' I don't mean anything physical at all. If it were otherwise, you would have the dilemma of suggesting that people in 721 B.C., when they referred to ideas, really meant electrical impulses. And that's plain silly.
I know there are plenty of philosophers who buy the 'physical mind' solution, but there are lots more who reject it completely.
BTW, I'm not an atheist, because I have definitive proof of the existence of God, which I keep in a small tupperware container next to my bed, and am not allowed to show to any of you.
You don't have to be conscious of something to make it exist. Animals probably don't know they have a stomach of nerves, but they have. You don't think about electric impulses in your brain, but they are in your brain anyway. The imaginary unicorn is a picture your brain is making out of electrical impulses in your "imagination" part (front right part of the brain). Your emotions are also electric impulses. The best prove (shown in the book of Antonio Damasio) is that someone you've had an accident or a tumor, and has the central front loba part of the brain destroyed CANNOT feel or express any emotions anymore . It means they are never happy, sad, joyful, scared or even moved. They are as emotional as a computer - ie not. Similarily, if the language zone of your brain is destroyed, you'll be unable to speak or even think using words. If the rear part of your brain, the zone of the vision, is destroyed (accident, tumor...) you'll be blind, even if your eyes are intact. More than this, you'll not be able to imagine with "pictures" or remember all you've seen in your life, what a blind person who has a problem with the eyes, and not the brain, can still do. The brain is a kind of extremely sophisticated computer that has zone of specialisation. If your remove the graphic card (brain's zone of vision), even if your screen (eyes) is operational you'll not have no image. If you remove the sound card, you'll not have any sound. It's a little bit more complex than this in the brain, as you can have a zone only partially damaged. There are 2 sides, also, left and right, which means only one side can be unoperational for a specific function (vision, hearing, memory...). But each side also has its specialisation. The right brain cares for logic, mathematic, reasoning and most part of the language. The left side is about imagination, creativity, 3Dimensional and some part of the language. The central frontal part makes the connection between reason/logic and imagination/creatvity ; it's the center of emotions (roughly, I'll not enter in complicated details here).
To come back to your idea of the unicorn, you can make one on your computer or draw it on a piece of paper, but still it doesn't mean this image represent a real animal, it's just a picture. That's the same in your brain ; you can imagine what you want (customize the shape, color, etc) but it's only a picture made by your brain out of electric impulses (maybe by association of images in your memory). It's easy to imagine a horse and just add a horn (that you saw on other animals) on it. You can make a pegasus by giving it wings (that you saw on birds). You can invent a Godzilla from the image of dinosaurs you saw in books or Jurassic Park and mixing it with other reptiles and even insects, and make a monster out of it. Why do you think Ancient Greek thought of unicorn and pegasus ; they were living in the regio of origin of horses, around the Black Sea, from where the men spread them around the world. It was a common sight for them. They didn't know about dinosaurs or big reptiles, so they didn't think about such kinds of monsters. Nowadays, with all the information and pictures your brain receive, you're able to imagine much more than Ancient people did.
I'd be glad to hear your proof of God, by the way. I have always been looking for it, but I haven't been able to find it yet (all previous prooves were discarded by other arguments). If you can find a proof that's inrefutable, I'll take it.
S
Six
Guest
Well, if the universe is expanding, it can't be infinite as it would be expanding into itself which isn't expanding as it isn't getting any bigger because it is infinite right? And if it isn't getting any bigger it can't be expanding which means that all the bodies in the universe are going outward and will hit the edge because the space they're in isn't getting any bigger!
Ooh, my head.
Ooh, my head.
When scientists say the universe is expanding, they mean galaxies (groups of stars and planets). Galaxies are huge, for example our solar system is just a tiny point in our galaxy. We already know hundreds of galaxies. But we are so small that we can't possibly know everything that exist. So, even if you notice that galaxies are moving or expanding from a original center, it doesn't mean anything. A few decades ago, almost everybody (the scientists, I mean) was convinced that there had been a big bang at the origin, from where the universe had started to expand. This had raised the question "but what was there before the big bang, then ?", to which Christian an other theists would have replied it was God, the moment of creation.
We have now "discovered" ("realise" is a better term) that there was not one big bang, but several. Some remote galaxies expand in a different direction than our (our group). So, a few years ago, the big bang theory was kind of dismissed, but it didn't please some monotheist (let say Christians) because it put there God's creation'stheory into jeopardy. The result is that opinions are still devided today. But as things progress and we always finf new things out, what can we expect for the next universal theory in a few decades from now ? What about in a hundred years ?
We are just coming to the realisation that it doesn't work anymore to put limit to the universe. We always find something more remote one day. 2000 years ago, Ptolemy thought of the geocentic system of the universe (Earth is the center of all) that was then adopted by the Christian Church and other religions later on. Not until Gallileo and Copernicus 15 centuries later did people come to think of another view of the universe (heliocentric, with the Sun at the center). After that, it was rejected with the discoveries of others solar systems, constellations and galaxies. Then came the theory of the big bang and now it's already outdated.
The reason of the misconceptions is clear : people have always seen to short and wanted to limit things. Maybe the infinite scare most people or they just can't imagine it (not an easy thing for our limited brain...). But until it's proven that the universe is limited, it's better to think it's not, for the moment...
Similar threads
