Adi's Blog

Cel mai genial blog

Proof of Evolution

Posted by Adi pe Februarie 26, 2012

It all started 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years agowhen

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CAPISCI?!

51 Răspunsuri to “Proof of Evolution”

  1. fastleppard said

    Interesant maestre , numai ca eu nu as numi-o „evolutie” ci transformare sau descoperire a tot ce exista dintodeauna .
    Informatia este pretutindeni – si in trecut ,prezent sau viitor , numai ca depinde ce sertar deschidem si ce informatii redescoperim , pentru ca ele sunt in matricea universala de o infinitate de timp ( acolo unde nu mai exista timp )
    Nu suntem prima civilizatie care a cunoscut electricitatea sau obiectele ( aparatele) mecanice sau electrice . Sunt multe dovezi arheologice ce demonstreaza ca si egiptenii cunosteau electricitatea si becul .
    Chiar si popoarele antediluviene ( inainte de potop ) aveau stiinta curentului electric si a aparatelor de zbor artificiale ( exemple cum sunt misterioasele nave sferice” VIMANA ” care se regasesc povestite in vedele indiene .
    Numai ca din cauza unor cataclisme aceste civilizatii s-au prabusit peste noapte – ex : Razboiul dintre Lemuria si Atlantida care sa sfarist prin niste explozii atat de mari , incat se spunea ca se vedau ca soarele pe pamant ( explozii nucleare ) . Inca un exemplu este Sodama si Gomora – doua cetati distruse in aproximativ acelasi cnditii si asemanari – pucioasa,fum , lumina , foc , si radiatii ( bombardamente nucleare ) .

  2. :)))))
    Nu esti sanatos.

  3. chasingimagination said

    If you picked up a physics book, you’d know that when scientists imply ‘Nothing’, it is a Big bang singularity with INFINITE mass and curvature. Therefore it isn’t virtually nothing.

    Try this:

    ???–> God–> Universe

    please answer ‘???’

    • Adi said

      No need to answer!
      If you read other articles on this blog, you would realise I know more about science than you’ve ever dreamt of… while watching Animal Planet and stupid Youtube clips.
      I’m not making a point for creationism here, but criticising the stupid things people calling themselves `rationalistic` are likely to believe… just because some people they think as smart (as compared to themselves, which are very stupid) say them on TV.
      Compared to that, religion makes much more sense🙂
      And, again, religion does not deal with cosmology; that’s simply not it’s task!

      • Romanians Are Turd of Europe said

        „Compared to that, religion makes much more sense” – OK, just cause you say so without any explanation. That’s sufficient, I guess – some gypsy bloke has written that on his blog, so it’s worth more than hundreds of years of empirical studies. We can burn all the libraries and blow up the universities because religion „MAKES MORE SENSE”
        ” religion does not deal with cosmology” – and evolutionary biology is supposed to deal with it? Another deluded uneducated mongo claiming that a singular branch of science is supposed to have all the answers just because some piss-stained book of fallacies called „holy scripture” is said to have them. Get a grip, gyppo.
        And given you’re apparently so well-read maybe you could give us a list of some essential reading of yours? Would be interesting to check them, but don’t forget to mention which university has published them and were they reviewed in acclaimed scientific journals, OK?

    • Adi said

      `RATE`, I’m not upset with your racism… because it is so stupid and ignorant🙂
      I might have got upset with its stupidity and ignorance… but I can ignore that!
      `hundreds of years of empirical studies` don’t make up for `explanation`, but merely as collected data.
      Strictly from a logical standpoint, any other explanation makes more sense than `everything comes from nothing`, because that strongly violates the principle of identity (A=A), which is fundamental to logic.
      From an utilitarian standpoint (power of explanation), `singularity` and `God did it` make equal sense (equal nonsense, that is), because none is an explanation, but merely giving fancy names to unknown stuff.
      From the standpoint of intellectual honesty, religion is better, because it admits not dealing with empirical explanations, but calls it a mystery. Only stupid and arrogant people base their (lack of) religious beliefs on cosmogonical speculation… ignoring the simple fact that religion simply does not deal with that.

      No mention has been made, in my pamphlet, of `a singular branch of science is supposed to have all the answers`. Nor of any “holy scripture” said to have them. That’s probably just your prejudice about people who criticise opinions you share.

      Nevermind my credentials, off-topic at this point, I could just mention I’m a fan of Sir Roger Penrose and David Bohm.

    • chasingimagination said

      sorry i would read your blog if i knew Romanian. Google translate is not so good you see.

      You didn’t answer my question. just another personal attack. And i don’t believe you. You are making a point for creationism/intelligent design.

      „any other explanation makes more sense than `everything comes from nothing`”

      You did not seem to understand my first comment did you?

      „religion is better, because it admits not dealing with empirical explanations, but calls it a mystery.”

      No…religion described this ‘Mystery’ in great detail.

      „the simple fact that religion simply does not deal with that.”

      Yes! Yes! so stop putting these pictures up because it is not compatible with cosmology and tell the religious nutjobs to stop interfering with our children’s education.

      Don’t put up strawman here please. Science explains these mysteries with hypothesis (explanation) and backs them up with evidence. The scientific method is quite rigorous and offers the most trustworthy source of information about our universe.

      Peace😀

      • Adi said

        `The scientific method is quite rigorous and offers the most trustworthy source of information about our universe`
        Dogma!
        Simply not true. I challenge this assumption and you are unable to substantiate it. You say that the scientific method is best because it makes hypothesis and backs them up with evidence. But that’s your test of value!
        No such reasoning is truly explanation, but merely description.
        From the standpoint of `explanation`, the hypothesis scientific method is worthless!!

