Jump to content

RVG E Nomini

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Recent Profile Visitors

4,253 profile views
  1. I need a tutorial on how to format posts on this forum. How did that get so whack when I used QUOTE and /QUOTE for everything? @legendaryshotz They do say that and it is accurate.
  2. A more advanced society is preferable as the quality of life goes up for everyone. I would define it by the level of technology possessed by that society as well as its ideals, for example the founding fathers of the US writing a secular constitution. That document was innovative for its time and it's value is still strongly present today. Having a theistic view is fine but I believe it clashes with the idea of increasing quality of life, given that theism has proven largely incompatible not only within its own sphere, but outside of it. Freedom of and privacy from religion is of great value in this country and others. Also, your premise should require a huge standard of evidence on itself to impose it as a guiding principle for a society, but myself and many others don't agree that it has been met to any acceptable degree. It loses its value when by default it alienates a significant fraction of the population. Saying good is just god's nature doesn't resolve the issue for me at all because, as I pointed out, there are multiple things demanded by god and acted upon by mankind that I don't find to be good at all. Also, the Euthyphro problem is called a false dilemma by its opponents, but I don't think the argument is anywhere near concluded on that matter. You would have to explain to me how you know that good is god's nature. I mean how you really know. Not to sound stingy but I'm just not compelled by statements, I'm compelled by reasoning. Of course, it is packaged in that demand that you have to be able to explain to me how you know a god exists so unfortunately the stakes are higher than I expected this response to reach lol, sorry. I'm not trying to checkmate or stalemate the conversation. I will have to refer to the previous paragraph of my response to address this. This is true, but the massive division within each of those religions doesn't sit well with me as I'm of the opinion that if I wanted humanity to prosper under my instruction manual, I would leave no stone unturned and no room for misunderstanding. A daunting task, to be sure, but clearly the existing instruction manuals have created more despair and complexity than unity and peace throughout our global timeline. I'm not saying I'm better or know better than god, I'm trying to say that I don't understand how we're the product of a good-natured higher power with the ability to create universes. Thanks, you as well. When I was in my 20's I learned a lot of lessons on what is most important for these kinds of discussions: the mutual exchange of ideas.
  3. This isn't really an interesting or poignant line of thinking given that the history of humanity who has spent time trying to understand the world we're in have come from nearly every background imaginable, be it religious or non-religious, is so vast as to be uncountable. If you follow a deity, I'd like to know if you've ever taken the time to try and figure out why yours is the right one to follow over any of the others. I'm talking really tried to figure it out. Those are great questions but the answer wouldn't satisfy you, it's that it would be much more surprising if we found ourselves living somewhere where it was impossible for us to live. If we required oxygen and had none but couldn't die, if we could survive complete ionization by insane temperature exposure, if we could defy any law of physics at will, these kinds of things would require extraordinary explanations. Physics, chemistry, and biology have come a long ways in explaining how nature works without finding anything that violates the natural order observed. Whether or not that is sufficient for you is not my call but know that I would struggle to invoke something more complex than anything we see that has never been seen to explain all of it, especially when that nature of that more complex thing is one of the most contentious topics throughout our species.
  4. They demonstrably create more stable and advanced societies where people have a high quality of life. To offer a different angle, why would endorsement from a higher power make anything intrinsically good? If it's because they're from a higher power then you're stuck because the higher power could demand anything and it would have to be considered good. Goodness becomes arbitrary at that point. That's how you get male and female genital mutilation, honor killing, the penalty for apostasy, punishment of homosexual behavior (when awkwardly, that behavior is due to a biological dice roll and is present in more species than it isn't), abhorrent treatment of non-believers, stifling of important scientific research (ya'll remember Galileo...), etc. This doesn't even resolve the issue of which higher power should be acknowledged as you know very well that there's more than one on the menu on this planet.
  5. Higher cranial volume doesn't ensure better neural arrangement or modulation.
  6. While I disagree with a lot of the mainstream liberal agenda these days, this post seems like quite an overstatement. When you ignore the signal to noise ratio and have real conversations with liberals you'll realize there's a lot of common ground to be reached. We're in this country together whether you like it or not so the most important thing to do is not be dismissive. We got the president we needed to push the pendulum back towards the center because the left end of the political spectrum has been overplaying their hand way too aggressively. I agree that conservatism has some good ideals and I tend to align with a lot of them, but it has its faults as well such as a huge reliance on religion to organize society. Good ideas should be able to stand on their own merit and not require the endorsement of a higher power, which I do not acknowledge the existence of based on the use of logic, the very thing you stated conservatives have the most of. Keep in mind that the US was created to have the first secular constitution in order to avoid theological tyranny on its citizens. Also, rap and rock are both excellent. Change my mind.
