s1eep

I believe in Nature and Time, and am a militant Atheist who understands how stupid God is. I am quite a knowledgeable and hardcore Atheist if I'm even against God in the normative sense... Reasons for why we do talk about God this way, because of people considered in intellectual positions often using techniques like you're using right now. I think I'm intellectual enough on this matter to declare you as non-Atheists.

Yes scientists do that, and it's besides the point why. Creation isn't God exclusive; wisdom isn't God exclusive. You know nothing about God except from theories with no evidence, it's a fallacy that you believe him to have wisdom. But sticking up for my idea once again; wisdom is part of the bran---who's to say that a brain didn't form prior to the big bang; it doesn't have to be a human brain, or an organic brain, it could be a machine, even an illusion. And my point is, this type of thought isn't God exclusive, brandishing me as a deist or Theist because I chose to believe there was wisdom (a real thing; and wisdom only, no cause), behind the big bang, is not God-belief. It's similar, but not God-exclusive.

What is the topic now anyway? Why did we bring "the stone" up? I'm sure I was saying something along the lines of creation isn't God exclusive and I disagree with God used in a normative sense (such as by scientists to categorize beliefs in things happening before the big bang).

And how does that paper relate? In your own words please...

You know this or you think you know this?

But life on the planet won't be fluctuating in the great manner that it was prior to humans; it won't be so special.

I guess what led me to the idea of primal imagination, was that I think everything are representatives of past things in some way because of their explicit relation; so when a sperm enters an egg to fertilize it, is this related to the beginning of the universe, in any way, even metaphysically?

I'm talking about the effect of words, not spoken or written word.

The stone exists, to exist it meets a certain criteria, it has both reason in nature (it's accepted, it can exist; thus it is not empty/meaningless/nothing, it is something; from the perspective of nature, it is part of existence), and to the geophysical forces that created it (it's parents, creators), for it was created by them. And with the two definitions of reason, I'm still sticking to my point about the different geniuses for a rock and human. The definition of every word from a rocks perspective would be different to that from a humans perspective, rocks and humans have their own personified reasons )#1) for most life prior to humans and (#2) for animals and humans.

They are more simple forms of life, their reasons aren't as advanced as humans where we have reasoning ability, but reason is not beyond them. Reasoning had evolved because reason was possible, it doesn't mean these things are reason-less. You confuse a humans reason and a rocks reason, you suppose that humans and rocks have the same geniuses, but the reason applied to a rock may not be the same as a reason applied to a human, but that doesn't mean one is reasonless. If someone was in the way of the rock, what reason would it have then? We take one frame out of life as an example, but this happening is always accompanied by a universe; a past and future, causes and effects, so the stone rolling may have particular reason depending on the circumstances it is in. As things have evolved, species have adapted reasoning skills, no doubt through the presence of reasons in real life, and their effect on the mind over a long time period. As for 'style', characteristics; properties, one's that are accepted by nature and again, upheld by the stone or the forces which made the stone.

All stones in this universe would have a particular style, you did say 'a stone'; if we think about this in-depth, it's unique. A stone formed, during this formation process, it comes into existence, because of it's particular style being accepted in nature. A stone-holds holds purpose in nature, to nature, and to itself, because it upholds it's own character. Another point, a stone rolling down the hill must have come from another force, there is reason behind it. Fortunately humans are a very advanced species that can control body parts, senses and so on.

Then you're saying the big bang is associated with a cause? Otherwise my point still stands.

The semantics of primal imagination are not what you think they are... And I suspect you don't know as much about imagination as you appear to know with your words. When I say primal imagination I mean 'creative energies', a personified infinity, opposite to nothing; chaotic, random, not associated with a consciousness; like the big bang, not associated with a cause.

Well. In the context of the original post, I'll agree with you that I am a deist. However, I think that the way we use God as a common term is stupidity. If I had come to this conclusion on the Theistic route, or taking note of God, then I'd agree. Rationality took me to this belief, not God.

