Merkabah

[say what]

I think that their is a connection between science and creation. And I believe that we have not been told of these things on purpose. Religion is used to control the population. It has been successful for thousands of years. And still is so today. I am not sure how far people really want to go down the rabbit hole. Some people want to believe what they see. Never thinking about all the little things that make life possible. We are just beginning to find out such things with the help of science. It seems like every time they figure out something they realize that was just a piece of the puzzle and their is more too it than they thought.

[video=youtube;cXM9J77StL0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXM9J77StL0[/video]​

I haven't had a chance to watch your video- but I agree. I often think that we as a society wouldn't be able to handle the truth. Sometimes I think that the higher powers limiting our knowledge are actually doing it to save society...would we be able to handle it? That begs the question, do you tell someone (or everyone) something you know they cannot recover from because they have the right to know? Or do you do it to save them from the potentially horrible consequences?

 

[sprinkles]

I am so confused by this. Maybe it's because it's Sunday...and I like to conserve brain power on Sunday...but I have no idea what you're getting at here.

You said:

I was just looking for the information that lead you to that conclusion! I'm curious to know how you know they don't exist. I wasn't trying to be smart, I just wanted you to explain to me how you knew they didn't exist. In my mind, it's a debate that has never been fully settled.

I know it like you know that I'm talking to you. It's that kind of knowing. That's what I'm getting at. Unless of course we can admit that you maybe don't know that I'm talking to you in which case I'd maybe also admit that I don't know that I'm talking to you either.

It's just immediately apparent to me. Maybe it's just an opinion but these things do not seem to operate independently of each other, and from my understanding, without both together neither can exist.

I'm not saying that there aren't individuated conceptual levels, just that they aren't dualistic. Matter is real enough to kill your body without your permission for example and mind is real enough to do some weird stuff with matter.

The way we subjectively perceive both is probably a mirage but a mirage always comes from something that is actually there, it's just not what you think it is at first glance.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=10252]say what[/MENTION]

Or put it this way. My position is that things are complementarily dual but transcendentally one. That is the "Eastern" form of dualism which isn't really dualism - e.g. Tao, Yin & Yang.

 

[54192&#cmy]

I haven't had a chance to watch your video- but I agree. I often think that we as a society wouldn't be able to handle the truth. Sometimes I think that the higher powers limiting our knowledge are actually doing it to save society...would we be able to handle it? That begs the question, do you tell someone (or everyone) something you know they cannot recover from because they have the right to know? Or do you do it to save them from the potentially horrible consequences?

The vid just shows the different patterns made by the millions of calculations it takes to make one of these fractals. It's pretty cool to look at.
I don't know. It seems to me that the truth changes with the population. The population decides what is true after all. Perception is reality they say. So even if they are lying eventually the lie can become truth. And the truth can become a lie. We really do not know how what or why we are here. I am not even certain if we are supposed to even know. I think it is so interesting that science is starting to think that we live in a hologram. It very well could be. It could explain multiple lives. When the experimented on are aware of the experiment it changes the outcome. What if all you had to do was become aware of what is really going on? Become aware that you are in the Matrix?

I realized a long time ago that their was only so much crappy tv that I can watch. So I figured that I should be engaging with life. So that is what I do. I go out and watch the rain fall. See the wind blow across the lake in a storm. Watch the snow fall. See the Geese fly in the fall and spring. I like to be in the outside world where I am supposed to be. If I never knew anything other than that I would be fine with that life. That life is getting harder to find. That type of peace would be nice....

 

[LucyJr]

Quantum physics has shown that the “normal” laws of physics really do not apply...yes, most of it is theory...but so is religion...I am not trying to disprove either of them....in fact I am trying to find the bridge between them.
The most recent theory for the universe it that it explodes, then implodes, then explodes again over an over and over...
But then there are so many theories of how our existence came into being it is virtually pointless for us to argue about whether it existed prior to the “big bang” or if there was nothing...it is beyond our knowing...and neither of us (not making assumptions about you) is a super-genius cosmologist of quantum physicist.
The whole point of this thread originally was to find the thread that connects us all both in this life and after.
It is tiring to continuously argue semantics about personal beliefs...I don’t mind debating thoughts and ideas, but I am not out to throw what I personally believe in anyone’s face.
For me, I am striving to find my faith...not necessarily in “God” per say, but in my own purpose here in this existence.
I am flawed...not everything I post or say is perfectly without flaws either...I am trying to figure it out within the confines of my own mind and heart.
We could go back and forth forever on the subject of what was before the universe...but it will get us nowhere...neither of us can prove the other wrong because no one has the answer currently...they are just theories, thoughts, ideas.
Let’s all take a step back and try to come together to present those to each other in a way that is the most constructive.
No one here has it right...not me...not you...no one that posts their thoughts on the subject.
It would be just as correct for me to assume that what you or anyone else posts is “truth”, as it would be for you to assume the same...but we should all keep in mind that we are not ineffable by any means.
In the past few months I have found the urge to argue my beliefs less and less...it gets me exactly nowhere.
I want to get “somewhere”...I want to believe what my heart tells me is right...who am I to argue the validity of that mindset with anyone who feels the same?
I am not just saying this to you @LucyJr...but to @sprinkles, @muir, @Jacobi, @say what, @Kgal, @efromm @Shaqie and anyone else I missed.
Correct me please if I am perfectly incorrect on a scientific principle that I misstate...but lets bring all our thoughts and ideas together without debating semantics or unprovable theories at every turn.
I wish to move beyond that...to let go of some of the doubts that bloom from my own ego.

