But what if they do? What if bacteria are capable of forming complex feelings and thoughts. What if they can feel pain, and every time you wash your hands with antibacterial soap, they are painfully and horribly MURDERED!?
What if that ant you smooshed with your finger has a conscience, and later that day when that ant's family found out it was dead, they went into mourning? His two little ant kids, and his brand new ant baby would never see their father again, all because of you. I hope you're happy with yourself.
Or, y'know, they don't.
Comment has been collapsed.
You'd have to define "conscience" first. But, using most definitions I can think of, there is no way bacteria have conscience.
Comment has been collapsed.
I spent a whole week thinking about how 4 dimensional space could be represented or visualized or how could it possibly influence our own limited 3 dimensional perspective of the world, also thinking about the reasons that led people to unify space and time calling it to be something related to an actual extra dimension when even the physics used on it mean completely different things than those of normal space...
Then i realized that i was just wasting my time and even if someone could find anything about the topic knowing it probably wont change my life absolutely so meh, i have videogames and thats all i need for this lifetime :3
Comment has been collapsed.
Best game to explore space (Literally a "Space Simulator") And it's not German so you know it's a good simulator. (made by a Russian)
http://en.spaceengine.org/
FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Comment has been collapsed.
I enjoy lots of sci-fi stuff like Stargate, Doctor Who, Fringe etc. So I like to sometimes casually think about things like higher dimensions, time and space, time travel, parallel universes etc.
Of course I never reach any real conclusions. :p
But everyone knows that the correct answer is apparently 42.
Comment has been collapsed.
How do you know we all evolved from a single cell organism or that there was a big bang at all? It isn't that our brain isn't capable of understanding the origin of the universe, it's that we simply have no clue. We pretend to know, we make stuff up that might very well be true, but it is based on a sort of arrogance that we know much more than we do know, and that's been true for a very long time.
Scientists were once very certain that the earth was flat and we were at the center of the universe. Now from what we understand, we know that to be false, but how much more have we really learned? Enough to know that the big bang was impossible based on the laws of physics (the temperatures are not right), that they would either have not existed at the time of the big bang, or a lot of people are wrong about the whole thing, which wouldn't exactly be anything new.
Even assumptions about the age of the universe, it's a fluid thing, scientists know something, until they know they're wrong, then they know something else. It's ridiculous really, but it's how scientists behave. They don't like admitting their ignorance, and they like pretending they have complete understanding of things based on very limited observations.
Anyway, if you want to get into an actual explanation, you at some point get to an impossibility. Does it matter if the universe came from a magical dense ball of matter or a magical entity? I'm agnostic, but a creator could make things look however they wished, young, old, what ever, the universe could be made to look any particular way in the same way that a skilled individual can make a document appear to be old. There's no way to disprove the existence of an all powerful deity through observation.
So, you will get to what I refer to as an equally improbably scenario. There's really no more or less ridiculous idea. The notion that a magical mass was just sitting there (which in turn might have somehow bubbled into being from a multiverse, which in turn came from???) suddenly blew up, at a point prior to the establishing of the current laws governing our universe is every bit as ridiculous as the biblical account for instance. You will never get a full explanation, because impossibility can't be explained. If there was a god, who made the god? Where did the god come from? And if there is a multiverse, how did the multiverse get there? Neither is an explanation, it's just another question and it's not that there is a lack of comprehension that's a cop out that even the Bible uses.
The issue is a true miracle at some point did have to occur. One in which every comprehensible notion of science had to be broken. Something had to come from absolutely nothing.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're making the assumption:
Something had to come from absolutely nothing.
No, for example, time didn't have to exist before the big bang. Your brain simply can't understand.
And the bible is a joke, I wouldn't even compare that with science.
The reason scientists were certain the earth was flat and other ridiculous assumptions is because religion prevented scientists from making any progress.
You're right, we don't know for sure. We don't know that anything is real for sure. But we can observe evolution on a small scale and have pretty good evidence for it on a large scale.
The big bang can also be inferred from the cosmic microwave radiation scientists found. But don't confuse spirituality and "faith" which has 0 evidence whatsoever with decades of research for evidence proven with many different observations and experiments.
Comment has been collapsed.
