[Ronin]

My problem with the god theory is that there is no evidence of one or a need for one to have created the universe.

I strongly believe the god mentioned in all ancient texts does not exist.

Studies in quantum quantum physics show how things can instantly appear.

Sure there could be a god but I see no reason to assume there is one.

If there is a god, I imagine it to be some sort of cosmic scientist in a lab who probably doesn't even know we are here.

But then who or what created that god etc?

The universe and reality as much as we can observe them, seem to be fractal in nature, a never ending repeating pattern of some sort.

I can't make my mind up about any of it, but I enjoy listening to theory's.

The funny thing is, the answer is probably something really simple, I sometimes think the universe is just part of something else.

I don't think it's depressing if there is no afterlife or god, I think it makes life even more special, this is it, make the most of it.

As for reality I sometimes think that there is just one conciousness and we just individually dip into it when we are born, sort of like the universe experiencing itself.

[Forge]

Ronan, on 08 June 2013 - 10:35 AM, said:

My problem with the god theory is that there is no evidence of one or a need for one to have created the universe.

there's no need for there to be one. there's no need for there not to be one.
it's like the material on the other side of the universe that flew the opposite direction from the particles that make up us and what we can see after the big bang.
due to some acceleration theory where the universe expanded faster then the speed of light before physical laws established themselves
we can only assume there's material over there since we'll never see its light

Quote

Studies in quantum quantum physics show how things can instantly appear.

it still takes matter to do that
it also shows that quantum particles can disappear from before your eyes and reappear (on the other side of the galaxy as far as we know)
it also shows behavior change between observed and unobserved

maybe this lab god was messing with condensed matter when he decided to observe it a little too close

[Ronin]

Forge, on 08 June 2013 - 11:15 AM, said:

it still takes matter to do that

It doesn't matter. Some particles have no mass like photons.

I also like the idea of black holes spewing out new universes on the other side.

The simulation theory is interesting too, that one could make us the gods.

[Jimmy]

Mr.Flibble, on 08 June 2013 - 06:15 AM, said:

Because humans, as a sentient species, are aware of both their own mortality (our own finitude) and the concept of infinity. In order to deal with this, humans latch onto the promise of immortality by something larger than themselves (religion, science, memory/fame, political ideas/sports). We either seek immortality through out own means (the people in Silicon Valley talking about cyborgs come to mind) or we seek it through other means (eternal life in a paradise).

There are, of course, those who reject these entirely, but that is fucking depressing.

Immortality? No thanks. Life is too long as is.

[Hendricks266]

Forge, on 08 June 2013 - 06:36 AM, said:

then we're just smart monkeys

We are an extremely fragile collection of proteins. I would highly recommend the article A Ghost in the Machine by Adam Lee.

Jimmy, on 08 June 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:

Immortality? No thanks. Life is too long as is.

One idea I like from Buddhism is the idea that existence itself equals suffering. (I'm not a Buddhist because I don't subscribe to samsara (reincarnation).)

It is true that in theory you can avoid suffering if you avoid all attachment. In "pure" Buddhism (before the philosophy was modified into the common variants you see today), nirvana, the state of having broken samsara, means to cease to exist. However, as an atheist, I believe I will achieve this state anyway at the end of my life, so as long as I live I might as well try to feel happy. (Important note: This does not mean wild and reckless. Describing the full extent of how I handle myself would require a larger amount of writing. I could best summarize it as "Always minimize both actual and potential suffering; always maximize both actual and potential happiness.".)

In reconciling these two beliefs, I have concluded that a person must find ways in which they continue to feel happy after the attachment severs and suffering would otherwise kick in. For example, I describe a month directing a one-act play with a cast of about 10 people (of whom a number are now close friends) for my high school as the best month of my life so far. While I was sad for a little while after it was over, the fact that such a chunk elapsed to its full extent still makes me happy when I remember it. The author John Green describes this as an "infinity". If you are able to take the advice of the quote “Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.” (Dr. Seuss), then you have achieved happiness.

