Here's another nugget for Lions to chew on for awhile.
- Thread starter 12375CAT
- Start date
Science will never, no matter how much it discovers, be able to explain the beginning of things. It's outside of its realm. Every discovery raises a host of new questions.
The answer to the question posed in the article is, dare I say it in this unbelieving age, God.
The answer to the question posed in the article is, dare I say it in this unbelieving age, God.
But the universe does exist even if the scientists can't figure out why. That means the eggheads aren't as smart as they think they are.
But who created God? And if God is eternal, then why can't the Universe be eternal and not require a God to create it? Science not being able to answer the question does not automatically lead to a single answer.
There was a TED talk by a physicist named George Smoot titled something like “Physics says you are a simulation and I can prove it “.
If I was in the audience, I would have asked him after the talk if I could come onstage and kick him in the groin about as hard as I could. Then he could tell us if everything is still a simulation.
If I was in the audience, I would have asked him after the talk if I could come onstage and kick him in the groin about as hard as I could. Then he could tell us if everything is still a simulation.
Nope. Just sayin'. You may want to read what many great philosophers have said on the topic. The Greeks came to this conclusion thousands of years ago by using logic, something the world isn't very good at today. Critical thinking and logic are in hibernation.
Oh, I will agree with your last sentence. But, probably not in the same vain you may be thinking of.
Well that settles it then. Definitive proof "logically" derived by ancients. You win.
Am I the only one who thinks Meryl Streep is the most overrated, over adulated, actress ever? I can't remember any roll she played that I liked or couldn't be played by dozens of other actresses.
Of course it assumes A, B and C are accurate and provable to be true by other than faith.
These same logical ancients gave us phlegm, blood, yellow bile and black bile. Accepted by some into the 17th century. I can logic for myself and you have to give me more than that to prove what is strictly faith based.
There is No Beginning, There is no End
by Dalai Lama
Questioner: How does one arrive at the conviction that our consciousness has no beginning or end?
Dalai Lama: Generally speaking, there are two ways of coming to such a conclusion. One is through logical reasoning and the other is from seeing that if consciousness did have a beginning and an ending, a lot of contradictions and mysteries could not be explained. So, since the latter viewpoint has many inconsistencies, we can arrive at the conclusion that it must be the other way around i.e. that consciousness is without beginning or end.
On this question I think it is also important to understand that there are three types of phenomena — one is phenomena which can be directly observed, the obvious phenomena, the second is the slightly concealed phenomena which could be realised through the reasoning process, and the third is the very concealed phenomena.
I think it is also important to understand that there are different ways of observing these phenomena. Buddha spoke of the law of nature which includes such factors as consciousness, or mind, being the nature of luminosity and knowing. Why is consciousness in nature? There is no reason. In the same way, why are our physical bodies composed of certain atoms and chemical particles and so on? Again, there is no reason; it is simply its nature; it is simply the way it is. Then Buddha spoke of the law of dependence. This refers to phenomena that we normally posit in relation to something else, like parts and the whole, right and wrong, etc. And then there is the functional law — cause and effect. The function produces effects, and effects have the tendency to follow after their related causes.
All of this is quite close to scientific views; the subatomic physics theories come very near to explaining the natural law. It is also close to the Kalachakra Tantra explanation that space particles are the source, or origin, of all matter in the universe. And this natural law, on the subatomic level, is further expanded when there is interaction with different types of particles and so on. Then there is this second law — dependent law. And then, as a result of the interaction between various types of particles, different properties come into being; so this is quite similar to the third category — the functional law. By taking these three types of phenomena as the basis of analysis and logical examination, we use logical reasoning.
As far as logic is concerned, therefore, one would conclude that consciousness is beginning less because consciousness requires an earlier moment of consciousness as its cause, and that moment of consciousness would, in turn, require an earlier instant of consciousness. Therefore, it is infinite and beginning less. This kind of explanation may not be a hundred percent satisfactory, but, still, it has less contradictions and inconsistencies within it than any other.
It is better to end this on a doubt!
by Dalai Lama
Questioner: How does one arrive at the conviction that our consciousness has no beginning or end?
