Originally posted by King of Blades
You are basing your evidence of higher dimensions and outer universes with metaphysical theories and speculations. We don't know that these such things exists. If anything the whole parallel universe scheme is merely something for the philosophical mind to chew on, not the scientific one. Show me some evidence to support that there is in fact an outer dimension and something outside our universe and I will address it then. I have not been able to find anything to support your claim.However even if such outer dimensions do exist your are only regressing and not answering the topic at hand. In theory infinite regressions are possible. In fact, if you do find evidence to support the "outside the universe" claim and "everything happened by chance", you will see what little there is to support it is merely philosophical numbers that work only in theory. We know as a fact that infinite regressions do not work in reality. We apply this to our universe because it has a beginning. Infinite regressions do not. So knowing that this universe had a beginning, and nothing brings itself into existence, nor can it move itself, of be contingent in it of itself, or even give itself existence, then there must be something that has no beginning, is/has been already moving, already had existence, and is contingent. We know this something to be God. We can also tell by the complexity and intelligence behind this universe, must have been a creator at least equally complex and intelligent. Furthermore we define this something to be God because God is, by definition God is a being greater than which nothing can be conceived. Existence in reality is a better than existence in one's imagination. Ergo God must exist in reality; if God did not, then God would not be that than which nothing greater can be conceived.
string theory and higher dimensional theories are currently the areas of theoretical/quantum/astro physics to which the most manpower/resources/funding is directed towards. the majority of the higher qualified theoretical physicists are working on sting theory. the theory, among other things, strongly proposes{infact it is one of the main points} the existance of multiple universe with different laws of phycis. also remember that reletevity proposes that every time you travel with a velocity through space, you also travel through time. ever heard of the twins paradox. if there are two twins, and one is locked up in a spaceship travelling at near lightspeed, he will return after what will seem like a small time to him, and find every1 on earth as much much younger than him including his twin, due to time dilation. alternately, from the point of view of the twin on earth, when his brother returns, he will be much much younger than him. now this on the surface seems like a pardox, but its only a paradox if you have the idea of absolute time at the back of your head. the fact is they are BOTH true, and the reality is that due to time dilation, both twins have now ended up in different UNBIVERSES with different reality which depended on their own point of view.
all of the above is proven FACT to a great extent. no mysticism,no philosophy just hardline physics{the reletivity part} and im quoting some of the most major authorites like stephen hawkins here. also, the fact that the gravitational force is so much weaker than all the other forces and doesnt have an anti force as of yet gives reason for many physycists to beleive that the force is either leaking out or into our dimension. furthermore, the randomness behind quantum mechanics and wave function collapse{read schroddinger cat if you are interested} also lead most people to beleive in the eixstance of other realities and multiverses. none of this is stuff i made up or neo mystical stuff, all facts. {also many physicist are now of the beleif that time may actually continue before the big bang and may nnot have had a birth in the big bang. also read up on quantum foam and zero point energy}
again, we do not know that everything has a beginning and end, all we have observed is already existing things TRANSITIONING. and this applies to the big bang, because as i said, most of the physics community does not at all beleive that it is all there is to existance. there is a lot more. also, the same hold for infinite regressions, we can not test them so it is futile to try and argue on our limited observation and also knowing that nuthing suggest that all of existance was ever CREATED. furthermore, how do u jump from "evrything is created" to "then sumthing must exist which wasnt created and created everything else". it seems illogical because why is this THING exepmt from the rule then. if infact that can be claimed than i can just as easily claim that this universe/multiverse/existance has always existed in one form or another. and the last line of the argument is just silly.
as for the monkey equation, substitute monkey for the number of molecular/atomc reactions taking place in the universe with complex molecules, than multiple this rate of number of reacting molecules with the amount of time that has passed since complex mulecules have existed in the universe. i think youl indeed, very quickly get a very large number which more than counteracts the monkley equation and makes it very likely for the approporiate arrangement of molecules to exist in the universe which wud contribute life and be self sustaining in its enviornment and evolving.
Originally posted by DigiMark007To be fair, there are reasons to believe in God.
Because it's without evidence. If something has evidence, believing in it is based on reason.Your quote seemed to say "we don't mindlessly follow" ...which is plenty true. But simply thinking about one's religious beliefs doesn't mean that you aren't operating on faith, which, yes, is blind or its not actually faith.
And I understand the distinction between, say, "I have faith that my food isn't poisoned" which isn't fully aware (you don't know 100%) but neither is it fully blind, because we make such assumptions based on statistical probability and reasonable guesses. Saying "I believe in God, and specifically the Christian one" is based on faith. You have reasoning for your beliefs, certainly, but at the end of the day you can't point to something infallibly and "know" you're right. There's a leap of (blind) faith.
1. We are here, who created us?
2. Absolute moral values.
3. Why do things that can't be explained happen?
I, personally, don't agree with these as evidence, except for maybe the first one.
Originally posted by lord xyz
To be fair, there are reasons to believe in God.1. We are here, who created us?
2. Absolute moral values.
3. Why do things that can't be explained happen?I, personally, don't agree with these as evidence, except for maybe the first one.
But a simpler answer to "we are here" is we are here.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's a piss poor nonanswer though 😬
Why do you say that?
The only answer that makes sense to me is: life exists in the universe were ever it can. We are here because here life can be. The conditions are right here and now. If the conditions were not right, then we would not be here.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why do you say that?The only answer that makes sense to me is: life exists in the universe were ever it can. We are here because here life can be. The conditions are right here and now. If the conditions were not right, then we would not be here.