[Master Fibbles]

Jimmy, on 08 June 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:

Immortality? No thanks. Life is too long as is.

As I said, fucking depressing.

[Radar]

As hard as I try not to be, I always find myself extremely sympathetic towards religion. I just can't reject people that hope there's more to life than decaying in the ground after it's all over.

[Forge]

Ronan, on 08 June 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

It doesn't matter. Some particles have no mass like photons.

they do have mass. energy=mass. since they always have momentum, they have no rest mass
controversial, but measuring impacts of photons against planetary magnetic fields results in a possible weight of less than 3 × 10 to the -27

Quote

I also like the idea of black holes spewing out new universes on the other side.

how Stephen Hawking

i don't think massive black holes are big enough to rip space, but i like to combine that theory with the soap bubble theory
the universe explodes into existence at the "top" of the soap bubble. eventually all the matter collects at the "bottom" of the soap bubble and creates a super massive black hole. The density is so astronomically large that it collapses into a singularity and rips through the edge of the soap bubble and tears into the next soap bubble "bellow" it. The action creates the energy and imbalance to make the singularity explode into another universe. repeat x infinity.

[Master Fibbles]

I will likely never understand how someone can reject Aristotle's unmoved mover...

[Inspector Lagomorf]

I find it difficult to identify with the idea that immortality would be hell. If I could be immortal, I could travel around the world, see civilizations rise and then fall again, and watch the Earth change with all of its various eras and catastrophic events. It would be educational to say the least.

[Jimmy]

Hendricks266, on 08 June 2013 - 01:34 PM, said:

One idea I like from Buddhism is the idea that existence itself equals suffering.

This is why I don't believe in reproduction. You're creating someone's life with absolutely no consent from them.

Mr.Flibble, on 08 June 2013 - 02:06 PM, said:

As I said, fucking depressing.

I don't find it depressing that one day it'll be over. The depressing part is everything before that.

[Hendricks266]

Mr.Flibble, on 08 June 2013 - 05:50 PM, said:

I will likely never understand how someone can reject Aristotle's unmoved mover...

I think of this as an extension to Russell's teapot. If there were such a teapot, so what? An unmoved mover per se has no effect on my life given that no afterlife theology (or any religious practice) is attached to it. Logically speaking, I would not reject an unmoved mover simply because there is no such thing as a disproof except a proof of contradiction in terms, of which the unmoved mover has none that we can falsify.

[Forge]

i plan on living forever vicariously through others

when i die, i will die alone. i will always make sure i have a pet cat. the cat will get hungry and eat my face. the cat will crap my face out into one of the flower pots in the house. people will come to clean out the house and throw out the flowerpot. a fly will land on the crap that is my face which is festering in the flowerpot. the fly will eat my crap face. the fly will go next door and land on the neighbor kid's chocolate sauce and marshmallow basted pop tart. the fly will crap my crap face on the pop tart. there's a frog on a log. the fat little bastard will eat my twice crapped face and now i'm part of him. repeat until all particles in the universe evaporate.

[Lunick]

[Jeff]

I've always talked about how when it comes time to cremate someone after a funeral, I was going to put them in a cookie jar. Some of my family members have been placed into vases (my grandpa), but I want one of them to be put in a cookie jar.

[Kathy]

Comrade Major, on 08 June 2013 - 05:53 PM, said:

I find it difficult to identify with the idea that immortality would be hell. If I could be immortal, I could travel around the world, see civilizations rise and then fall again, and watch the Earth change with all of its various eras and catastrophic events. It would be educational to say the least.

If you were such a being I doubt you would care about some Earth. Would you acquire such ability now then perhaps that would be true, but being a completely different type of species the Earth would be hardly interesting to you. Although... there are people interested in insect life so you might could be aswell.

Hendricks266, on 08 June 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:

Logically speaking, I would not reject an unmoved mover simply because there is no such thing as a disproof except a proof of contradiction in terms, of which the unmoved mover has none that we can falsify.

Yep, it doesn't matter.

