wtbymark
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-29-05 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #53 |
|
Edited on Tue Nov-29-05 04:48 PM by wtbymark
somehow I knew you heard of Whitehead, papau, and to say it's thick reading is an understatement. I took a year to exclusively study Whitehead and there are pages that no human being has been able to grasp. But we all have a notion of it. His grand opus "Process and Reality" has become an entire discipline within philosophy. This guy got it right, bulletproof in both ways - theistic and non-theistic, his cosmology is errorless. He left the god question as more of a catalyst to creating the epocs (epoc(Whiteheadian): The cycle of big bang, big crunch, over and over again)
Whitehead on Time: Actual entities of Reality make the physicality of the universe, an infintesimle unit that is/isn't there. An infinite number comprise the nucleus of an atom but what is unique here is that each entity of reality has the 'feeling of appetition'. Mentality is half its base, a number of them 'feel' themselves as a nucleus, conversly, an infinite number of entities span between the nucleus and the electron orbiting around the nucleus. These entities feel the 'concrescents' of the electron to the nucleus = gravity = mental appetition. Each one of these entities of reality becomes and parishes instantly. The becoming and perishing of actual entities of reality creates time. So as you sat and thought about your chair for an instant, the 'stuff' that makes that chair became and died an infinite number of times creating the time it took you to think about the chair. LMAO
Your head may now explode lol
|
| -1. Existence (or: The Origin of the Universe) |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 06:30 AM |
#0 |
-
Sounds like you scored some GOOD weed tonight. |
Freedomfried |
Nov-29-05 06:35 AM |
#1 |
 -
No, I am this way all of |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 08:46 AM |
#22 |
-
solution B comes out of a singularity |
tocqueville |
Nov-29-05 06:44 AM |
#2 |
 -
bingo |
xchrom |
Nov-29-05 06:49 AM |
#4 |
 -
So where did the singularity, |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 07:00 AM |
#5 |
-
A singularity is a singularity |
Spinzonner |
Nov-29-05 07:04 AM |
#8 |
-
Either a singularity is SOMETHING , or |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 07:09 AM |
#9 |
-
Tell me what 'something' and 'nothing' are |
Spinzonner |
Nov-29-05 07:10 AM |
#10 |
 -
Those are intuitively obvious, like what |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 07:20 AM |
#13 |
-
I think that your thinking is tainted by your existence as a four- |
Spinzonner |
Nov-29-05 07:26 AM |
#14 |
-
Ok. I will |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 08:24 AM |
#19 |
-
Where did a 14 billion year old event come from? |
papau |
Nov-29-05 12:01 PM |
#44 |
-
Not all singularities are created equally |
Spinzonner |
Nov-29-05 02:17 PM |
#51 |
-
The universe came from a couple of oscillating brane that touch sometimes. |
Silverhair |
Nov-29-05 09:47 PM |
#73 |
 -
Mathematically, of course |
Spinzonner |
Nov-30-05 05:09 AM |
#78 |
-
In theory, one could make a universe in the laboratory. |
ozone_man |
Nov-30-05 08:48 PM |
#100 |
-
No, you can't have a Universe unless you promise to take care of it ... |
Spinzonner |
Dec-01-05 10:08 AM |
#105 |
-
From my perspective, this |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-30-05 06:09 AM |
#80 |
-
OK since Wikipedia explains it better than I do |
tocqueville |
Nov-29-05 07:47 AM |
#15 |
-
The Bottom Line |
Midwest_Doc |
Nov-29-05 06:47 AM |
#3 |
-
Not clear that the idea 'popped into existence' make any sense |
Spinzonner |
Nov-29-05 07:00 AM |
#6 |
-
from a different standpoint |
ayeshahaqqiqa |
Nov-29-05 07:04 AM |
#7 |
 -
This is why I do not |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 07:16 AM |
#11 |
-
that's fine |
ayeshahaqqiqa |
Nov-29-05 07:49 AM |
#16 |
-
Thank you! nt. |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 08:38 AM |
#20 |
-
"challenged atheists to explain how the universe came about" - and the |
papau |
Nov-29-05 07:18 AM |
#12 |
 -