He asked "Why are we here?"
You said: "We are here."
That's not an answer at all. We could be here for no particular reason, but simply stating our existence goes nowhere toward proving that. Besides that would still leave questions open like "what is is about where we are that created life?" "Why are we the only apparently sapient species?" and such.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonThat is true. But that doesn't explain why these conditions exist and where they come from and that.
Why do you say that?The only answer that makes sense to me is: life exists in the universe were ever it can. We are here because here life can be. The conditions are right here and now. If the conditions were not right, then we would not be here.
Originally posted by Bardock42
That is true. But that doesn't explain why these conditions exist and where they come from and that.
Yes it does!
The conditions are like they are here, because the way this solar system worked was favorable to life. You are trying to find something were something does not exist.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
He asked "Why are we here?"
You said: "We are here."That's not an answer at all. We could be here for no particular reason, but simply stating our existence goes nowhere toward proving that. Besides that would still leave questions open like "what is is about where we are that created life?" "Why are we the only apparently sapient species?" and such.
And to me, those are silly questions. Some questions cannot be answered because they are based on a primus that is untrue. You are looking for something that is not there.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonNo, I am sorry. That is indeed a non answer. You are saying we are here because we can be here. That is of course a prerequisite to being here. But it doesn't answer the question thoroughly. It does not explain why this particular set up exists for one. It just extends the question. In that matter it is the same as the God answer, for that raises the question how God came to be.
Yes it does!The conditions are like they are here, because the way this solar system worked was favorable to life. You are trying to find something were something does not exist.
And to me, those are silly questions. Some questions cannot be answered because they are based on a primus that is untrue. You are looking for something that is not there.
I know that for whatever reason, I am here, and it's unlikely I'll ever know why, and even if I did, it may be a purpose or reason that I cannot relate to and therefore don't care about.
If any of you have a greater meaning that you've derived on your own, and the "true" purpose or reason wasn't anything compared to that, then what's the point?
Either way, I'm here, and that's good enough. Saying "We are here because we are able to be." is silly. A better question would be why are we able to be here.
-AC
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, I am sorry. That is indeed a non answer. You are saying we are here because we can be here. That is of course a prerequisite to being here. But it doesn't answer the question thoroughly. It does not explain why this particular set up exists for one. It just extends the question. In that matter it is the same as the God answer, for that raises the question how God came to be.
And again that is also silly. The idea that God came to be, or even where was God on 9-11, suggests a false primus.
It me, it is like asking how many white whiskers are there in Santa Clauses beard? You have to believe in a Santa Clause before you can even consider the answer.
We are here in this part of the universe because we are here in this part of the universe.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I know that for whatever reason, I am here, and it's unlikely I'll ever know why, and even if I did, it may be a purpose or reason that I cannot relate to and therefore don't care about.If any of you have a greater meaning that you've derived on your own, and the "true" purpose or reason wasn't anything compared to that, then what's the point?
Either way, I'm here, and that's good enough. Saying "We are here because we are able to be." is silly. A better question would be why are we able to be here.
-AC
I still think you are looking for something that does not exist.
Playing the Planet earth video game...?
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonSo, the street is wet because the street is wet?
And again that is also silly. The idea that God came to be, or even where was God on 9-11, suggests a false primus.It me, it is like asking how many white whiskers are there in Santa Clauses beard? You have to believe in a Santa Clause before you can even consider the answer.
We are here in this part of the universe because we are here in this part of the universe.
I still think you are looking for something that does not exist.
Not because two guys with a bucket of water walked down the street, fell and made the street wet with the water they had with them? The street is wet...cause it is wet?
Do you not feel the slightest bit ridiculous? Do you understand the concept of cause and effect? Do you realize that the effect is not the cause...that it is indeed...the effect?
Originally posted by Bardock42
So, the street is wet because the street is wet?Not because two guys with a bucket of water walked down the street, fell and made the street wet with the water they had with them? The street is wet...cause it is wet?
Do you not feel the slightest bit ridiculous? Do you understand the concept of cause and effect? Do you realize that the effect is not the cause...that it is indeed...the effect?
We didn't talk about a street, did we? To ask how is the street wet is a good question that will have an answer, but to ask why is the street wet can be more troublesome. Please do not confuse the two; why would require a understanding of why something gets wet. Or even deeper, why water, or any element exists in the first place. So why does water exist?
"Do you not feel the slightest bit ridiculous?" No, because your point only showed that you had no idea what I was talking about.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonNo, what you just said showed that you have no idea what you are talking about.
We didn't talk about a street, did we? To ask how is the street wet is a good question that will have an answer, but to ask why is the street wet can be more troublesome. Please do not confuse the two; why would require a understanding of why something gets wet. Or even deeper, why water, or any element exists in the first place. So why does water exist?"Do you not feel the slightest bit ridiculous?" No, because your point only showed that you had no idea what I was talking about.
Why asks for the reason and cause why something happened. Why is street get wet is in every way equal to how did the street get wet. Your question "How is the street wet?" as for what way it is wet that begs an answer like "very" or "shiny", in fact it is a relatively ridiculous question. You don't understand English very well, do you?
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, what you just said showed that you have no idea what you are talking about.Why asks for the reason and cause why something happened. Why is street get wet is in every way equal to how did the street get wet. Your question "How is the street wet?" as for what way it is wet that begs an answer like "very" or "shiny", in fact it is a relatively ridiculous question. You don't understand English very well, do you?
You silly Frenchman 🤪
You could try answering my question.