I said I'm agnostic, so spare me the accusations about religion. I was using that for comparative reasons. Secondly, you don't really have any room to tell me what my brain can't understand. It's also ironic that you speak of science with religious reverence, you don't know the big bang happened, you believe it did, you have faith it did, despite scientific evidence that says it was impossible. That's an interesting sort of faith is it not? If you have nine pieces of evidence to prove something happened, and one to prove it didn't, what bit of evidence holds the most scientific validity?
It doesn't matter what existed prior to the alleged big bang though, because you are just going down another rabbit hole. So you say time might not have existed, ok, fine. What created the matter that the big bang originated from? I already alluded to one of the theories, but it's no explanation of any sort either.
What you seem unwilling to grasp, is the fact that most people won't come to grips with the true limits of our ability to observe. Old movies for instance frequently used a trick of making grand scenes via a two dimensional representation, which was generally undetectable to the audience. We know what we think we see, we know what we think we know, but we are frequently wrong. Going back to the start of the last century, and throughout it, you had competing theories on many things, which included ideas about the universe. Just because something has become popular for a couple of decades is by no means proof. The "hockey stick" is a good example of that, when over 90% of scientific projections get something wrong, it's more than enough to call the entire notion of what a scientist does into question.
The main point is that no matter what, we are presented with an impossibility. Scientists will continually try to explain it, but they will not be able to, because at best it's like an infinite onion. For instance you suggest time didn't exist (so???) prior to the big bang. How would the absence of time explain the creation of a giant mass of matter. Well, you can say it just expands and contracts, infinitely. Sure, you can say that, but that's not an explanation either. It's not that we can't comprehend the notion of that, it's that with or without time, with or without any point of reference, something had to come into being. Sure, it might have been at the start of time, but then what started time?
I'd also have to point out how laughable the notion that decades of research can offer any reasonable degree of understanding for what appears to have occurred over billions of years.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't debate christians because they're christian, I debate them because I disagree with what they say. So calling yourself agnostic doesn't shield you from debate.
And what, it's not only YOUR brain. The human brain can't understand certain things, because NONE of us are capable of it. You're basically saying you can theoretically learn everything about the universe if someone taught you.
"Despite scientific evidence that says it was impossible" Please provide me with this. I'm not a scientist, but I'm sure there's lots of information on why these "laws" you're talking about don't apply to the Big Bang. I'll research it for you if you give me something more in-depth than "the temperatures were not right" (wtf are you even talking about?)
You're not smarter than a scientist. Scientists try to explain as much as they can, and they understand they can't explain everything.
"but then what started time?" WE. DON'T. KNOW.
So we can't make assumptions of a god existing with no evidence! But rather make assumptions of things with a considerable amount of evidence such as the Big Bang!
Comment has been collapsed.
I never said being agnostic shielded me from debate, it's just a skeptical position.
To explain it as simply as I can, the big bang, as it is generally explained, defied the very laws of physics. Now, this is very important, because we've used our understanding of the laws government our universe to validate the big bang theory, yet the theory itself violates the basic laws of physics. So, in way of explanation, they (scientists arguing for the theory) say the laws of physics didn't exist at the point the big bang would have been violating them. That's all well and good, but now the scientists are no longer practicing science. They're just making stuff up, and that's as much religion as anything else.
Finally, you say I'm not smarter than a scientist. That's a weird generalization. I'm smarter than some scientists, and some scientist are smarter than I am.
Comment has been collapsed.
Saying the laws of physics didn't exist at the point of the big bang can be inferred because we have evidence that the Big Bang happened, and this is a logical explanation for why it could've happened. Maybe there was some variation of it.
On the other hand, religion is saying there is a god with no evidence. Scientists are making an inference for how the big bang would've happened, and they have evidence for the actual event. They could be wrong, but this is what most likely happened. It's a theory, what's the problem with it?
I said you weren't smarter as a scientist because you portray scientists as cult members who try to spread their own belief and nothing else, much like strongly religious people. Scientists analyze different evidence, they try to learn new things, and don't dismiss claims disproving their arguments like religion does, but instead attempt to address them in a better way than "god works in mysterious ways."
Comment has been collapsed.
We also have scientific evidence the big bang couldn't have happened (that doesn't mean it didn't happen, but it means in some way there is a flaw in the science involved with the theory). Are you familiar with confirmation bias? Simply finding something that agrees with a theory in no way proves it.