  7. Never say never as long as Bruce Willis is still alive.
  8. They used to but their scientists determined that their star was fascist and they built a giant rocket so they could go hit it with bike locks. You can imagine how well that plan worked in 5 million kelvin conditions. Okay now I'm worried lol.
  9. Maybe it's plausible but I know next to nothing about both topics.
  10. Yeah mathematics is the language of physics, so pretty much every theory, law, or hypothesis are written in math. There are models that don't predict a multiverse but they tend to break down in other areas. For whatever reason, the best models seem to have a multiverse pop out of them. I don't work in the field of cosmology so I'm not up to date on everything, that's just the last I saw from it. Many scientists have ideologies but those go out the window in the laboratory, because your results get publicly scrutinized and it would be bad for your reputation if you somehow always found results that fit your framework of belief. I say that mostly to talk down to all the youtube "physicists" lol. It's hard for me to find peculiar when it's all I know, it is amazing though. I can get an adrenaline rush easily from snapping out of regular thought and thinking about the fact that we're here now at this time talking about this stuff, and on and on. In the picture of a 14 billion year old universe with hundreds of billions of galaxies, many times more stars, and many times more planets, knowing what chemistry can do given the right conditions because it had to have happened here on earth, how biology had to evolve to get to us, yeah there's a lot in that package that can occupy your mind for a long time. Math is wild too and I know some ideas in particle physics that would make you want to drop everything you're doing and do nothing but geometry for the rest of your life, look up Garrett Lisi on youtube. The Sumerians didn't carve our solar system, they carved our bright sun with dimmer bodies around it in no particular arrangement, probably just stars from the night sky (or planets, which they didn't know were planets but are still observable). Psychedelics are really interesting and challenging, for example if you take enough acid, you'll wonder which alternate reality you ended up after it calms down. DMT, psilocybin, mescaline, etc. do offer incredible incredible experiences to users, but it's difficult to determine which parts are actually anything beyond just a hallucination. Why the hallucinations can be what they are is beyond me. I have no idea why throwing some serotonin analogues into your bloodstream can take you to the incredible places it does. Even just a flood of serotonin itself can cause you to smell color, feel sound, and love people more than you knew you could, how you begin to explain why your baseline levels are what they are is difficult. I'm perfectly happy knowing that there are things I don't know, science won't be as interesting when it's done.
  11. How is it hand-waving and goal post moving? It is what the inflation model literally predicts, as in it's an implication of the only solution we've found to multiple problems in cosmology. These things are written out in mathematics so it's not like somebody wanted to build the multiverse into it, it comes naturally out of the solutions. But still, I think my wording went completely over your head and it's disappointing, because I said that the model could easily be wrong and everyone in physics operates with that same notion because we demand evidence through empirical observation. Nobody has concluded that there is a multiverse just because this or that model demands one, we say, "that's an interesting result and we need to figure out how seriously it's worth taking," then it may or may not join the queue of experiments that are important. There's no belief in anything here because nobody claims to have found the final answer. Your last series of statements are pretty outlandish based on my initial post. I included the fact that inflation could be wrong and the model will need some tweaking so that it doesn't predict a multiverse, as well as the fact that we don't actually know the answer to the question and physicists don't claim to. Your closing sentiment about faith makes absolutely no sense in this context. Science isn't exclusively for or by atheists. I know plenty of physicists who are christian, muslim, mormon, etc. Also, you don't know what can or can't possibly be observed, nobody does. We know what we can't see right now but that doesn't make anything permanently unseeable. I don't understand your attempt to ascribe faith to atheists, it sounds like you're trying to justify something about yourself more than you're actually trying to be objective, as it hasn't been established that a multiverse exists and I'm positive anyone you talked to would agree with that statement. The ones who don't most likely are idiots or least likely are a small bunch of physicists I'm unaware of who found an actual answer and are keeping it under wraps. 1. Nobody knows, much like the first question. 2. Because they enabled our existence and we have brains that can ask questions and come up with ways to answer them. These answers are more terse than my last one but hopefully they're sufficient. If not then please let me know. Question 3?
  12. Not really sure. There are a lot of ideas in physics surrounding things like symmetry breaking of quantum fields that could have caused inflation and the subsequent big bang. These ideas involve the higgs field which was predicted in the 60s and discovered in 2012 to have almost all of the expected properties (higgs particles created in the field decay 1.5x faster than we thought they would). The question is begged as to where these fields come from and to that, nobody knows. Inflation predicts a lot of things we've observed (flatness, no magnetic monopoles, cosmic horizon, etc) but also something we haven't, the multiverse, but it could still be wrong. So, that question doesn't have a good answer right now and maybe never will. What's the next philosophical question?
  13. What kind of philiosophical questions? If you don't mind me asking.

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.