The origin of mankind

[silent thunder]

Indeed, they cannot. But who needs a fork to eat a banana ? 

 

A fox can eat off a plate, but a stork cannot.  A stork can eat out of a long jar but a fox cannot. 

 

There is a moral to that story . 

When I was very young 4-7 we had an American Water Spaniel named Sarge.

Sarge ate at the table with us.  He sat on a chair and ate from a plate with surprising care.

[Michael Sternbach]

Indeed, they cannot. But who needs a fork to eat a banana ?

 

A fox can eat off a plate, but a stork cannot. A stork can eat out of a long jar but a fox cannot.

 

There is a moral to that story .

 

Flies can't bird, but birds can fly. - Winnie the Pooh

[Nungali]

When I was very young 4-7 we had an American Water Spaniel named Sarge.

Sarge ate at the table with us.  He sat on a chair and ate from a plate with surprising care.

 

Yes, it is easy for them to eat off a plate (or shallow bowl) but not for a stork. 

[Junko]

Dogs can't use fork or knief.Again this animal can do what we can't.....!Their smelling ability! Magnificent!

[Pedro]

How can we know if humans was created?

 

By observing and evaluating evidence.

 

Can something derive from nothing?

No!

A typical counter question from someone with a blocked third-eye chakra is "What is the definition of nothing?".

You don't need a definition. Nothing is simply nothing.

 

Can life evolve out of life-less matter?

No!

Evidence is the proof. Never ever something could evolve out of dead matter.

 

Well there are certainly people who claim that given enough time you will finally get some results.

But come on, what kind of thinking is this?

If you consider all variables and all constants, you will come to only one conclusion: The universe was created by an intelligent being, supreme and loving, intelligent and wise.

Why refuse our father, our creator? Why ignore him?

Because of our bloated ego?

Because it is not hip to believe in God?

Because we are coward, hiding behind a materialistic hypothesis which soothe a little bit our bad conscience?

Edited July 6, 2016 by Pedro

[Karl]

And who created this supreme being ? I mean nothing comes out of nothing, you said so yourself ? So this being must have been created by some other supreme being, who must have been created by another supreme being. Your argument simply creates infinite regression.

 

So, no such God is required or exists. The universe does not need a designer. The universe is the universe-all and everything and all causality.

Edited July 6, 2016 by Karl

[Marblehead]

Pedro, are you suggesting that I should believe in unsupportable myth and fairy tales rather than believe in provable facts of reality?

[Karl]

Pedro, are you suggesting that I should believe in unsupportable myth and fairy tales rather than believe in provable facts of reality?

Thomas Aquinus did, but at least he tried to do so using logic. The prime mover argument-which you are kind of in favour of accepting as regards the universe. :-)

[Marblehead]

Thomas Aquinus did, but at least he tried to do so using logic. The prime mover argument-which you are kind of in favour of accepting as regards the universe. :-)

 

No, I deny a prime mover.  Let's don't get confused about that.

 

But I do hold to the theory of the Big Bang and therefore to the theory of Singularity but I add that I hold that Singularity caused itself to bang, based solely on its own nature.  No external cause.  (I's still within your universe.)

[Karl]

No, I deny a prime mover.  Let's don't get confused about that.

 

But I do hold to the theory of the Big Bang and therefore to the theory of Singularity but I add that I hold that Singularity caused itself to bang, based solely on its own nature.  No external cause.  (I's still within your universe.)

Why not simply discard the 'big bang' as it makes no difference whether there was or wasn't one and a singularity is still something and as that was all of everything, it was simply a hyper compressed universe, but a universe never the less. It always existed and always will exist.

 

You are only splitting hairs to suggest that because you wish to call something by another name other than the universe, that this makes it different. So, why not call it God ......ah ha.

[Stosh]

Did you ask yourself questions ? ,Yes. Did you supply yourself answers? Yes. Do I think you should be satisfied by those answers? ,,,,, Well ,that wasnt really asked of me, and its really not my decision.

But I will say, that athiests have heard enough times,the God rant. So my unspoken groan is not about god being hip or not. Its about his publicists.

[Stosh]

Why not simply discard the 'big bang' as it makes no difference whether there was or wasn't one and a singularity is still something and as that was all of everything, it was simply a hyper compressed universe, but a universe never the less. It always existed and always will exist.

You are only splitting hairs to suggest that because you wish to call something by another name other than the universe, that this makes it different. So, why not call it God ......ah ha.

Because calling it God,implies human attributes.

[Marblehead]

Why not simply discard the 'big bang' as it makes no difference whether there was or wasn't one and a singularity is still something and as that was all of everything, it was simply a hyper compressed universe, but a universe never the less. It always existed and always will exist.

 

You do realize that you just agreed with me, don't you?

 

I ignored your second paragraph because it does not apply to what I spoke to.

[Karl]

Because calling it God,implies human attributes.

No one said that a God would be human. Apparently it's omnipotent and omniscient which is a far cry from man.

 

All I'm saying here is that if you call the universe a singularity, then you aren't denying the universe only changing its name in order to create an equivocation. It's like the old joke 'when is a door not a door? When it's ajar'.

 

A religious person can simply pop God into the equivocation and call it the creator of the Big Bang.