        The only point I was ever making about ID is that it would be more USEFUL and BENEFICIAL for people (especially school children) to believe in it, as it tends to explain the world by means of purposefulness and all sort of higher feelings… instead of raw sinister materialism.
        Nevertheless, I was not claiming it to be strictly TRUE.

        Your question `who created God` is meaningless. Just like who created creating🙂

        When you say `religion described this ‘Mystery’ in great detail`, we have to be clear as to what exactly Religion is. Of course people can make mythological speculations and label them religious, but that has nothing whatsoever with Religion in general!

        About your first comment, I don’t know what your position is, but `people` as Hawking and Dawkins seem quite comfortable with everything coming from nothing!

      • chasingimagination said

        „ID is that it would be more USEFUL and BENEFICIAL for people (especially school children) to believe in it, as it tends to explain the world by means of purposefulness and all sort of higher feelings”

        Purposefulness and higher feelings. Now i know why you do not consider scientific method the best. BECAUSE it gets in the way of your feelings. Feelings don’t make things true i’m afraid. Scientific method is still the best method when it comes to ascertaining explanations of the universe. Do you know of any other way to ascertain the TRUTH without confirmation bias? because i can’t.

        ‘who created God’ is meaningless? i don’t think so, its a valid question. ‘who created creating’…this statement just reaffirms your confirmation bias. you replaced God with ‘creating’. God to you must be the alpha and the omega.

        „Of course people can make mythological speculations and label them religious, but that has nothing whatsoever with Religion in general”

        No No…you’re CONTRADICTING yourself. REMEMBER your first argument.

        “religion is better, because it admits not dealing with empirical explanations, but calls it a mystery.”

        first you say religion calls it a mystery and then you say mythological speculation (mystery) has nothing to do with religion.

        Dawkins doesn’t know much about the beginnings of the universe and you may see him stumble in explaining it. He’s a biologist. And i assume you read news article of how Hawkins explained that because of gravity, the universe can created itself out of nothing. However what he is saying is only layman talk and the public have always interpreted ‘nothing’ wrongly. Only physicists and other well informed people understand what he is talking about. And remember the beginnings of the universe is far from solved but science is ONLY pointing us in the direction that makes the most sense. You can disagree. However without evidence and a rigorous scientific method. Your views will just remain another opinion.

    • Adi said

      Science is suppose to be in the service of humanity. If it gets in the way of my feelings (which is a part of humanity)… it does not do a great job at serving me!

      Scientific method has to do with WORKING HYPOTHESIS, not with TRUTH!!
      You cannot know what truth is, because your only test of truth is that `it works`, it solves a problem you have. But you discard it immediately as you find a better theory. Did you not use to call it truth before you renounced it?
      There is no such thing as truth, there is just model and approximation.
      In addition, there is no such thing as `without confirmation bias`… as long as people are involved🙂
      It’s just that you prefer someonelse’s bias instead of yours… which is to me very surprising!

      ‘who created creating’ was an example of meaningless question. It has nothing to do with any concept of God:)

      To make it clear: a mystery is something that is unknown and unknowable (due to inherent limitations uin human understanding). You don’t need religion to tell you that🙂
      As a mystery is unknowable, any mythological (or even scientific) speculation about it… is meaningless from the standpoint of Religion.
      Where is the contradiction?

      I actually have read several of Hawkins’ books… and therefore have concluded that `layman` best describes his way of thinking… rather than speech!
      Let’s say I’m not doubting the existence of the singularity, but it’s nature: the 2 had the courage to call it `nothing`, and I strongly disagree with that.

      • chasingimagination said

        „Science is suppose to be in the service of humanity. If it gets in the way of my feelings (which is a part of humanity)… it does not do a great job at serving me!”

        Yes Science is suppose to serve humanity! But just because it gets in the way of your feelings does not mean it is doing a disservice! That is because the conclusion of Scientific methods contradict what you feel. Sad or not that is reality. Religion is worse because 1)does not reflect reality and 2)says you have to see it that way for life.

        „Scientific method has to do with WORKING HYPOTHESIS, not with TRUTH!”

        A working hypothesis to find the truth, the nature of all things. That is what i meant by truth. An approximation yes! points you in the right direction yes! And the best approximation you can find! And religion (theistic) can’t even agree how it all began! So why should we listen to them with regards to the search for truth? At least with scientific method, you will eventually arrive at 1 answer!

        „there is no such thing as `without confirmation bias`… as long as people are involved”

        That is why they scientific method is ‘rigorous’ and eliminates the feelings influencing the outcomes of studies. You think scientist just happened to agree with Einstein? That is why i stressed again and again it is the most trustworthy source of information.

        „To make it clear: a mystery is something that is unknown and unknowable (due to inherent limitations uin human understanding). You don’t need religion to tell you that🙂
        As a mystery is unknowable, any mythological (or even scientific) speculation about it… is meaningless from the standpoint of Religion.
        Where is the contradiction?”

        Ahh so you’re saying everything we don’t know (mysteries) is pointless to try and comprehend. So religion and scientists assumptions are all pointless? But we are humans, we try to understand. Try to make sense. And you don’t know what is unknowable or not! Here you are saying all these things are ridiculous but you have not attempt to refute their hypothesis.