Dalai Lama: Generally speaking, there are two ways of coming to such a conclusion. One is through logical reasoning and the other is from seeing that if consciousness did have a beginning and an ending, a lot of contradictions and mysteries could not be explained. So, since the latter viewpoint has many inconsistencies, we can arrive at the conclusion that it must be the other way around i.e. that consciousness is without beginning or end.
On this question I think it is also important to understand that there are three types of phenomena — one is phenomena which can be directly observed, the obvious phenomena, the second is the slightly concealed phenomena which could be realised through the reasoning process, and the third is the very concealed phenomena.
I think it is also important to understand that there are different ways of observing these phenomena. Buddha spoke of the law of nature which includes such factors as consciousness, or mind, being the nature of luminosity and knowing. Why is consciousness in nature? There is no reason. In the same way, why are our physical bodies composed of certain atoms and chemical particles and so on? Again, there is no reason; it is simply its nature; it is simply the way it is. Then Buddha spoke of the law of dependence. This refers to phenomena that we normally posit in relation to something else, like parts and the whole, right and wrong, etc. And then there is the functional law — cause and effect. The function produces effects, and effects have the tendency to follow after their related causes.
All of this is quite close to scientific views; the subatomic physics theories come very near to explaining the natural law. It is also close to the Kalachakra Tantra explanation that space particles are the source, or origin, of all matter in the universe. And this natural law, on the subatomic level, is further expanded when there is interaction with different types of particles and so on. Then there is this second law — dependent law. And then, as a result of the interaction between various types of particles, different properties come into being; so this is quite similar to the third category — the functional law. By taking these three types of phenomena as the basis of analysis and logical examination, we use logical reasoning.
As far as logic is concerned, therefore, one would conclude that consciousness is beginning less because consciousness requires an earlier moment of consciousness as its cause, and that moment of consciousness would, in turn, require an earlier instant of consciousness. Therefore, it is infinite and beginning less. This kind of explanation may not be a hundred percent satisfactory, but, still, it has less contradictions and inconsistencies within it than any other.
It is better to end this on a doubt!
I can accept that I don't know what I don't know and not logic an answer that can't be proven rather than accept that there must be an engine. It is no more logical of a stretch to accept that the Universe has always existed in some form than it is to accept that God has always existed. A=B.
Would be curious to see what the AI based electronic 'life forms' that replace us logic out the answer to be after humanity is gone.
I am Carl Spackler and I was in a drug induced phase of my life at the time the above quote is noted. I have since grasped the revelation that God, not a dali lama deals with the universe.
The British philosopher George Berkeley argued that, because everything we know comes from sensory experience, and that we have no a priori reason to trust our senses, no one could prove that anything outside his own consciousness exists; that is, he questioned the knowability of an external reality. This is somewhat but not exactly like Smoot's argument. Samuel Johnson refuted Berkeley's by kicking a rock in the road and said "I refute Berkeley thus". Your response is similar but much more direct, and on a personal level would be much more convincing.
There is serious discussion in physics circles about testing the simulation hypothesis by trying to measure the intrinsic granularity of our universe, which might provide evidence of a simulation. However, in my opinion the existence of such granularity would not "prove" that we are in a simulation, but would only suggest it. Physics "proves" nothing, it merely tests whether measurements are consistent with a given hypothesis.
All I know is when that day comes for me, I'm looking forward to sitting down next to the old man. The last time I did that was at Rinaldos barber shop.
There is no scientific evidence to support the existence of God. I say that a Catholic.
The most likely explanation for why we has humans have not been able to discern/explain the creation of the universe is that our brains are not capable of understanding the processes that led to that creation.
For instance, there is much to indicate that linear time is an invention only of our human experience. The universe writ large, some have posited, operates in a much more complex manner, in which all things that have ever happened or will happen may be happening simultaneously and perpetually. But again, it's a great deal more complex than our brains are likely to ever fully grasp. I just know that if this is true, we've already beaten Ohio State this weekend and it was glorious.
Exactly. -- "The more you know, the more you know you don't know"
Right. And if God could fit in our brains, i.e. our understanding, then he wouldn't be God.
Latest posts
-
-
-
FB Recruiting Running Recruit Visitors List (2025 Spring Edition)- Latest: NittanyNation51
-
FB Recruiting Commit Fit: How the top 2025 DBs fit with their future programs
- Latest: NittanyNation51