 

A singularity is nothing more than a hyper compressed universe. It does tend towards zero, but it never is zero. When people talk about the singularity they are trying to imply a full zero out of which the universe exploded. The equivocation is dependent on the local quantification I.e there are cakes on the plate, now I've removed them the sum is zero, but, there maybe zero cakes, but there isn't several cake shaped nothingnesses where the cakes were. This is what is being implied by 'singularity'. A universe shaped nothing.

[Karl]

You do realize that you just agreed with me, don't you?

 

I ignored your second paragraph because it does not apply to what I spoke to.

I appeared to agree with your equivocation :-) I did not agree with you.

 

If you define 'singularity' then let's see if I do agree, or infact, have you been using a word of which you have decided to have a foggy conception.

[Marblehead]

I have never suggested or implied that Singularity is (was) nothing or zero base.

 

Just as I have never suggested or implied that Black Hole don't exist just because we can't see them.

[Marblehead]

I appeared to agree with your equivocation :-) I did not agree with you.

 

If you define 'singularity' then let's see if I do agree, or infact, have you been using a word of which you have decided to have a foggy conception.

 

You have already defined my understanding of what Singularity was.

[Stosh]

I thought Singularity, inplied ,a single whole, not nothing. Am I wrong on that Karl?

Edited July 6, 2016 by Stosh

[Karl]

I thought Singularity, inplied ,a single whole, not nothing. Am I wrong on that Karl?

It tends towards zero. This is why such a thing is often referred to as black hole. Going back to the cakes/no cakes analogy. There is no real definition of a singularity, it has become a kind of magic box in which cakes appear from out of cake shaped spaces.

 

If we say a singularity is a thing. Then it really is pointless to assign it to the universe. Super massive or super small it remains the universe however it is, was, or will be. To say the universe exploded out of a thing which wasn't the universe denies the universe.

[Stosh]

It tends towards zero. This is why such a thing is often referred to as black hole. Going back to the cakes/no cakes analogy. There is no real definition of a singularity, it has become a kind of magic box in which cakes appear from out of cake shaped spaces.

 

If we say a singularity is a thing. Then it really is pointless to assign it to the universe. Super massive or super small it remains the universe however it is, was, or will be. To say the universe exploded out of a thing which wasn't the universe denies the universe.

Ok the usage is vague, so lets establish what we think it means , and we can see where we leave the same page. 

I say , that the word means an undifferentiated single thing which does exist. As applied to a postulated black hole .. it implies that the thing is so smashed together its a homogeneous undifferentiated thing ,which exists in the larger universe , which , being more diffuse ,,has the possibility for differentiation . Is that fair and unbiased to say so- so far?

[Stosh]

No one said that a God would be human. Apparently it's omnipotent and omniscient which is a far cry from man.

 

I didnt say human either , I said , Had 'human attributes'. 

Edited July 6, 2016 by Stosh

[Karl]

Ok the usage is vague, so lets establish what we think it means , and we can see where we leave the same page. 

I say , that the word means an undifferentiated single thing which does exist. As applied to a postulated black hole .. it implies that the thing is so smashed together its a homogeneous undifferentiated thing ,which exists in the larger universe , which , being more diffuse ,,has the possibility for differentiation . Is that fair and unbiased to say so- so far?

As long it is an existent thing and it what it is then that is fine as far as it goes. Where I will challenge is in the whole thing in terms of the universe. It is unnecessary to say the universe is anything other than the universe. It isn't possible to differentiate the universe because the universe is everything. It is all differentiated and undifferentiated and any other kind of thing.

[Karl]

I didnt say human either , I said , Had 'human attributes'.

 

Its a moot point anyway. God doesn't exist so any attributes are immaterial.

[Marblehead]

It tends towards zero. This is why such a thing is often referred to as black hole. Going back to the cakes/no cakes analogy. There is no real definition of a singularity, it has become a kind of magic box in which cakes appear from out of cake shaped spaces.

 

If we say a singularity is a thing. Then it really is pointless to assign it to the universe. Super massive or super small it remains the universe however it is, was, or will be. To say the universe exploded out of a thing which wasn't the universe denies the universe.

 

I can't recall the scientist who enjoys saying it but I have heard him say it a number of times:  When you here scientists mention the word "Singularity" all this really is saying is that we do not know.

 

And yes, assuming there was at some point in time Singularity, it was still the entire universe.  It's just that science cannot define that particular state.

[Karl]

I can't recall the scientist who enjoys saying it but I have heard him say it a number of times:  When you here scientists mention the word "Singularity" all this really is saying is that we do not know.

 

And yes, assuming there was at some point in time Singularity, it was still the entire universe.  It's just that science cannot define that particular state.

And that, of course is for scientists to discover, but they are completely off target if they think they can discover why the universe began. This the reason philosophy precedes science by providing the context.

 

I have heard scientists say the universe is infinite without the slightest sense that infinite means not greater than some number, but a number beyond all numbers. Nothing more exists than exists no matter how large the number is, it is always finite.

 

The problem is that we have accepted Kantian philosophy and that is now driving scientists away from reason and towards pragmatism. Reason is considered old fashioned and quaint, so they dismiss it when formulating theories. The result has been that science has occupied the place of philosophy and scientists are no longer growing their metaphorical trees in philosophic soil, they are now trying to grow soil from trees.