        The physics of the universe is still open for debate. At least science gives a chance at debating the origin of the cosmos. Religion shuts you up! If you think it is ridiculous then don’t bash science! bash the scientist USING scientific methods. Peace😀

    • Adi said

      If science `hurts` my feelings, I am entitled to decide upon the quality of the service science provides me with. You know, I cannot be forced to accept the so called service, if I disagree about it!
      Sad or not, that is NOT reality, but somepeople’s opinions about Reality! And I find that my own views are much better!
      Religion is not suppose to reflect reality (at least not in the way you perceive science does), but to equip people with tools to tackle life.

      `truth, nature of all things` are philosophical ideas. According to philosophy, truth is self-evident.
      `right direction` is not self-evident at all. You never know if you’re right or not, or on the right direction or not. The only thing you know is that you’re less wrong than last time (actually, you cannot be sure about that either – see Einstein’s cosmological constant, e.g.). But you are still very likely to be on a different wrong track!!

      In addition, religion is much better than science at addressing the question `did it all began?` Saying that `God created everything` is some sort of suggestion that `everything` did not actually begin, is beginningless. That the concept of beginning and end are illusory (coinciding with religious views which are not theistic – as theism is a late occurance in the history of religion). Yet science depends on that, on limiting existence into the framework of the observable (something is observable if you know when/where it begins/ends). Science cannot tackle things that do not exibit temporal, spatial and causal limitations.
      That is why you cannot answer (scientifically) what is the cause of causality or why do stuff exist rather than not exist.

      Scientist just happened to agree with Einstein… not necessarily because they liked Einstein. But because the historical context allowed to! If Aristotle had proposed relativity, no one would have agreed with him!! Not ‘rigorous’ enough!!
      That is why i stressed again and again that the most trustworthy source of information does not mean TRUTH; it only means other sources are less reliable in average.

      I don’t think it is pointless to try and comprehend. Especially as you don’t know what is unknowable.
      I think the effort is illuminating by itself. Nevertheless, one should be realistic about it, keep an open and ballanced mind. Which is absolutely not the case with the people who proclaim that `Science has killed God` and so on. (you should also reffer to such people the correct use of science/scientists dichotomy!)

      • chasingimagination said

        „Sad or not, that is NOT reality, but somepeople’s opinions about Reality! And I find that my own views are much better!”

        You’re saying you 1) don’t want to listen to science if it contradicts your reality (bias) and off course you accuse scientists of bias which i do not agree.

        „In addition, religion is much better than science at addressing the question `did it all began?` Saying that `God created everything` is some sort of suggestion that `everything` did not actually begin, is beginningless”

        2) The whole notion of a beginningless universe has not been thrown out, you are misled by the ‘nothing’ to ‘something’ assumption. Just because the universe existed in this state doesn’t mean it did not exist in another state (i.e. SINGULARITY). Also if an eternal universe is possible, then why is God necessary?

        „The only thing you know is that you’re less wrong than last time (actually, you cannot be sure about that either – see Einstein’s cosmological constant, e.g.). But you are still very likely to be on a different wrong track!! [..] Scientist just happened to agree with Einstein… not necessarily because they liked Einstein. But because the historical context allowed to! If Aristotle had proposed relativity, no one would have agreed with him!! Not ‘rigorous’ enough!!”

        Why are you so sure no one would agree with aristotle? i mean after all, according to you, that hypothetical question is unknowable. hehe

        Anyway scientist did not happen to agree with Einstein! He proved it correct! And he did not need the cosmological constant in the end because he was right that the universe is expanding. His theory holds for now, so far so good and as you said science will refine the answers. So i don’t see science going as the same TRACK as religion! That is why religion and all its explanation of the universe is LIKELY to be wrong. And until the mainstream science of the universe is PROVEN wrong i don’t think religion has a right to say anything. Heck even competing scientific theories of the universe has to prove itself! It doesn’t mean scientists are snobbish bastards, they can’t accept it due to the lack of evidence!

        „Nevertheless, one should be realistic about it, keep an open and ballanced mind. Which is absolutely not the case with the people who proclaim that `Science has killed God` and so on”

        Balanced mind on what? Fairy tales? i need to keep an option open just in case it is true? I need to keep an option that there are angels so i that i can be more humble? If there are certain things that you don’t believe exist or happens, does that mean you are close minded, arrogant and foolish? Only the ones with the best evidence wins the case. Not feelings. Science has killed religion. There are unknowables. But whatever is reality, it is HIGHLY probable it is on the side of Science and nothing to do with religion which by the way have been made UNFALSIFIABLE hypothesis by its followers.

    • Adi said

      I don’t want to listen to science if it contradicts my view reality, because I accuse scientists of bias towards materialism.
      Do you not agree that scientists are biased towards materialism?

      There is indeed something very misleading about the concept of `(material) Universe`… issue addressed by me on multiple occasions, such as https://adrianarvunescu.wordpress.com/2011/07/28/de-ce-e-totul-facut-din-materie/
      Maybe Google translate would do🙂
      Matter cannot be everlasting, eternal. Please read carefully my comment about science being unable to grasp infinite things.
      An eternal Universe and God are, in a very uncanny way, identical!
      Like two ways of looking at the same thing: say saying that a human is a limited body or an eternal soul!

      No one would have agreed with Aristotle… because the volume of knowledge would not allow it. You know, geocentrism, celestial spheres and so on🙂
      That’s precisely the point: Aristotle would have said the same thing, be as right as Einstein was… yet no one would have agreed with him because he would not have been able to prove being right!!
      See how unreliable the scientific method is… if availability of truth is confined to certain periods of time!

