Forums / Miscellaneous Discussions / Universe Creation

I am not retarded or mentally insane, I just wanted to say that we should stop worrying about things we cant explain and leave it to other people to do this cr@p and enjoy life to its fullest, without causing enourmous amounts of death.

Then if you define "God" differently, you will start realizing that it is you who is creating God. You are defining a word of three letters to your convenience. You could as well define any other word, anyway you like.

So, all who need "God" create their very own definition of "God" and that is their personal relation with the concept of God. Any such relation, by definition, is created by the person who has it and therefore God is created by humans. Not the other way around.

I agree, and again a nice post.

But the ancient people had their gods, they had Zeus, and all the greek gods, they though the earth was a plate over a turtle and in the sky there was a big temple where the gods lived, In that time there where many gods, each one representing something different, so why did they all go away?

why did this 1 god thing popup when they discovered land and when the greeks no longer lived, nobody remembers those gods anymore?

so im guessing the god we think of will not exists after a few more generations, and people will come up with new ideas of supreme beings,

we should start thinking of ourselves being the only supreme being, since we have control of our lives, belive it or not, god dosent pass a math test you do, god does not save you from an accident, or he might, it all depends, but what i do know, if god saves some1 with no desire to live, then why does he let the ones with desire to live die?

its all one big idea we share, and what I belive is, I will find out once I die, but I will not speed up the event, I will actually enjoy life, and then if I go to the "devil" I will have enjoyed live, and all the bad things I did I will pay for, so what, if it will happen it will happen no matter what you do. Its all about how you see the "cube", because if you think about it, we dont SEE the cube, we imagine it, we imagin how it is and the colors it has.

So, if we dont imagine the cube, and keep on with life, it would still be the same, you would have fun, love, anger, hapines, blah blah blah, even if you belive in god you will get angry and dont show it, and sad and lonely, god wont make your life better unless YOU want him to, dont belive only in it, belive in IT if YOU want to, and BELIVE what you WANT to BELIVE, and then you will find what you need, its just self support, Your the one that should know what to do foryourself,and if you belive in god, thats fine, you want to, so if you belive in him/her, he/r exists.

Human science and technology may seem mighty and powerful to us, but maybe not so to the nature. In nature, what is important is balance. Our advances are mostly unbalanced, unsustainable. We can hardly call ourselves "supreme beings", if we cannot live in harmony with the rest of the world we depend on.


We think we are superior in understanding the reality maybe better than any of the other life forms on this planet. But what good is it for us, if we use our understanding to consume all the natural resources and pollute our home planet effectively destroying our own environment. Now how supreme is that?

The evolution might not be a conscious, personal being, but it is a process supreme enough to produce us. We, on the other hand, are better in uncontrolled exploitation of the nature that gave us birth. It may be sooner than we think we have destroyed our own chances of survival here. Still many, especially some most influential decision makers, don't even want to recognize the global climate change.

Our behavior is hardly an example of that of a supreme being.

First we need to learn sustainable development on this planet, and then we need to learn how to survive in space for endless generations off this planet. Only then we can even start to claim the title of a "supreme being". Those skills would make us independent of our place of birth, but we would still be at the mercy of the parts of space we can reach.

If you think earthquakes, volcanic eruptions or hurricanes are bigger than us, just try to think of the Sun burning out to a red giant, the Milky Way colliding with Andromeda, a massive black hole swallowing them both, or a megagalactic black hole swallowing a multigalactic black hole.

I would call my species a supreme being, if we could survive those, but the Universe is still much much bigger.

Why don't we just start first trying to learn how to survive on this planet  Earth without exhausting its natural resources and the environment. That would be the first step on the endlessly long path of becoming a higher being.

Lol sakal, wow, you made a big post, answering something, but it wasent what I mean, its interesting tho =P

Dowlf, this is public discussion so it is not just about answering directly to individual posts. It is about what ideas the other people's writings bring to your mind, also answering, but just as well communicating your ideas in general. My posts can be read even if they were taken out of context because I have written them mostly in a generic fashion.