I am glad that you posted this. |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 08:43 AM |
#21 |
  -
God is an existing thing is the first "error" - God is - at least in the |
papau |
Nov-29-05 09:17 AM |
#25 |
 -
I am saying for you |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 09:24 AM |
#27 |
 -
was, is, and always shall be - "existing" is not the word I would choose |
papau |
Nov-29-05 09:33 AM |
#30 |
 -
There are only two |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 11:09 AM |
#34 |
 -
Consistent ? God must not only be in the image of man, but must use |
papau |
Nov-29-05 11:55 AM |
#41 |
 -
I have thought that I |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 02:10 PM |
#49 |
-
You claim the answer in your question- that God did not exist and then did |
papau |
Nov-29-05 02:53 PM |
#56 |
-
So God exists. |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 02:57 PM |
#58 |
-
It is the nature of God to be, was, and always will be. The "how did |
papau |
Nov-29-05 03:02 PM |
#60 |
-
Ah. Not logical to the theist. And here is |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 03:09 PM |
#62 |
 -
Have a great evening - I agree we can rename God as "things" that |
papau |
Nov-29-05 03:28 PM |
#65 |
-
I am sorry that I was not clear in my |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-30-05 06:12 AM |
#81 |
-
Exactly. |
Zebedeo |
Dec-16-05 06:23 PM |
#106 |
-
Well, the first thing to realize is that "God did it" isn't an answer. |
trotsky |
Nov-29-05 07:51 AM |
#17 |
 -
you can say that "God dit it" as an answer |
tocqueville |
Nov-29-05 08:01 AM |
#18 |
  -
"theists say you cannot understand it, so "God did it" is not what this |
papau |
Nov-29-05 09:28 AM |
#29 |
 -
very strange definition of logic |
tocqueville |
Nov-29-05 06:32 PM |
#69 |
 -
I fall back on our friends the Greeks and the discussion of what we can be |
papau |
Nov-29-05 10:15 PM |
#75 |
 -
Intelligent design ? |
tocqueville |
Nov-30-05 07:46 AM |
#86 |
 -
Aquinas's 5th "proof" is indeed "Intelligent design" - but I was using it |
papau |
Nov-30-05 12:01 PM |
#96 |
 -
cheers |
tocqueville |
Nov-30-05 06:55 PM |
#98 |
 -
"God did it" begs the question, |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 09:02 AM |
#23 |
  -
"Where did the singularity come from?" is a meaningless question. |
trotsky |
Nov-29-05 09:11 AM |
#24 |
   -
No, it is not a meaningless question; |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 09:26 AM |
#28 |
  -
It is a meaningless question |
Spinzonner |
Nov-30-05 09:18 AM |
#90 |
  -
Singularity is 14 billion years old today- per science! - God is forever. |
papau |
Nov-29-05 11:56 AM |
#42 |
 -
To reject the question of creation is indeed one of Hawking's responses. |
papau |
Nov-29-05 09:20 AM |
#26 |
-
Well yeah, because "God" isn't an answer. |
trotsky |
Nov-29-05 09:36 AM |
#31 |
-
Human experience defines logic - and God is the logical answer - |
papau |
Nov-29-05 09:45 AM |
#32 |
-
"God" adds |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 11:11 AM |
#35 |
 -
True only if you see them as two separate issues! |
papau |
Nov-29-05 11:48 AM |
#39 |
-
Clarification |
trotsky |
Nov-29-05 12:52 PM |
#46 |
-
nope - the concept of God - the one that produces more questions, is |
papau |
Nov-29-05 02:57 PM |
#57 |
-
Alright, maybe *you* don't have more questions, |
trotsky |
Nov-29-05 03:12 PM |
#64 |
 -
Science says the Universe started 14 billion years ago - and who am I to |
papau |
Nov-29-05 03:30 PM |
#66 |
-
Science is strong BECAUSE of disagreement. |
trotsky |
Nov-29-05 03:36 PM |
#67 |
-
I need more emotion icons in my message - we of course agree on |
papau |
Nov-29-05 08:38 PM |
#70 |
-
And that's why "God" isn't an explanation. |
trotsky |
Nov-30-05 07:27 AM |
#84 |
-
:-) :-) :-) May we both be happy in our belief system! :-) :-) :-) |
papau |
Nov-30-05 08:50 AM |
#88 |
-
And may you derive the pleasure you so desire |
trotsky |
Nov-30-05 09:34 AM |
#91 |
-
Not meant to be insulting in any way-But Belief system is in my vocabulary |
papau |
Nov-30-05 09:52 AM |
#92 |
-
It is the correct word in your belief system. |
trotsky |
Nov-30-05 10:08 AM |