      `until the mainstream science of the universe is PROVEN wrong`… that sounds very unscientific🙂
      Please pay attention: I mentioned several times already that Religion does not deal with evidence, proving stuff and so on. In addition, you simply cannot forbid someone to disagree with scientific theories… just because you don’t agree with his disagreeing!

      Unopendminded things (dogma):
      `Only the ones with the best evidence wins the case. Not feelings.`
      Whenever you proclaim something as absolute truth (regardless of masking it in weasel words as `highly probable`) you`ve automatically shut your mind to `reality`.

      • chasingimagination said

        Yes i do agree it is based on materialism but with these 5 senses its all we have. anything else is just utter speculation.

        Sorry google translate made no sense

        Matter cannot be everlasting/eternal. That is also another assumption. Hmm i cannot agree with this. Matter and energy are interrelated are they not? And can energy be destroyed or created? according to you i may be wrong, but then again the burden of proof is on you!

        An eternal God and universe is in a way related. So you must be some sort of pantheist? However even if it is eternal, i have no reason to see it as God. Non-sequitor.

        „availability of truth is confined to certain periods of time”

        Aha now we’re getting somewhere, so Science did eventually work? don’t you think so? Its reliable, people arrived at the same answer. Just takes time, that is all. If i were wrong today, future generations may be right. And I’m quite happy with that.

        Yes i know religion can’t prove stuff. It never had the power. And i cannot forbid someone to disagree. And highly probable is not ‘weasel words’, putting God and the universe together is. All i know is science can go forwards and not backwards. I know that earth will never be flat nor will the sun revolve around it. That knowledge is everlasting. That is why science now has the bigger mouthpiece. If there are unknowable, then so be it. We will find out as much as we can in this material universe.

        I think the whole basis of this disagreement is because you think science is untrustworthy compared to your assumptions. well because according to you there is no absolute truth. yeah maybe we’re in some sort of matrix and this body is just an illusion.

        „that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”

        So i dismiss your assumptions outright. see how easy that was?🙂
        Try doing that to stephen hawkings

    • Adi said

      These 5 senses suck!!
      If you’re intellectually honest, you must admit that all empirical reports from the senses are utterly unsatisfactory. Reason simply denies that the sensorial world is all there is. That’s why people developed mathematics, to enhance reality, to make it more palatable for the intellect!
      If the empirical world is all there is… this is a sinister picture, this is not a world worth living in!!

      `Creation` means that energy is manifested as matter. Destruction means that energy ceases its manifestation as matter. Creation and destruction apply only to matter (effect), not to energy (cause). If you go deeper into things, you conclude that matter is an illusion (like the oasis in the desert, rather than something Matrix-like). It is only energy playing the drama of existence.
      A sort of pantheistic God, if you are fond of labels. I am not🙂
      Therefore, you can only infer that energy is eternal, and its manifestation as matter is temporary and ever changing. But that’s also metaphysics. So feel free to call it God, because it does precisely the same thing: creates, evolves and destroys🙂

      `If i were wrong today, future generations may be right. And I’m quite happy with that`
      I don’t believe you!

      `That knowledge is everlasting.`
      Absolute knowledge again?
      Appealing to `high probability`, when you very well know there is no means to really estimate the actual mathematical formula… is inevitably a case of weasel words! The problem is that most of the things that you are so sure now… are based precisely on a `reasoning` as such!

      `I know that earth will never be flat nor will the sun revolve around it.`
      Argument from lack of imagination. Think about 11 dimensions of space!!

      “that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”
      It doesn’t say that it SHOULD. Feel free to do so if you like; I won’t. Even based on your principle, you cannot impose your scepticism on me.

  4. chasingimagination said

    ‘It is only energy playing the drama of existence’

    I don’t have a problem with that. Even stephen hawking agrees with that.

    ‘So feel free to call it God because it does precisely the same thing: creates, evolves and destroys’ (your summary)

    You just described the nature of the universe (your god) described by Science! ‘facepalm’

    `If i were wrong today, future generations may be right. And I’m quite happy with that`
    I don’t believe you!

    Believe what you want about me. I’m telling the truth.

    I know that earth will never be flat nor will the sun revolve around it.`
    Argument from lack of imagination. Think about 11 dimensions of space!!

    Lol! what are you talking about? bringing up the string theory, i thought you don’t place faith in science, especially cosmological matters? you know very well what i am talking about and you’re putting a red herring.

    ‘Absolute knowledge again?’

    Some things are close to absolute and we can confidently acknowledge it. And i do not agree with you it is weasel words. Maybe everything to you is open for debate. Some things are open and shut case. get over it.

    ‘The problem is that most of the things that you are so sure now… are based precisely on a `reasoning` as such!’

    Science bases itself on the body of evidence + reasoning. Only philosophy bases itself on reasoning alone. And please don’t give me the cop out words ‘5 senses suck’

    “that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”
    It doesn’t say that it SHOULD. Feel free to do so if you like; I won’t. Even based on your principle, you cannot impose your scepticism on me.

    The whole reason i commented is to correct you the notion of ‘nothing’ which you interpret differently from scientists. Thats all i wanted to point out. Then you opened a whole shitstorm about how science isn’t reliable. Totally irrelevant to what i was pointing out! Besides in the end what you just described here is compatible with the current theory of the universe. But you bring God in and curse scientific reasoning…and i know why!

    „If the empirical world is all there is… this is a sinister picture, this is not a world worth living in!!”