" Well, the things about humans is that we really aren't like other animals"

we are animals, classified as humans ... all living, airbreathing, craplaying things are animals ... no exceptions ...  so don't feel too good about yourself ...  the only difference, maybe, is that we should know better than the other classifications :-p (given that we are supposed to have a bigger brain ...)

How many animals have built thriving cities?  Boats?  Journeyed to space, the moon, and came back again?  Biologically we are descendants of monkeys, but clearly there are differences between a monkey and a human.  Or a human and any other animal.

It all boils down to definition.

if were not different then how come i havn't heard of a city built by monkeys then?

Other animals can do many things man cant. So what if man can do things other animals cant. All animals are unique in that they can do something or possess something others dont. Im not sure if the other animals feel they are superior too, but if they do, they will probably think they are the only ones who are that great, just like humans. This includes possible animals elsewhere in the Universe. Man may not be the only species stupid enough to think we are the finest, one and only.

First of all, I never claimed superiority of humanity.  I claimed that humans differ from animals in fundamental ways.

All in all you wield a double-edged sword.  Yes, humans pollute the earth and kill species.  But consider that humans also produce medicine and science to save and prolong lives, to assist the young and elderly, provide for isolated communities, etc.  Additionally, many have tried to protect environments not only from our own maldoing but from natural disasters, predators, bacteria and viruses, etc.

"they will probably think they are the only ones who are that great, just like humans."

Until they're being hunted down, poached, etc.

"Man may not be the only species stupid enough to think we are the finest, one and only."

Not all man believe we are alone.  Rather, many believe there is other life out there yet unfound, and others believe there are intelligent, sentient species.

"Why would many animals develop symbolic thinking brain when that only helps in building polluting cities and more complex ways of being wrong, e.g. religions."

Would you rather live in a world ruled by laws and governments where your health, security, and very life are protected, or would you rather return to a darwinistic world where there are no consequences to murder, stealing, rape, etc, and no way to protect yourself except for being stronger than the aggressor?  Double-edged again.

"Have you heard of an anthill built by man or a beehive"

Yes, subway/apartment complex

"a jungle or a coral reef"

Yes, Arboretum/aquarium.

IRONPRICK,  you're thinking is just flawed ...

"IRONPRICK,  you're thinking is just flawed ..."

Explain.

"In our symbolic thinking, you parallel subways and apartment complexes with anthills effectively saying ants build (thriving) cities. If you say this parallelism goes one way only that would be man misusing his symbolic thinking to claim he can do what other animals cant, but not the other way around."

However, ants and bees still lack technology, and anthills today are largely unchanged from anthills 5000, 10,000, 100,000 years ago.  Yes, they build thriving cities in some degree, but beyond this they are static and unchanging species except for slight evolution.

"I wouldnt compare man-isolated jungle/reef bits with the real thing. Firstly they are just isolated by man, not really made. Secondly they just arent the same anymore being isolated from the rest of the nature and too small.I wouldnt compare man-isolated jungle/reef bits with the real thing. Firstly they are just isolated by man, not really made. Secondly they just arent the same anymore being isolated from the rest of the nature and too small"

Well no one natural force "builds" a coral reef anyway.  Nature arranges them--just as humans can.  Humans are also capable of "planting" coral reefs in the ocean (though it has proven to be a difficult task.)

"did you just imply darwininism is all the bad traits of a civilization?"

In a sense, yes.  If society can't keep you safe and protect you from the elements, you basically are forced to live in a darwininstic world, aren't you?

"do you even know how society works?"