Skarekrow, I posted what I posted not to attack your personal beliefs at all. I posted because I thought your calim that there was "something" before the Big Bang is not true. To all the evidences that there are now, like Alexander Vilenkin said, it looks that the Universe had a beginning, and before that there was nothing. Now this is BIG. Just think about it.

That's why I posted, not to attack anybody. I posted so that people could think for themselfs.

 

[sprinkles]

Skarekrow, I posted what I posted not to attack your personal beliefs at all. I posted because I thought your calim that there was "something" before the Big Bang is not true. To all the evidences that there are now, like Alexander Vilenkin said, it looks that the Universe had a beginning, and before that there was nothing. Now this is BIG. Just think about it.

That's why I posted, not to attack anybody. I posted so that people could think for themselfs.

It's preemptive to say that there was nothing. Why are you quoting that. -.-

The part we can observe is expanding and probably had a beginning. However dark matter and dark energy both indicate that the part we can observe is not all of it.

How can you know that it wasn't only the 'seeable' part that had a beginning? I mean not only is the universe expanding, it is also accelerating the expansion. We can't fully explain why it's accelerating but it's believed to have something to do with dark energy. We can't explain why galaxies have not ripped themselves apart by now, or why we can't account for an apparent lack of mass in the universe which by all accounts should be there (it's like finding a housecat that has the mass of an elephant) but it's believed that dark matter has something to do with that.

The position that the universe started from nothing is just a big "Since we can't see it, it wasn't there! We see everything there is, and was ever!" It takes some gigantic assumptions to reach that conclusion.

 

[Shaqie]

How can there be nothing, as of NOTHING? Not even subatomic particles? Nothing at all! If there was nothing, then how come from it something began?
Is it more likely to be a thing that has always been stretching, where in its infancy it has been super microscopic and then formed to be what we know as the universe? Or a universe witch simply shrunk itself into a singularity point, essentially dying, then afterwards stretching itself outwards again, essentially being born again?
Or should I instead go buy a beer and watch Big Brother?

 

[LucyJr]

[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]
Also I wouldn't really use science to back nor refute itself because scientists are often full of stupid, and erroneous assumptions hang around for a very long time.

They're bound by ignorance, because if they knew better they wouldn't continue to teach these things that mislead people.

I don't use science to refute or back science itself, that would be impossible and self contradictory.
What I do is I use science theories (and philosophy also) that refutes and dissmis scientism and materialism, which is a big difference.
...........................
I think the biggest problem scientists have today is that they make awful philosophers (and that everybody knows it), yet that don't stop them to make continously phisophical assertions and assumptions, and contradictiong themselfs.

Take for example Stephen Hawking..."The theory of everything" or "Science makes God unnecessary" or other such surprises. And many people believe him with the naivety of a child.

 

[sprinkles]

How can there be nothing, as of NOTHING? Not even subatomic particles? Nothing at all! If there was nothing, then how come from it something began?
Is it more likely to be a thing that has always been stretching, where in its infancy it has been super microscopic and then formed to be what we know as the universe? Or a universe witch simply shrunk itself into a singularity point, essentially dying, then afterwards stretching itself outwards again, essentially being born again? Or should I instead go buy a beer and watch Big Brother?

Or the observable universe just wasn't the entire universe.

 

[sprinkles]

I don't use science to refute or back science itself, that would be impossible and self contradictory.
What I do is I use science theories (and philosophy also) that refutes and dissmis scientism and materialism, which is a big difference.
...........................
I think the biggest problem scientists have today is that they make awful philosophers (and that everybody knows it), yet that don't stop them to make continously phisophical assertions and assumptions, and contradictiong themselfs.

Take for example Stephen Hawking..."The theory of everything" or "Science makes God unnecessary" or other such surprises. And many people believe him with the naivety of a child.

Yeah well I don't. Hawking is just a dude. He's really smart but he doesn't know everything.

 

[Shaqie]

Or the observable universe just wasn't the entire universe.

You mean existence itself?

 

[LucyJr]

What makes sense is not my choice. If it were my choice then everything would always make sense 100% of the time.

Then this make any sense, what you wrote right now?...you are contradiciting yourself...

As for the argument, it is that if there is no free choice, then there is no reason, there is no sense...yet you DO believe that what you wrote make sense actually, otherwise you wouldn't wrote it.

 

[Shaqie]

Yeah well I don't. Hawking is just a dude. He's really smart but he doesn't know everything.

HOLY EINSTEIN YOU DARE INSULT HAWKING!

PS: lol
PS2: Hope you figured it was a joke. If not, internet communication sucks, or I suck at communing trough the internet, or both? Most likely both!

 

[LucyJr]

Or the observable universe just wasn't the entire universe.

Well they don't base their theories on the observable Universe.
Check the Second Law of Termodynamics...it clearly shows that at some point in the past, there was a beginning.

 

[sprinkles]

You mean existence itself?

Well by necessary implication it would have to include existence, but that's not what I mean.

Here's a little thought experiment - imagine a billiards table where the table and all the balls start invisible. They're there, but you can't see nor detect them. The game of billiards perpetually plays itself, but upon a break, only some of the balls become visible. Maybe even just the 8 ball. You can suddenly see it being knocked around for no apparent reason and maybe for you the 8 ball represents the entirety of existence, you maybe think it came from nothing but it was always there, it just became apparent to you.

 

[LucyJr]

It's preemptive to say that there was nothing. Why are you quoting that. -.-

The part we can observe is expanding and probably had a beginning. However dark matter and dark energy both indicate that the part we can observe is not all of it.

How can you know that it wasn't only the 'seeable' part that had a beginning? I mean not only is the universe expanding, it is also accelerating the expansion. We can't fully explain why it's accelerating but it's believed to have something to do with dark energy. We can't explain why galaxies have not ripped themselves apart by now, or why we can't account for an apparent lack of mass in the universe which by all accounts should be there (it's like finding a housecat that has the mass of an elephant) but it's believed that dark matter has something to do with that.

The position that the universe started from nothing is just a big "Since we can't see it, it wasn't there! We see everything there is, and was ever!" It takes some gigantic assumptions to reach that conclusion.

The laws of physiscs are Universal. There are not "tastes" of laws in different parts of the Universe.
What do you think about the Kalam argument?

 

[Shaqie]

Well by necessary implication it would have to include existence, but that's not what I mean.

Here's a little thought experiment - imagine a billiards table where the table and all the balls start invisible. They're there, but you can't see nor detect them. The game of billiards perpetually plays itself, but upon a break, only some of the balls become visible. Maybe even just the 8 ball. You can suddenly see it being knocked around for no apparent reason and maybe for you the 8 ball represents the entirety of existence, you maybe think it came from nothing but it was always there, it just became apparent to you.

Cool way of explaining something I kind of knew, so thanks.

And by the way, when I say existence I mean all, all that is known, not known and yet to be known. Simply all!

 

[sprinkles]

Well they don't base their theories on the observable Universe.
Check the Second Law of Termodynamics...it clearly shows that at some point in the past, there was a beginning.

Yes but show me where it says there was nothing.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle also indicates that energy can be temporarily 'borrowed' as long as it's quickly 'paid back'. Or in other words, conservation of energy only applies in the long run, in the short term it's possible to get a quick burst of energy.

But I'm not a quantum physicist so please don't ask me to explain things that I really don't quite understand.

 

[sprinkles]

The laws of physiscs are Universal. There are not "tastes" of laws in different parts of the Universe.
What do you think about the Kalam argument?

Yeah but what are the laws of physics in your little argument here? If you're going to try to say that there's no variance and that different states of things can't have physics applied slightly differently, then I'm going to say bullshit and point you to the fact that water and ethanol freeze at different temperatures and pressures.

I also think Kalām cosmological argument goes against your statement that there was nothing, unless you're saying God is nothing.

 

[Shaqie]

[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION] & [MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]

3 Questions. Important questions!

1. What do you know?
2. What does humanity know?
3. What doesn't humanity know?