Jeff, on 08 June 2013 - 10:44 PM, said:

I've always talked about how when it comes time to cremate someone after a funeral, I was going to put them in a cookie jar. Some of my family members have been placed into vases (my grandpa), but I want one of them to be put in a cookie jar.

I don't want to be put anywhere. I'd rather just disappear. On the other hand... by that time I won't care.

[Inspector Lagomorf]

Presumably I imagine that "immortality" does not inherently come with the ability to travel aimlessly through worlds and galaxies.

[Master Fibbles]

Immortality also does not inherently come with eternal youth and health.

[Mark]

Intersting stuff here. Yeah, imagine immortality kicking in when you are 92 years old and laying on your death bed.

While we are in our theoretical and scientific modes, If you were in a vehicle traveling at the speed of light and you activated a light on the outside of your vehicle in the direction you are travelling would the light be seen?

My answer is no. If you are travelling the same speed as the light it does not have a chance to get out in front of you. But if the light was on before you hit the speed of light in the vehicle it would be seen.

[Hendricks266]

I believe Einstein considered this thought experiment and concluded that the light would be seen. You can't actually travel at the speed of light because that would require infinite energy.

[Kathy]

Does immportality come with inability to kill yourself? After several centuries it could become quite miserable, assuming you would be living as a normal human being.

There are lots of popular media depicting eternal life as sort of a suffering. Pure immortality is not something proper to have on this planet/realm.

[Forge]

cut your head off
there can be only one

[Fox]

Comrade Major, on 09 June 2013 - 11:07 AM, said:

Presumably I imagine that "immortality" does not inherently come with the ability to travel aimlessly through worlds and galaxies.

The inevitable fate of the immortal is to be sucked by the gravity of a star.

[Forge]

gravity sucks, but not as much as solar winds blow

[LkMax]

Fox, on 09 June 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:

The inevitable fate of the immortal is to be sucked by the gravity of a star.

To be honest I believe mankind will be able to do long scale space travel until that happens (which may be in billions of years, according to some predictions).

[The Commander]

Fuck High Treason's bicycle.

[Ronin]

NZRage, on 10 June 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:

Fuck High Treason's bicycle.

It's ice skates now. It that the Altezza?

You looked like you were prowling the streets for a victim of some sort, until you started doing doughnuts.

You should have added the opening theme to "Drive" at the start.

[The Commander]

Ronan, on 10 June 2013 - 12:15 PM, said:

It's ice skates now.

Lol

Ronan, on 10 June 2013 - 12:15 PM, said:

It that the Altezza?

Yep, a RS200 even.

Ronan, on 10 June 2013 - 12:15 PM, said:

You looked like you were prowling the streets for a victim of some sort, until you started doing doughnuts.

That is just how I get home every night.

[Person of Color]

NZRage, on 10 June 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:

Fuck High Treason's bicycle.

Nice Toyota, pussy .

Why don't you drive 'Murrican?

Any work done to it?

Also when you said RS200 I thought you would be racing one of these glorious beasts...I was disappointed.

Jimmy, on 08 June 2013 - 06:36 PM, said:

This is why I don't believe in reproduction. You're creating someone's life with absolutely no consent from them.

You're my bro, but Jesus Christ you're retarded sometimes.

You have Aspie logic but you aren't an Aspie.

[Mikko]

Mark., on 09 June 2013 - 12:15 PM, said:

While we are in our theoretical and scientific modes, If you were in a vehicle traveling at the speed of light and you activated a light on the outside of your vehicle in the direction you are travelling would the light be seen?

My answer is no. If you are travelling the same speed as the light it does not have a chance to get out in front of you. But if the light was on before you hit the speed of light in the vehicle it would be seen.

A bit pointless question. How would a scientist answer to what would happen if the laws of physics were broken down when the scientist has nothing but those laws to work with?

The speed of light is always c in all inertial (i.e., constant velocity) frames of reference so even if you're travelling at 0.99c, the headlight would still move away at c from your perspective.