Yes, I do.  Explain your thinking.  You might be thinking of social darwinism, capitalism, free trade, etc, and using that as a counterexample to say society is darwinistic.  In some degree this is correct, but in any decently good country if you "fail" in the above concepts you are not going to physically perish as an animal would in the wild.

if you can't see your own mistake, then sorry ... go back to school, to the library, get older ...  your logic is just wrong.

you're logic is flawed, no use in debating with you, you clearly miss the brains ...  a calf can drink from another cow, dogs sometimes take care of other dogs puppies, etc, etc, there are many examples in nature where non-human-creatures work together in some way ...  sure, some people have logic, which may make them smarter than others ... but they are still animals ...

abstract thought = a view of the world, mostly incomplete and flawed

how can incomplete and flawed view help an animal capable of having such view?

surely a complete, unbiased and undistorted view of the reality would help a lifeform. now is there any lifeform capable of that?

why would it be a proof of us being somehow better than the other lifeforms, if we can develop an incomplete, biased and distorted view of the world? and quite frankly that is all we are capable of.

" calf can drink from another cow, dogs sometimes take care of other dogs puppies, etc, etc, there are many examples in nature where non-human-creatures work together in some way ...  sure, some people have logic, which may make them smarter than others ... but they are still animals ..."

All your examples take place between animals of the same species.  Duh, a calf can drink another mother's milk.  Duh, dogs may take care of other puppies.  If you really wanted to be smart you'd bring up mutually beneficial symbiotic interaction.  Regardless, how is this supposed to refute my arguement above?

"is an invalid approach to say something caused by the abstract communication in itself already somehow proved it is superior to the inability of it."

I never was arguing superiority, however.  Only difference.

"maybe over long term people screw the balance of nature being able to communicate information and physical resources around the globe so easily. then this ability would turn out to be a vice and definitely not a blessing. humans would be a cancer, a pest and not the crown of evolution. how do you know it is good that people send aid all over the globe? maybe it will disturb our planet instead of helping anything over a long term."

To put it simply, life itself contradicts the "natural" state of being.  I call it "good" that humans send aid across the globe so people don't die, but of course it can always be argued that humans are bad because we're not dying when we're "supposed" to die.  I'm not trying to argue superiority because superiority itself is subjective and open to interpretation by different viewpoints.

"abstract thought = a view of the world, mostly incomplete and flawed"

Technically, there is nothing to measure an abstract thought to, therefore it cannot be safely called incomplete or flawed.  A truly abstract thought is free from physical earthly items, mass, science, etc.  If one believed in God and thought it was proof the world was only 8000 years old, then that thought is not really abstract because the world is a physical existance.

"how can incomplete and flawed view help an animal capable of having such view?"

What animal bears as complex communal and social stresses as the human?  What other animal is capable of terminating its life out of its own logic?

"why would it be a proof of us being somehow better than the other lifeforms, if we can develop an incomplete, biased and distorted view of the world? and quite frankly that is all we are capable of."

Well first of all, let's define "better."  The most capable of surviving?  Of defeating neighboring species?  Of traveling furthest, building the largest homes, hoarding the most food, living the longest lives?

'you can't beat shakaal's point ...  "

That's because we're not really arguing the same point.

sir ironpick, i think i have made my point. You just dont get it. Even in your own reply you first say you dont mean man was superior, just different, then go on praising humans and subdoing other animals. That is because your abstract thought is incapable of questioning its human-centric high views of itself.

That is the concept of The almighty God, The excuse of man for his self-promotion, to try to mask this purely selfish intention behind a righteous facade so he wouldnt see his own lies and feel ashamed of himself.

Rather well have we managed in blinding our very own eyes, havent we.

"then go on praising humans and subdoing other animals."

What I have noted is mankind's difference between animals, not necessarily praising or subdoing either.

"That is because your abstract thought is incapable of questioning its human-centric high views of itself."

No.  Read my posts; in several of them I downplay humanity.  War is just about the stupidest representation of humanity and progress.

"That is the concept of The almighty God, The excuse of man for his self-promotion, to try to mask this purely selfish intention behind a righteous facade so he wouldnt see his own lies and feel ashamed of himself."

