Leaderboard

This question (which is a common one) is based on a westernised (mis-)understanding of karma that has little to do with the original concept as it was conceived in Eastern philosophy. Karma is not a deterministic process, and it is not an external principle of “reward and judgement”. The basic idea is simply that any intentional (!) action will have future consequences of some kind; but the reverse is not true - not everything that happens is necessarily the deterministic consequence of some past karma. It needs to be remembered that in Eastern philosophical systems, there are two types of causation - there is linear causation, and there is synchronous causation. Linear causation connections events over time, whereas synchronous causation connects objects and events in the present. Both of these are always active, so both the past and the present influence what happens to us in our lives. This means that yes, if you intentionally harm others, it will in all likelihood eventually come back to you in some shape or form (linear causation); but a child can also die in an Earthquake, or catch some horrible disease, simply on account of having - by pure coincidence - been at the wrong place at the wrong time, and without this being the result of any intentional action in the past. The cut a long story short - karma (intentional action) influences events, but it does not determine them. It is not a principle of moral judgement, and was never intended like that. This sounds more like the “problem of evil” in theistic religions, which is different from the concept of karma.

Lennox's use of Penrose's math is fundamentally flawed, and displays a lack of basic biological knowledge. DNA encodes amino acids in triplicates of base pairs called codons. There are 64 possible codons, encoding 20 amino acids, and stop. The translation of codons into amino acids is highly redundant, with numerous codons denoting each amino acid. 61 encode amino acids, and three encode stop. There are no untranslatable codons. This has a number of implications: 1) All possible DNA sequences can be translated into proteins. There is no such thing as a "gibberish" DNA code. 2) Because of the redundancy, multiple changes can occur without affecting the translation of the sequence. 3) Therefore comparisons of gibberish and junkyards to DNA code are not apt. unlike written language and scrapheaps, there is no such thing as an untranslatable gene. 4) Arguments from low probability are not apt. Given all possible arrangements of nucleotides can encode proteins, there are no null sequences. Consider it more like a dice throw. Rolling one hundred sixes in a row has a probability of (1/6)100 or 1.5 x 10-78. Except ALL combinations of 100 throws have this probability and if you perform the experiment, an outcome is inevitable. Claiming that the low probability makes the outcome impossible ex post facto is not sensible.

On the same topic, you can buy portable air conditioning units, that work like a standard air conditioning unit, except that instead of dumping the heat to the outside atmosphere, like in a fixed AC unit, they dump it by evaporating water. They are the most awful excuse for AC that you will ever come across. Yes, they do produce cool air. But the price is a massive increase in humidity. So unless you are standing right in front of it, you actually feel far hotter and more uncomfortable, as soon as it's switched on. I used to play snooker in a very large snooker hall, and on hot nights, they would turn one on. You could tell within minutes that they had done so, because you would start to sweat twice as much as before. Just one unit in a huge hall was enough to make everyone suffer. Needless to say, as soon as we worked out what was happening, we complained loud and clear, but the management took some convincing that a unit that was blowing cool air was making everyone sweaty. They're still on sale now. Terrible things.

Scott I wasn’t trying to disprove the notion of a creator and I think you know that very well. Take it easy man...and don’t look out for those yeti’s and monkeys in your cupboard

But for what purpose? If you replace GR, you are immediately in a situation where you need to replace SR as well, since the latter is a special case of the former. The domino blocks then keep on falling, because SR forms the basis for many other models in physics, for example quantum field theory. All of these theories are known to work very well, so why replace them? I appreciate what you are trying to do, but you need to remember that GR does not stand in isolation. All models in physics are interconnected and interdependent in some way, so if you replace one, so will need to rework many others as well. It is far more meaningful to try and find generalisations of existing models - for example, looking for models of quantum gravity, which would then have GR as their classical limit. And that is where physics is heading right at the moment. I personally also think that is the right direction (and I’m not a phycisist). It’s difficult for me to comment on the rest, without a mathematical formalism to work with.

What's up everyone. First time user, but long time spectator on these forums. If you couldn't tell by my name, I'm a chemistry nerd at heart. Interested in almost all fields of science from all fields of chemistry, physics, and astronomy. Almost done with my A.S. in Chemistry. Finishing up with linear and DE's so may have questions about some of that math. I like to do all sorts of organic and inorganic experiments at home and all ways have technical questions that seem answerable here. Hope to get started soon

Anyone who has established residency. (Citizens, others who have been in the country a certain length of time) What part of "everyone" are you not getting? Is it that difficult a concept? There would not be these loopholes. It's universal. It's built in. Once you make a certain amount of money, you pay more in tax than you get in income. The simplicity of the system is one of its features. Bureaucracy adds cost.

And what sort of action took place for this creator to come to being? Was there a previous magical spaghetti monster that created this being that created the universe. Why not be honest and answer that question as put by https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag6fH8cU-MU So please drop all your pretentious nonsense about god being mathematically proved..it is a whole lot of bunkum and you know that as I do and most on this forum knows. Some gullible people like you might prefer it this way in actual fact......That people may know that you, whose name is Allah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Koran verses 83:18 Either way it is a total myth.

Your response and tag here suggest to me that you are a person of faith who has thrown him or herself into this lion's den of scientific discussion. Why does a person of faith seek unwelcoming environments--such as a science discussion site--to engage in discussions of faith with staunch "non-believers"? Is it done in defense of your faith or is it some hopeful evangelical effort? Perhaps it's mostly about your own insecurities rather than some altruistic effort. I guess we'll know for sure should you ever respond to this or any of the above posts.

Why do you think the bible is true? What evidence can you give for these assertions? The bible is not evidence, the bible is composed of claims that require evidence, it cannot be evidence of it's own truth...

After flicking through 4 pages of this thread I can't see anything that addresses a simple point. I am in my natural habitat already. I'm a human, on Earth.

I don't think I WANT to be outraged. When Obama was president I had many better interests than politics. Obama seemed reasonable, educated, knowledgeable, thoughtful, and articulate. He voiced my own feelings and thoughts. Because now daily I hear thoughtless, even insane comments from Bozo the Clown, so I am just hoping Bozo reaches his tipping point and causes a blue wave in the midterms. I am hoping that the migrant crisis on the border of the USA and Mexico will be Trump's Katrina disaster. I am hoping for Mueller to have something to say before Sept 1st. I am hoping for impeachment.

if karma existed then why are there children's hospitals and children committing suicide? I know some people will say oh its something they did in their past lives, but I think that is a BS excuse to not admit that life is not fair for some possibly many people. if there were past lives why dosent it work that the people get punished in them rather then a different life wouldn't that make more sense? I just found out that a child I used to babysit and play with commit suicide. I did not even get to go to their funeral because they are in Europe. She did it because she was spanked at home and bullied at school and it all just got to her. I talked to a few of her relatives. it was really tough for me to handle and still is, I hope I will feel better with time but I just find myself thinking about it more and more now. it just makes me upset hearing from people that they support spanking their children, I just can not believe anyone spanks a child.this is the first and only person i know who commit suicide and she was a young kid so its really hard for me to handle. I feel so strongly about this topic. I hope one day no one will ever spank any children. What kind of justification can you give to say that spanking a child is moral? I used to volunteer at a children's hospital and I heard there were babies born with cancer. it doesnt sit well with me saying these kids deserve terminal illnesses, there are kids born with all different types of things, deformations, HIV and other things. I used to think that volunteering there would bring me some sort of fulfillment and satisfaction but it did the opposite, i just could not believe how horrible life is for some people.