I don't see how the big bang isn't considered God-belief then...

It was a guess, what's more important in my belief is the question. I could have had many other ideas. Is the motion of guesswork 'religious'?

Okay, but I don't believe in my answer, so it's okay, right, I'm still Atheist?

Should we be more considerate of the Earth, when conducting science, because of its significance to us and our significance in comparison, plus the fact our resources are limited? And is the technological dominance over the world, including words and other less explicit types of technology, likely to compromise the long-term stability of planet Earth? What I’m trying to ask, which is most purely put in the prior paragraph, is if humans and Earth are conjoined in some, maybe complex way (such as through genetics), as well as dependant on for wants and, for a long time, needs, and if we are to conduct science, should there be laws that prohibit technology that damages vital nature (such as cars polluting the atmosphere; nuclear waste; electricity on a mass-scale)? Scientists talk about ‘terraforming’ other planets and making them ‘Earth-like’, but all the while I have this very chilling feeling that we’re destroying our own Earth. If we are, which seems so because of the copious amounts of consumption and waste-material produced, why prospect terraforming? There must be some coherent value in the world (to its inhabitants), for us to want to create new Earths… I think science, because of its pro-state agendas, delves into stupid things like nuclear weapons (I’m not restricting this to one particular government; war wariness could have been a factor, but humanity is stupid for getting in that position), and serves the states ideology, more so than the science and philosophy behind humans. This may be conducted through Academia---pro-state Academia, the declared teachers, teach the values which affect our social conditioning; all of our wants, desires and deepest fantasies, are based on our knowledge; evidently, everyone educated in the first world is pro-state. Should scientists stand to serve the species or a particular population, and not the public opinion, because the Government’s of the world tend to accept dangerous technologies, and pervert reality to some extent? In the near future we may enter World War III, or perhaps our consumption and waste-output will cause the Earth to become unhealthy. This is not something I would want for my children, or the future children of humanity. Is there a purer type of scientific method, one that includes (is considerate of) the organism and habitat of the organism that conducts the science, rather than perceiving science as an entity that advances in the direction of the state or public opinion, or things that fit into the states ideology? I think that objective morality exists, and we all have it, but we live in such a complex reality it’s ever-changing; there are so many things to do, it’s almost ephemeral. To the majority, because we eat, drink and sleep, survival is a key aspect in our lives; it’s not something we choose to believe in; because of our actions, we are all objective about surviving. There are good and evil things we can do (in correspondence with the objective: survival) and when it comes to eating, drinking and sleeping, we tend to do the good thing. We can choose other objectives, if we were being rational, would we choose to be objective about the Earth because of its significance to us (closeness, size, support, etc)? Before I conclude I would like to mention, economical issues do not precede everything else, so brushing world issues under the carpet because science is good for the economy, doesn’t mean it’s good.

No.

Or a deist who believes in God. Your 'nutty' one-liners are the quintessence of this thread.

God is a commonly-used term? I believe it's a fallacy. Let's be honest, if God wasn't in our societies, we wouldn't be having this conversation now. It would be treated as a scientific guess; one that, to have any credibility, I would need evidence for. At the end of the day it was a guess, the purpose of the thread was to question what happened before the big bang, in light of someone maybe coming up with a sensible answer. It's not something I believe in, I'm not standing up for this 'primal imagination' (I'm elaborating on my theory as such, but it's not something I think I know 100%), I'm simply saying I'm not religious for trying to work this out---again, creation, or wisdom, is not God-exclusive; things create things have wisdom. If I believe in a creator, or more specifically, the state of the universe before the big bang, this doesn't link me in with other Theists who believe in God, and have a bible, with laws, and all the common interpretations of God. God took the idea of creation; creation came before God, we can use creation in a scientific sense; it's real, whereas God is not. Atheism is lack of belief in God, but that doesn't mean it's lack of belief in anything, we still have beliefs---beliefs are valuable when in combination with the natural world, especially rational beliefs. I believe in the big bang, it's supported (to a degree) by science, this is one of the reasons why I believe. I believe that a big bang cannot come from nothing, especially one that turned into the complexity we see today as the universe. Maybe my answer is incorrect, but that doesn't mean it is religious, it's just a bad attempt at science and rationality. People trying to hazard a theory on what happened prior to the big bang shouldn't be condemned as religious, and anyone providing an answer that involves intelligent design should not be confused with God.