Actually scientists (I'm generalizing) are extremely reluctant to accept different ideas. The term "Big Bang" itself was a derisive term by a scientist who believed a completely different theory, one which a lot of scientists believed at the time. You say most likely, but go back in the relatively recent theory and scientists were saying something else most likely happened. Before that, they were saying something else most likely happened.
Scientists instead just say science works in mysterious ways when they reach a scientific impossibility :)
You speak of things in terms of lacking mental capacity, but that's not the problem at all. Explaining an impossibility aside, we're helplessly lost right now due to a complete lack of information. What scientists are trying to do, is easier than watching a single frame of a movie and pretending to know what happened. We believe the earth is billions of years old, right? Yet, recorded history is around a millionth of that. That's like watching one tenth of one frame of one movie, and trying to figure out what happened. We lack so much information, we have such limited data. How do we really know what a planet that is billions of years old looks like until we get a better point of reference? The truth is we don't know a lot of things, we're just making lots of assumptions.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Scientists instead just say science works in mysterious ways when they reach a scientific impossibility :)"
Never did I hear that...
I don't agree with part of what you're saying because you're dismissing theories hundreds+ of scientists did experiments on and are backed by a huge amount of evidence with out understanding everything about the theory is the first place.
You can't just come to a conclusion such as the Big Bang or evolution without scientific knowledge, nor can you disprove it because you saw the definition for the "first law of thermodynamics" on wikipedia.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just throwing the ball here on this:
You claim that the bible is a joke. I take it that you place value in evidence and scientific understanding of facts. Yet, you claim that you are "not a scientist", from what I gather that your scientific education is basic at best, no offense intended. That means that you're basing your whole belief system on claims from people that you don't know, talking about things you don't understand completely. How is that different than what christians do?
Gnostic atheism is a completely illogical stand, and unscientific as well. Agnosticism is the only scientifically sound belief system.
Comment has been collapsed.
If the top scientists around the word believe in the big bang theory, it most likely is a credible theory. Sure, you can start making conspiracy theories about how the government is trying to "hide the truth" but if I don't know enough science to fully understand the big bang I am supposed to believe nothing.
The reason some of us are economists and some are doctors is because our society works together. Just because you can't do something, doesn't mean you can discredit it.
People argue that agnosticism is the only logical stand because you cannot disprove a god. Despite the name, most athiests never say god 100% surely doesn't exist, but it's highly illogical to assume he does when there is no evidence for it and base your life around it. I can say an invisible unicorn who doesn't show any presence is in your room. Try to disprove me.
Comment has been collapsed.
"I don't know enough science to fully understand the big bang I am supposed to believe nothing."
Yes. That is actually what you are supposed to do. You can say that it's very likely, most likely a credible theory, like you said yourself. But to claim it as a fact, to take it as part of your belief system, just by taking scientists' word for granted, is no different from what christians do.
I can't disprove the invisible unicorn. Nor can I prove it. I'm agnostic about it, and so should you.
Comment has been collapsed.
I never claimed it was a fact. I just said it was very likely.
Sure, you can call me an agnostic atheist. But you can be "christian agnostic" too, it's a general term. An athiest is a a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. I can't disprove god for sure, but I lack belief in him.
Comment has been collapsed.
Again, I cannot disprove god. It's just unreasonable to believe in a god with no evidence for it. It's just like making a random claim such as an invisible unicorn. You can't disprove it.
It's also pointless to say there is no god. You can't prove that either, and it doesn't really accomplish anything.
Things get messed up when religion affects people's actions and politics.
Comment has been collapsed.
"If there was a god, who made the god? Where did the god come from?"
That one I kinda get hung up on too. Agnostic as well, so I'm also open to the possibility of a god (or no god). Only thing I ever really get to with that line of thinking is, "What if it's actually possible for something to have always existed, with no beginning or end?" which is, of course, just another impossible question, and eventually gives me a headache trying comprehend a thing that breaks all known notions of life/death and creation.
Comment has been collapsed.
Being atheist, if I can give a possibility close to god it would be that we live in a simulation by some higher intelligent species, which I think is rather unlikely, but possible.