    That is how you approached science. How you always have. I never said the universe came from nothing! i even imagined it to be everlasting. just not in the form we always have! So i don’t see it as being incompatible with science! I also know there is a physical limitation to science on how much data we can collect. Some things are more or less grounded and some aren’t. We are on the verge of finding the Higgs Boson (ie the God particle). And you know what? i don’t need a God/divine being/higher consciousness to find life worth living. I have my friends, family and loved ones. And they are all that truly matters to my heart.

    • Adi said

      `You just described the nature of the universe (your god) described by Science! ‘facepalm’`
      I’m glad you finally agree about the maximum capability of science, that is to DESCRIBE, not to explain🙂
      As Swami Krishnananda used to say: The conclusions of physical science are as much true as the discovery that all the plays of Shakespeare are only combinations of the 26 letters of the English alphabet.

      If you insist upon: If i were wrong today, future generations may be right. And I’m quite happy with that.
      Well, besides that being utter nonsense (just like saying oh, I’m happy Bill Gates has the money, at least if I don’t have them). Then why take the effort to actually know anything yourself? Eventually other people in the remote future would get to know… so why bother?🙂

      When people thought the Earth was flat, they pretty much used to think `in 2D`… that’s why it made perfect sense for them! We now think `in 3D` and roundness makes sense for us. Just as the people thinking in 2D would have a hard time understanding our way of 3D thinking… imagine how difficult would it be for us to think 11D !!

      `Some things are open and shut case. get over it.`
      That’s exactly what the people thinking the Earth was flat would have also said🙂
      Is everything being open for debate not the very definition of openmindness? I am openminded even about the idea that everything should be open for debate🙂

      ’5 senses suck’
      Do you have any argument that the whole (or at least a significant portion) of reality is accessible through the senses? Imagine a planet of colourblind people debating whether colours exist (`I also know there is a physical limitation to science on how much data we can collect`).

      `Totally irrelevant to what i was pointing out!`
      If science is indeed unreliable, that should be borne in mind also about your scientific definition of `nothing`… that can be very well unreliable too!

      `I have my friends, family and loved ones`
      Well, that’s, in my opinion, the huge drama of living in the West (where irreligion is that prevalent)… of course YOU do have all the material and emotional comfort that matters to your heart. But what about the `other` thousand million people who don’t?! It’s just the intellectual side of might is right.

      • chasingimagination said

        „I’m glad you finally agree about the maximum capability of science, that is to DESCRIBE, not to explain”

        Just took my words out of context. It was to address the wider issue. You use science to debunk my argument while criticizing science itself! Hypocritical of you isn’t it?

        „Then why take the effort to actually know anything yourself? Eventually other people in the remote future would get to know… so why bother?”

        Because the body of evidence we find today will be used for the future generations to use. and if they found holes in the theory, then it can be improved, corrected or discarded for a better one. You don’t know how science works! We try and try! we become more illuminated. If my theory or any theory doesn’t hold water i will have the humility to give it up. Unlike you people!

        „When people thought the Earth was flat, they pretty much used to think `in 2D`… that’s why it made perfect sense for them! We now think `in 3D` and roundness makes sense for us. Just as the people thinking in 2D would have a hard time understanding our way of 3D thinking… imagine how difficult would it be for us to think 11D”

        And why is that? It is because of science! the progress of science! Maybe in the future we find 24 dimensions. And i’m willing to be wrong as long as it can be proven. And your Bill Gates analogy doesn’t makes sense.

        „I am openminded even about the idea that everything should be open for debate”

        Oh yeah? why are you not open minded about the ‘nothing’ to ‘something’ theory? OH wait! i remember now…you don’t FEEL right. Hmm…very intellectual. Don’t avoid the debate with a strawman, be open minded😀

        „Do you have any argument that the whole (or at least a significant portion) of reality is accessible through the senses”

        Yes how about the reality of planet earth for starters. Or maybe you think we should question if all this is just an illusion? If we followed your dogma, i’d be questioning everything everytime! Maybe this is a dream? What about debating existence of Santa Claus, Unicorn, THOR!? This is a strawman on your part. Sorry…you’re not gonna dodge questions with this kind of argument.

        „If science is indeed unreliable, that should be borne in mind also about your scientific definition of `nothing`… that can be very well unreliable too!”

        As i said before, Science is more trustworthy but you won’t seem to accept it. Even with limited capacity to collect the data, it is still the best method. Consider this, If most of humanity gets wiped out today and they have to rebuild themselves. They will always find through Science & experimentation most, if not all of the knowledge we have lost because there is only ONE reality. Religion cannot do that!

        „YOU do have all the material and emotional comfort that matters to your heart. But what about the `other` thousand million people who don’t”

        First off, i’m not a westerner. Eastern😀
        And the sob story was for you, cause you seem very fragile about life. So you think without the metaphysical, some people have nothing to live for? People have MANY other things to live for. But if they have to believe in it just to keep their sanity, then whatever. Just stay out of government policies and SCIENCE (unless they have proof off course of the metaphysical) – see im open minded🙂

    • Adi said

      `they have to rebuild themselves. They will always find through Science & experimentation`
      I’ll turn that on you very elegantly: think there was a very advanced alien race that one day visits Earth. Comparing the knowledge humans acquired with the one they did… would they say `congrats, lads, you’re on the right track` or `wtf are you idiots talking about; you haven’t the vaguest clue what’s going on` ?
      The fact that they visited us and not viceversa very strongly supports the latter option.
      In addition, think about the minute probability that ET life actually exists. Multiply that by the infinitesimal probability they developed perception at least compatible with ours.
      The conclusion would be that they’d have a completely different picture of reality than we have!!! And, well, we thought our means were best…

      `Hypocritical of you isn’t it?`
      Why should I not appeal to science; is it your monopoly? BTW: what was exactly took out of context?!