Except by no means is my hypothesis nearly as "explicitly stupid" as God, so again, the two don't concur. You're categorizing me as religious, you're wrong, and I'm not religious myself, except for maybe the fact I follow Atheism with great devotion and am kind of religious by one of the definitions (adjective). My answer does not control the universe, is not superhuman, and is composed of natural properties (things taken from observed nature); if you cannot tell me what caused the big bang, then it's a work of fiction (as stupid as God-belief), because all this resource cannot come about through nothing. No it's not. Read my prior posts; God is a fallacy, even the categorization of such is irrational. I am being rational, trying to find consistency in "the big bang coming from nothing", how exactly? As I've said many times, my answer is purely a guess, not something I follow with great devotion; to think of answers to, fill the missing piece of the puzzle, or make the big bang rational, is not God belief. I do not have a bible or laws, you make this notion of reverse-engineering on the big bang sound really stupid by categorizing it with God. It's your aim to do that, that's how passionately you are an Atheist. So far, I've read everything, you still hasn't changed my mind, and this is accepted by other Atheists around me (my friends).

What, acts as the cause for the big bang? I'm sure deities are thought to control their population, or are individual entities themselves. What I hypothesize is universe-related, I suggest it held a part in the creation of the big bang and nothing more; it doesn't control the universe, it isn't one thing, and as soon as the big bang happened, was the big bang---I'm not saying everything is this imagination, everything is everything, but the big bang cannot come from nothing. Your obvious inaccuracy with the big bang doesn't make this kind of scientific investigation religious. I'm simply suggesting that nothing could have had imagination by default, because some things have imagination, and it's often used as a tool for creativity. At the end of the day, it's just a theory, and it's not based on anything religious, I came to this conclusion without God, so no, I am not a diest, and I suppose it's just quick social conditioning that's making it seem that way. I'm an Atheist, and I don't believe in God. In the same fashion as someone theorized something happened to start the universe, I have had a theory about it's manifestation. We took 'bangs' applied them to the universe, I took 'imagination' and applied it to the universe; the idea of something other than, or prior to the big bang isn't God belief.

I don't think your source is authoritative enough... To continue, what I'm trying to say is, this God that you associate me with, doesn't exist, but something exists which fits the missing piece of the puzzle; the puzzle doesn't change because of it, it's above it, especially to us. I have had a rational guess that there was imagination prior to the big bang. To remind, the big bang is unproven, and when we think of it as the furthest back we can go, we may be wrong, and to any rational mind it is already wrong as everything comes from a source. May we note that unlike God, this is not a Man, or an individual being, it's a natural force or forces associated with nothing, as is the big bang. If the world was perfect for an Atheist, we wouldn't be having this conversation, and what I'm doing wouldn't be considered religious.

Whatever you're trying to imply, with what I think are weasel words, does not dispute the fact I do not believe in God and my beliefs aren't religious, I'm approaching the big bang scientifically, and having a guess at the correct answer to fit the bigger picture, or guess the missing piece of the 'puzzle' based on the observable universe. You call me deist, but that includes God, where in the original post did I imply God (something not real) exists? If my logic is wrong, then why do scientists believe in the big bang? Then it is the same logic. Thanks, my hypothesis is more science than it is religion, although some aspects can be confused with religion, I certainly wasn't stupid enough to confuse them.