Again, tell me that justice and love is a lie, that it can be stuck under a microscope and viewed as "right" or "wrong," "true" or "false."  Abstract thought, by it's very nature, is neutral.  Get past the fact that religion is NOT all about a claim on how the world was made or that there is a big guy in the sky waiting to strike us down with lightning.

"Rather well have we managed in blinding our very own eyes, havent we."

Tell me,

do you the "truth" any better than I?

"The telephone, the television, the internet.

thats why"

...yes... which we made.

It is the standard religious defence to tie god with all good and when someone suggests god is a misconception, try to twist it so that the someone is against all good. Well, love and justice were there long before man invented god. I can love and be just, and I dont need any god for that.

The abstract thoughts of both of us, ironpick, are incomplete, biased and need correction. The main difference is probably that science teaches that and actively seeks to enhance its views. In overall the scientific models do a far better job in explaining the world as demostrated by objective measurements and the progress science has created. Still science criticizes itself and its fruits and acknowledges human can be very wrong.

Science encourages you to take a critical view of things whereas religions generally expect you to accept the teachings without too much objection.

You say philosophy cant explain science. What do you mean by that? For example: When you keep looking for better theories and remain critical with your views, even with what you think you already know, you are bound to accumulate better understanding over time. Apply that to the society and not just individuals. Didnt I just explain science in simple logical terms, and isnt logic a part of philosophy.
There are countless ways how science and philosophy can be used to explain each other. What are the views of philosophy or science that you claim cannot be explained by them, one another? For example many ethical questions can be approached from sociological, psychological or sometimes even biological or purely logical point of view. E.g. people need the concepts of good and bad to promote behavior that helps the community and to discourage any disruptive behavior. It helps the community survive and grow.

(My posts are split because I use a limited web browser, a mobile phone actually.)

If a species did not communicate, in theory I guess it could be argued abstract thought is possible without symbols to denote the concepts, because the concepts could be built on other concepts directly inside an individual mind. So there would be no need for separate symbols to name those concepts in any language used for communication between the members of the species. I cannot see why such abstractions would not exists, but they are by definition uninteresting to anyone but the subject who has such insights. Without a symbolic language such abstractions could not be communicated or discussed anyway. So in any debate we are bound to concepts that have words for their names.

The topic is "universe creation" so how come Im discussing abstractions and symbols. Actually it is quite obvious the topic is about how the participants in the discussion have organized their highest abstractions in their minds. For religious people it always includes references to god or gods, or other higher forces. That is why it is very relevant how the mind works in organizing and naming concepts in individual minds and the language used to communicate between those minds.

"You say philosophy cant explain science. What do you mean by that?"

Philosophy explains from a "should," "moral," or "just" basis.  Science cannot explain those.  Instead, science may look at effectiveness, but even in the end what is considered "best" has no defined definition and thus is philosophy.

"Apply that to the society and not just individuals. Didnt I just explain science in simple logical terms, and isnt logic a part of philosophy."

Yes and no.  Scientific logic varies from philosophic logic, for the reason given above.

"For example many ethical questions can be approached from sociological, psychological or sometimes even biological or purely logical point of view."

Approached in a scientific manner, yes.  But scientific thought is reliant on having a defined answer, such as what works longest, what helps the most people, or whatnot.  But the true answer to "best" improvements constantly because "best", being subjective, is naturally unapproachable in a completely scientific manner.

"o sorry, i meant that we give aid to the otherside of the world because these devices show us the other side of the world. Animals dont give aid to other animals they dont know about. People are the same way."

Well yes, but we built the devices so we could, and animals have not.

I did not think philosophy was primarily about trying to find what is "best", but what is "true". Well I know parts of philosophy, like ethics, deal with the first, but mostly it is about the nature of truth. I still think science and philosophy can describe a great deal about each other, lets say the history of religion, philosophy and science for starters. Sure you can make philosophical arguments, which are practically impossible to explain by science, but you can explain the schools in general and you can explain countless arguments in both schools. At least we have to say they overlap greatly although some areas may be separate.

A religion is never right ...