I don't ask this question, it's similar to "Where did the big bang come from" which is something we're not capable of understanding. I ask where is the evidence for god existing at all, and particular your god? It's an assumption with no evidence, a fantasy, created by stone age men which damaged our society and species an incredibly considerable amount.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have to admit I lean more towards a large mass of matter than a creature of sorts, so I don't tend to think much about evidence supporting anything else, but I do keep asking myself ridiculous things I know I'll never comprehend... possibly because I'm also a bit sad I know I'll die never getting the chance to really understand everything around me.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is one of those things I'll sit around thinking/talking/aggravating others about for weeks if I don't stop myself.
And then I always get to bizarre questions like: "What if the universe just always existed?" It's so hard to try and comprehend something that doesn't begin and end, like any living thing on the planet, but I'll get hung up trying to anyway. And of course, if it did explode into existence, where did that matter come from? What does nothing look like (before that matter appeared)? If that matter simply always existed... well I'm back to trying to understand how something can have no beginning and end.
And then I realize I'm posting this on a video game forum at like 2 in the morning.
Comment has been collapsed.
We have all types of thoughts, and people theorizing over here. I don't want to discourage you from thinking things out, or anyone for that matter. But the truth is that most of what is being talked or discussed in this post, like if it was some sort of scientific mystery, is actually explained and understood very well by physicists and mathematicians today. Things like the Big Bang, multiple dimensions, spacetime and such, have been understood and worked with mathematically for years now.
Your claim that "our brains aren't capable of understanding everything" is actually false, in the context you describe. So is "we can't comprehend how a world would work without time". Mathematical models have been created and studied that allow for such features of spacetime, and have been in use for years.
Comment has been collapsed.
But you can't affirm that. There's nothing, right now, in the universe, that you can say without a doubt that no human brain can understand. Actually, I don't even know where do you get that from.
There are some things that haven't been resolved, yet. But it doesn't mean we won't be able to understand them, once they are solved. Really, I don't know where do you get that idea from.
Comment has been collapsed.
You can't say for 100%, but it's pretty safe to assume. Math can show us how no time is possible, but we cannot comprehend it in our brains.
And what mathematics models are you talking about? I'm pretty sure there's no models for how the universe would exist with no time before the big bang, moreover we don't even know if there was time. We practically have no knowledge of what happened before the big bang.
Comment has been collapsed.
"You can't say for 100%, but it's pretty safe to assume." How in the world is it safe to assume that? If it can be explained mathematically, then it can be comprehended. I don't know how else to put it.
The burden of proof is on you. You're the one who is claiming that there are things in the universe that no human mind, no matter the mathematical and scientific advances made, will be able to understand or comprehend.
Comment has been collapsed.
Try reading "God's Debris", then you will have an idea about what we can and we can not comprehend with our minimalistic animal brains.
PS: Some of the ideas are in the book are purely fiction, as author invites us to find which are, but it is fun.
PS-2: Per Dunning-Kruger Effect, you may be right.
Comment has been collapsed.
28 Comments - Last post 6 seconds ago by insideAfireball
209 Comments - Last post 4 minutes ago by forseeker
622 Comments - Last post 13 minutes ago by lordbata
1 Comments - Last post 33 minutes ago by FluffyKittenChan
1,909 Comments - Last post 57 minutes ago by MeguminShiro
18 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by bubsi123
16,365 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by BlazeHaze
408 Comments - Last post 25 seconds ago by faelynaris
1,484 Comments - Last post 57 seconds ago by Serpentus
68 Comments - Last post 1 minute ago by Zarddin
2 Comments - Last post 14 minutes ago by WaxWorm
192 Comments - Last post 17 minutes ago by antidaz
8,105 Comments - Last post 33 minutes ago by s4k1s
9,255 Comments - Last post 33 minutes ago by insideAfireball
Many don't even think about this topic. They leave it as we don't know, and we will never know.
This is true, our brains aren't capable of understanding everything and how the universe was formed such as what happened before the Big Bang. For example, we can't comprehend how a world would work without time (if it's possible) or nothing existing.
But I had a thought that there HAS to be an explanation. Someone might know it (not human) or maybe no one with a conscience knows it, but it's there. Think of how complex and different it probably is from everything we know.
It's sad thinking you'll most likely die (Might have something to exist forever or MUCH longer but probably not in my lifespan [and I was SO close and lucky considering my conscience is a human and not some bacteria in the 13 billion + years of the universe] , why couldn't I have been born such a bit later in this grand timescale) and never find out, but it's also comforting to think it is out there.
Comment has been collapsed.