      `You don’t know how science works`
      Lol, I’ve been working in scientific research for the past a lot of years🙂

      `If my theory or any theory doesn’t hold water i will have the humility to give it up`
      You just keep repeating this… rather mantra-like. But you still didn’t explain how is this beneficial to you. What motivates you to invest your life into what remote future generations are likely to benefit from?
      At some point you’d be forced to admit something like `I like it` or `I think’s a good thing to do`, therefore having lost your objectivity. Or you believed you were programmed to do so?🙂

      `why are you not open minded about the ‘nothing’ to ‘something’ theory?`
      Why are you not open minded about a circular square? Because it doesn’t make any sense🙂
      If someone explains this `theory` to me, my mind open would (automatically) open to it, because mind is a machine that works with meaning… just like the body is a machine that works with matter.
      But `rationalistic` people prefer to rely on `Hawking said so… and if anyone found holes in the theory, then it can be improved, corrected or discarded for a better one` …than their own understanding.

      `how about the reality of planet earth for starters`
      How about the `reality` of dark matter and dark energy, singularities, virtual particles, multiple universes and so on… for so called professionals?
      The concept of illusion is too complex to explain (yet trivial). Nevertheless, regardless of being in a dream or not, that doesn’t discourage you from understanding the dream you’re into🙂

      `Religion cannot do that!`
      Because of some dogma saying that people can find the truth about the ONE reality within themselves (requiring no telescopes and laboratory experiments for that). If they seek it in distant galaxies, they simply forget to look inside themselves. That’s why.

      First off, your IP sais you’re from UK. And your arguments are typically Western.
      I am very fragile about life. Because I think life is most important. You seem to find some speculation that can be disproved centuries from now… more important than life. Reminder: without the prerequisite of being alive, you would not have been able to make that fabulous speculation to begin with!
      Of course people invent MANY other things to live for… but that applies just as well for Osama bin Laden, Hitler etc. Why are you right and they are wrong… if it does not matter how people define the meaning of their lives?

      `Just stay out of government policies and SCIENCE`
      If you have such government policies and such SCIENCE stay outside MY LIFE, agreed!

  5. chasingimagination said

    `wtf are you idiots talking about; you haven’t the vaguest clue what’s going on` ?
    The fact that they visited us and not viceversa very strongly supports the latter option.’

    Assumptions…assumptions!

    „The conclusion would be that they’d have a completely different picture of reality than we have!!! And, well, we thought our means were best”

    Science isn’t static! Its a process…so what if we’re wrong. doesn’t stop us from trying. Then by your definition, its all pointless to even try and comprehend.

    „Why should I not appeal to science; is it your monopoly?”

    Oh no, you can you use it. But according to your arguments, i would have to call you a HYPOCRITE

    „Lol, I’ve been working in scientific research for the past a lot of years”

    rrright……..

    „But you still didn’t explain how is this beneficial to you.What motivates you to invest your life into what remote future generations are likely to benefit from?”

    Go to my last answer🙂

    „Why are you not open minded about a circular square? Because it doesn’t make any sense”

    Comparing a circular square to a Complex Physics theory. Are trying to put up a strawman? Maybe you lack imagination and fail to see the circular square from another dimension (joke)

    „If someone explains this `theory` to me, my mind open would (automatically) open to it, because mind is a machine that works with meaning… just like the body is a machine that works with matter”

    Yet at the end of the day i don’t think you are.

    „But `rationalistic` people prefer to rely on `Hawking said so… and if anyone found holes in the theory, then it can be improved, corrected or discarded for a better one` …than their own understanding.”

    Accusing scientists of acting like followers? Didn’t i tell you how science wor….owh never mind mr researcher. I’m sure you know how science works (sarcasm)

    „How about the `reality` of dark matter and dark energy, singularities, virtual particles, multiple universes and so on… for so called professionals”

    You avoided my question which means there are things that are more or less settled. Like i can use the theory of why tides move without being asked by people like you that i may have it all wrong because science is limited. Can we at least agree on that? And as for the subjects you are talking about, there is something called EXPERIMENTS! Large Hedron Collider anyone? And if the results prove that all of the above are all true…do you have the humility to give up your position and concede to the reality posed by these evidence? Somehow i doubt that because it will be a disservice to you. And i’m excited if they’re going to find Higgs Boson🙂

    „Because of some dogma saying that people can find the truth about the ONE reality within themselves (requiring no telescopes and laboratory experiments for that). If they seek it in distant galaxies, they simply forget to look inside themselves. That’s why”

    Are you talking about soul searching? seriously…isn’t there only one reality in this universe? Owh i’m sorry you find me soulless.

    „First off, your IP sais you’re from UK. And your arguments are typically Western”

    I’m from Brunei. Staying in the UK in the meantime. thanks to the internet i can research a lot of stuff. I didn’t know there are eastern arguments, can you help me find them?🙂

    „You seem to find some speculation that can be disproved centuries from now… more important than life. Reminder: without the prerequisite of being alive, you would not have been able to make that fabulous speculation to begin with!”