#93 |
-
true n/t |
papau |
Nov-30-05 10:37 AM |
#94 |
-
You seem to dance right over the problem of time 6000 years versus |
heidler1 |
Dec-20-05 01:21 AM |
#109 |
-
my 2 cents |
unpossibles |
Nov-29-05 10:18 AM |
#33 |
 -
I like your post. We agree a lot. |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 11:12 AM |
#36 |
-
thanks! |
unpossibles |
Nov-29-05 11:46 AM |
#38 |
-
Existence Is |
Beetwasher |
Nov-29-05 11:33 AM |
#37 |
 -
Ok. I will try to get around |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 02:49 PM |
#54 |
-
well, i will continue - or interject |
wtbymark |
Nov-29-05 11:51 AM |
#40 |
 -
"Logical is a cohearent, repeatable system" - and we are back to science? |
papau |
Nov-29-05 11:59 AM |
#43 |
  -
"There can be no logic that does not follow the scientific method?" |
wtbymark |
Nov-29-05 12:06 PM |
#45 |
 -
but is logic limited to the rules in science? Science must follow logic - |
papau |
Nov-29-05 01:00 PM |
#47 |
 -
Logic has established rules of it's own |
wtbymark |
Nov-29-05 01:45 PM |
#48 |
 -
The mathematical rules of logic, and the verbal versions of the rules |
papau |
Nov-29-05 02:35 PM |
#52 |
 -
I forgot to say I agree with your time is a biproduct of realty comment |
papau |
Nov-29-05 03:07 PM |
#61 |
 -
Much as I hate to interrupt you and papau, |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 02:53 PM |
#55 |
-
:-) - that works for me as a definition of atheist - indeed the talking |
papau |
Nov-29-05 03:00 PM |
#59 |
-
Agreed! |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-29-05 03:10 PM |
#63 |
-
There was no "begining" |
Odin2005 |
Nov-29-05 02:12 PM |
#50 |
 -
last years attempts to find "brane" evidence all failed - but I like the |
papau |
Nov-29-05 02:40 PM |
#53 |
-
I'm jumping back in |
wtbymark |
Nov-29-05 04:41 PM |
#68 |
 -
My friend at the U of MD tried to do QM using Whitehead - and |
papau |
Nov-29-05 08:51 PM |
#71 |
-
Amazing, isn't it? |
Zebedeo |
Dec-16-05 07:45 PM |
#107 |
-
I read that in last month's Scientific American. |
Silverhair |
Nov-30-05 07:23 AM |
#83 |
-
A few thoughts. |
Darranar |
Nov-29-05 09:29 PM |
#72 |
 -
While I may not agree with everything |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-30-05 06:17 AM |
#82 |
-
With all due respect |
Spinzonner |
Nov-30-05 07:37 AM |
#85 |
-
See post # 80 nt. |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-30-05 08:26 AM |
#87 |
-
Saw it |
Spinzonner |
Nov-30-05 08:55 AM |
#89 |
-
Many of these responses are making an error regarding "before". |
Silverhair |
Nov-29-05 10:00 PM |
#74 |
 -
Indeed - that God has no time dimension is a given. :-) |
papau |
Nov-29-05 10:16 PM |
#76 |
 -
Just because time is part of our physical universe |
Darranar |
Nov-29-05 10:21 PM |
#77 |
-
You appear to be playing word games |
Spinzonner |
Nov-30-05 05:15 AM |
#79 |
-
No, I am not. |
Darranar |
Nov-30-05 01:52 PM |
#97 |
-
Read post #60 and #90. |
Strong Atheist |
Nov-30-05 11:14 AM |
#95 |
-
Yes - you are the "only one" missing the logic of the singularity (but I |
papau |
Nov-30-05 08:45 PM |
#99 |
 -
Peace, papau. |
Strong Atheist |
Dec-01-05 06:09 AM |
#102 |
-
The singularity argument and the God one are essentially different. |
Darranar |
Nov-30-05 09:51 PM |
#101 |
-
Now THIS |
Strong Atheist |
Dec-01-05 06:11 AM |
#103 |
-
Well said :-) But again "God came originated ex nihilo" is not the |
papau |
Dec-01-05 07:32 AM |
#104 |
-
May I respectfully suggest |
Zebedeo |
Dec-16-05 08:01 PM |
#108 |
-
Careful, now. |
trotsky |
Dec-20-05 07:40 AM |
#110 |
 -
You can't |
Brentos |
Dec-20-05 12:13 PM |
#111 |
-
I'm not asking you to prove that he did, |
trotsky |
Dec-20-05 12:40 PM |
#112 |
-
True |
Brentos |
Dec-20-05 12:47 PM |
#113 |
-
Your view of the subject is rational to me. In spite of the fact that I |
heidler1 |
Dec-20-05 01:57 PM |
#114 |
-
Ohhh, bloody heck, no! |
Brentos |
Dec-20-05 02:17 PM |
#115 |
-
Stuff pops in and out of existence all of the time. |
hunter |
Dec-20-05 02:19 PM |
#116 |
-
My brain hurts! :-) |
Brentos |
Dec-20-05 02:25 PM |
#117 |
-
Long ago I read that atomic particles are possibly whole new worlds and |
heidler1 |
Dec-20-05 05:12 PM |
#118 |