    „more important than life” – if my life consisted of loved ones and seeking to learn more everyday. That is MY life, my motivation (SIMPLE). you don’t have a monopoly definition on life🙂

    “Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated.” Confucious

  6. Adi said

    `eastern arguments`
    I think Brunei to be a fairly religious country, is it not? Consequently, I feel surprised by your (anti-religious) attitude.
    I think that, in an Oriental frame of mind, it makes no sense to (intellectually or otherwise) be against religion (that being very trendy in the West).
    Moreover, little stress can be put, according to Eastern thinking, on the mere option to embrace religion or not. That is how I understand the East, but feel free to contradict me!
    In addition, the whole issue of the secular, i.e. religion keeping out of government and science… really does not make sense to the East (being, again, practically fundamental to the West).

    `Assumptions…assumptions`
    `Consider this, If most of humanity gets wiped out today`🙂
    Actually, I was not necessarily meant to make a point; but actually interested in your opinion!

    `its all pointless to even try and comprehend`
    Quoting Einstein: science without religion is lame.
    We can only truly COMPREHEND by this dual path. If you care that much about the secular approach, than limit yourself to the creation of technology, and give up the claim to comprehension!!

    `according to your arguments, i would have to call you a HYPOCRITE`
    Still not clear why. Nevertheless, FAPP I must not demolish your paradigm (else I would be talking to the walls), but use it against itself, to point out to its inconsistencies.

    `so what if we’re wrong. doesn’t stop us from trying`
    Sounds like you like the trying part more than the being right one🙂

    `Go to my last answer`
    I think you are describing the process of scientific research as beneficial in itself, regardless of the outcome!
    I, too, think it is fun, but, again, I admit it is my opinion. Not scientific fact🙂

    `Maybe you lack imagination and fail to see the circular square from another dimension (joke)`
    Good one. But, regardless of the reasons for my lack of comprehension, it is nevertheless the case, that I cannot (due to limitations of the mind mechanism) be openminded to meaninglessness.
    On the other hand, you admitted yourself that no one understands such a thing (`Complex` standing for nonsense)!!

    `Yet at the end of the day i don’t think you are`
    `rrright……`
    The purpose of the blog was not to brag around about my credentials.
    If you mistrust my judgement, you have to supply reason as to why!

    `Accusing scientists of acting like followers`
    Like human beings!!
    All people are following something or another…

    `science works`
    `supposed to work`(sarcasm)

    `there are things that are more or less settled`
    WE THINK!
    We think there are things that are more or less settled… identically the same thought people believing the Earth was flat had!!
    I hope you now grasp the concept of illusion… perhaps you are familiar with the Buddhist Maya??
    How can you argue which things that are more or less settled? Unless based on other things more or less settled. See `incompleteness theory`
    In addition: P(A)=70% P(B)=70% independent events.
    P(A&B)=49% in layman terms `does not happen`,
    while A and B happened.
    Moreover, now you are avoiding my question🙂

    `Can we at least agree on that?`
    On technology yes, on knowledge not.

    `if the results prove that all of the above are all true`
    On basis on inherent incompleteness, I advice your humility that nothing in this world can be said to be `above all true`.
    In addition, disservice to me is my test of truth🙂

    soul searching?
    Self seeking; know who you are.

    `Higgs Boson`
    I’m just as exited about it as about Stargate.

    `isn’t there only one reality in this universe?`
    I don’t know. What does Reality mean? Again, how about multiple universes?

    Do you think there’s so much soulfulness in the world… that you afford the luxury of soullessness?

  7. Adrian.I said

    Creationismul este la fel de stupid ca evolutionismul.

  8. Adrian.I said

    Termenul de creationism actual nu se potriveste cu invatatura teologica serioasa ortodoxa. Grecii de dupa Grigorie Palama cand foloseau creationism intelegeau altceva.

    Nu stiu ce termen ar fi potrivit, poate semi-panteism.

    Logosul emana energiile necreate, care dau forma si o sustin.(tot in dependenta logosului)

    • Adi said

      Deci Maya🙂

    • Adi said

      Detaliaza!

      • Adrian.I said

        Pai maya nu are existenta reala in advaita, e ce constientizeaza mintea.,in ortodoxie energiile necreate au existenta reala.
        In Ortodoxie, maya ar fi oarecum mintea care devine grosiera prin afecte si nu poate PATRUNDE adanc in esenta ceea ce exista.

    • Adi said

      Pai, daca energiile necreate sunt `la fel de reale` ca si mintea… atunci nu mai poti ocoli conceptul grosier de creatie.
      Sau si mintea este necreata, deci eterna, deci identica cu energiile necreate… deci Advaita!🙂

      • Adrian.I said

        Grosierul energiilor necreate e creatia, dar problema este ca ea nu are existenta independenta, desi e reala.

        Mintea chiar este necreata🙂

        Ar fi fost advaita daca nu ar fi existat nici o distinctie intre fiinta si energie.

  9. Adrian.I said

    „The Law of Conservation of Energy and the Law of Conservation of matter both state that that energy and matter (respectively) cannot be created or destroyed, but can only change its form.

    The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less.

    There is no creation, there is no desctruction. There is only change.

    That is modern sceince, the Buddha taught; “Everything changes, nothing remains without change.”

    Even you change, every seven years every cell in your body has been swapped out with a new cell. You are not even the same person you were 7 years ago.”

    • Adi said

      Foarte frumos punctat…
      Totusi, nu este pe deplin clar ce diferenta este intre a avea existenta dependenta si a fi iluzoriu. In fond… ce inseamna a fi real?
      Este continutul visurilor `real`?!
      Intr-un fel, dpdv al relativitatii, de exemplu, masura timpului (vitezei etc.) intr-un sistem inertial este iluzorie dpdv al altui sistem inertial… desi este dependenta de respectivul sistem inertial🙂
      (inclusiv dpdv al visului, `realitatea` celui care viseaza este ireala:>)

      • Adrian.I said

        Si da si nu.
        E iluzorie poate forma, dar nu inseamna ca e ireala ca esenta, in sensul ca ramane ce sta in spatele ei, energia necreata.De obicei ce constientizeaza are o oarecare autonomie mai serioasa, anume rationalul
        Evident ca la nivel macrocosmic ramane un singur lucru care determina tot, anume ratiunea divina, deoarece toate depind de ea. La nivel macrocosmic se poate vorbi de o singura existenta reala, parintii ii spun supra-reala, noi suntem reali doar la nivel microcosmic.

    • Adi said

      Pai, practic, ce zici tu e cam acelasi lucru… de vreme ce singurul lucru pe care il cunoastem, forma, este iluzorie… atunci cum cunoastem esenta?
      Sau poate intentionezi sa te legi de faptul ca `a cunoaste` nu este bine spus… de vreme ce nu poate fi vb despre o actiune (care este tot o forma)… ci despre o identificare, eliminarea individualitatii – care este ultima si cea mai greu de sters forma.

      • Adrian.I said

        Esenta o cunosti prin dezafectivitate, la nivel rational omul chiar e Dumnezeu
        .”Prin purificare ne face asemenea Lui, Atunci el intra in raporturi intime cu acei care au devenit asemenea Lui, Dumnezeu facandu-se astfel una cu dumnezeii(oamenii) si lasandu-se astfel cunoscut de ei.(Sfantul Grigorie Teologul).”

    • Adi said

      Ce-i aia `dezafectivitate`??
      Si de ce sentimentele sunt un obstacol, iar ratiunea nu??
      Si, daca te izolezi de afectiune, cum mai ajungi la iubire?

      • Adrian.I said

        Sinonim pentru despatimire.Orice te-ai atasat si iti este strain starii tale pure.Depinde ce intelegi prin afect.
        rationalul=mintea, chipul
        Iubirea e energia necreata, nu e afect.

    • Adi said

      Nu se intelege deloc ce inseamna `Iubirea e energia necreata`…
      In plus, notiunile folosite de tine (ex. ratiune) par a avea cu totul alta semnificatie decat cea uzuala!

      • Adrian.I said

        Adica iubirea are esenta reala, si e reprezentata de esenta divina. Experierea ei de rational rezulta senzatia de iubire.
        Diferente culturale.Oricum apusul a modificat mult sensul termenilor preluati de la greci.

    • Adi said

      love cannot be learned, but obstacles can be removed.
      Many times I say learn the art of love, but what I really mean is: learn the art of removing all that hinders love. It is a negative process. It is like digging a well: you go on removing many layers of earth, stones, rocks, and then suddenly there is water. The water was always there; it was an undercurrent. Now you have removed all the barriers, the water is available. So is love: love is the undercurrent of your being. It is already flowing, but there are many rocks, many layers of earth to be removed.
      That’s what I mean when I say: learn the art of love. It is really not learning love but UNlearning the ways of unlove.

  10. […] Cel mai important desigur este să luați în serios pericolul de expunere la radiații și să începeți pregătirile de pe acum! In plus poti citi acest post corelat: https://adrianarvunescu.wordpress.com/2012/02/26/proof-of-evolution/ […]

  11. totedati said

    mie îmi place la nebunie să folosesc cărămida aia, biblia, pe post de mic îndreptar pentru evoluția speciei umane … că despre ce altceva e vorba acolo decît despre nevoia de a evolua!
    SPIRITUAL!
    zeci, sute, mii, tone de pilde biblice care toate au un singur scop să ne ajute să evoluăm! să ne transformăm din viermi în fluturi ( e exemplul tău, îmi place! )
    e tot evoluție!
    conform definiției din dicționar!
    deaia e absolut stupid și basurd conflictul dintre evoluție și creație! e un non-sens! doar niște tremurici americani puteau inventa creaționismul și tot tremurici mai vechi protestanți, adică atei de genul lui darwin, evoluția naturală a speciilor ca o antiteză a noțiunii de evoluție!
    cînd se bat cap în cap doi proști, ambii reprezentînd cu brio si onoare crema civilizației occidentale cu bozonul lor pix cu tot, n-ar trebui să te bagi între ei
    problema e că bătaia proștilor ne afectează și pe noi!
    sa generalizat! se întinde pe tot pămîntul!

    • Adi said

      Vechea problema a distinctiei descriere vs. explicatie.
      Am inceput mai demult sa citesc, exact pe tema asta, Rudolph Otto – Naturalism and religion

      • totedati said

        eu citesc mai puțin
        alerg mai repede dacă te pleznesc peste bot cînd spui prostii și … reușesc să te fac să miști din trompă!

        pentru că astfel văd viitorul … și trecutul … și prezentul
        e mai eficient, te miști mai repede!

Lasă un răspuns

Completează mai jos detaliile despre tine sau dă clic pe un icon pentru autentificare:

Logo WordPress.com

Comentezi folosind contul tău WordPress.com. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Poză Twitter

Comentezi folosind contul tău Twitter. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Fotografie Facebook

Comentezi folosind contul tău Facebook. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Fotografie Google+

Comentezi folosind contul tău Google+. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Conectare la %s

 
%d blogeri au apreciat asta: