Jump to content

We are only an effect of Chemistry, but we were foreseen in it.


Enric
 Share

Recommended Posts

We are only an effect of Chemistry, but we already "included" or "foreseen" in its laws since the beginning, when they were created. If they have also appeared alone and included us, they have a lot merit! Or not?

Edited by Enric
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're implying that a creator started the mechanisms that eventually developed the universe we observe around us but left it all alone after that, then such a creator would have to be awesomely patient, wouldn't it? It seems more credible than a personal deity, but it still adds an unnecessary supernatural element.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there's something beyond, it has all the eternity to be patient. And it sounds more credible because it's more credible. The most credible we can find. (And the cases of mediums or people who see somethings and they have no mental troubbles. Look in the psychiatrist forums a lot of cases who absolutely don't make laugh and send to home with no solution. And you can't suspect during all life who are. Or hypnotizers and their experiences about this subject).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there's something beyond, it has all the eternity to be patient. And it sounds more credible because it's more credible. The most credible we can find. (And the cases of mediums or people who see somethings and they have no mental troubbles. Look in the psychiatrist forums a lot of cases who absolutely don't make laugh and send to home with no solution. And you can't suspect during all life who are. Or hypnotizers and their experiences about this subject).

I find this odd. Anyone agree?

 

Either way, "And you can't suspect during all life who are."

Explain this statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can have a person as a neighbour, friend, etc who sees somenthing beyond all his life and he/she says nothing. Only he tells to his psychiatrist and this doctor tries to help him during years but finally send him to home with no solution or help. And you never know it.

 

These cases are not mental diseases or fake.

Edited by Enric
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are chemical elements organized by the organic chemistry. What else?

I think you are right - Delusionary imaginations aren't necessary metal illnesses... but it does not make the subject matter of these delusions/imaginations real either.

Too much structured hallucinations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're implying that a creator started the mechanisms that eventually developed the universe we observe around us but left it all alone after that, then such a creator would have to be awesomely patient, wouldn't it?

Depends on how that being experiences time.

 

It seems more credible than a personal deity, but it still adds an unnecessary supernatural element.

1. A creator being doesn't imply anything supernatural.

2. We don't know whether supernatural things exist or not.

3. We don't know what is and is not necessary.

 

I think you are right - Delusionary imaginations aren't necessary metal illnesses... but it does not make the subject matter of these delusions/imaginations real either.

We don't know that they're delusions. Could be that some people who hear voices in their minds are communicating telepathically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drivel - there is absolutely NO evidence for telepathic communication.... It could be invisible fairies whispering in their ears? Just as plausible. Come on! There have been absolutely ZERO demonstrations of telepathy EVER - so why would anyone in their right mind think such a thing!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drivel - there is absolutely NO evidence for telepathic communication.... It could be invisible fairies whispering in their ears? Just as plausible. Come on! There have been absolutely ZERO demonstrations of telepathy EVER - so why would anyone in their right mind think such a thing!?

 

Drivel? Nonsense. Lack of evidence isn't proof for something not existing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are only an effect of Chemistry, but we already "included" or "foreseen" in its laws since the beginning, when they were created.

 

We've been asking that question a long time: Omar Khayyám and Edward Fitzgerald put it quite nicely.

 

With Earth's first Clay They did the Last Man knead,

And there of the Last Harvest sowed the Seed:

And the first Morning of Creation wrote

What the Last Dawn of Reckoning shall read.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE: "Lack of evidence isn't proof of something not existing"

 

That is such a poor argument - you could say the same about anything at all.. Invisible fairies, elves and pixies could be whispering in your ear - There is no evidence against that either, but why would anyone in their right mind believe that to be the case just because there is no evidence against it. Totally ridiculous and you know it.

 

 

Actually - there is plenty of evidence to suggest that there is no telepathy.

No body parts or brain locations to enable it.

No cases of it EVER happening before outside of an asylum.

Many tests done on people that think they are telepathic with zero positive results.

 

What evidence do have for the counter argument that it 'might' exist?

 

PS: Seriously - give me more neg rep if you like dude - it is worth it to call BS on your nonsense drivel that the voices in their heads 'could' be telepathy. It isn't.

Edited by DrP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is such a poor argument

It's a fact, plain and simple.

 

you could say the same about anything at all

 

Well, yes, mostly. The only things we know about are things we can observe. There could be many things that we can't observe yet. In fact, it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that we've only just begun to look at the tip of a rather larger iceberg. Could be a whole bunch of crazy stuff going on right now, and we'd be blissfully unaware of it all.

 

The true nature of reality is unknown, so yeah, it could be almost anything.

 

Invisible fairies, elves and pixies could be whispering in your ear - There is no evidence against that either, but why would anyone in their right mind believe that to be the case just because there is no evidence against it.

 

I don't believe it's the case, rather I don't know whether it's the case or not, and you don't either.

 

Totally ridiculous and you know it.

 

No, I don't know that. Just because it sounds ridiculous doesn't mean that it is ridiculous. If you could go back in time 10000 years, and tell people back then how the world is right now, they'd think you're insane. What we perceive as ridiculous (because we don't understand it) is NOT relevant.

 

Actually - there is plenty of evidence to suggest that there is no telepathy.

No there isn't.

 

No body parts or brain locations to enable it.

Who says that humans are only physical? For all I know humans are made of more than just atoms. I don't know, you don't know and science doesn't know.

 

No cases of it EVER happening before outside of an asylum.

 

Not any that science knows of.

 

Many tests done on people that think they are telepathic with zero positive results.

 

Apparently they're fakes. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

What evidence do have for the counter argument that it 'might' exist?

 

None, but I'm not claiming anything other than that we don't know, so do I really need any?

 

PS: Seriously - give me more neg rep if you like dude

 

You gave me a down vote for merely stating something might exist. I'm not the one who's wrong here.

 

- it is worth it to call BS on your nonsense drivel that the voices in their heads 'could' be telepathy. It isn't.

 

It's not nonsense. You're just stating that it isn't telepathy while you have no proof that it isn't. Stop pretending that you know what science doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can rule out the ridiculous and the obviously wrong answers when looking for a solution. Otherwise we wouldn't progress at all and we'd have to give credence to every loon around 'in case' they are right. We will have to agree to disagree. I think that entertaining such ridiculous ideas just adds fuels to the fire so that more crackpots come forward with their misconceptions and their obvious drivel. Worse - some will take it seriously and waste their time and their lives in pursuit of nothing more than craziness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Drivel? Nonsense. Lack of evidence isn't proof for something not existing.

 

 

It isn't proof, but it is very compelling counter-evidence.

 

This is a very common fallacy. It is a variant of the argument from ignorance.

 

https://logfall.wordpress.com/absence-of-evidence-fallacy/

http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2012/11/18/absence-of-evidence-is-evidence-of-absence-in-many-cases/

http://wiki.c2.com/?AbsenceOfEvidenceIsNotEvidenceOfAbsence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deleted. Time and time again do I get into these useless arguments. Enough is enough.

 

 

Engage brain before posting, in future (making sure that Critical Thinking Mode is enabled). It will save everyone a lot of time.

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are only an effect of Chemistry, but we already "included" or "foreseen" in its laws since the beginning, when they were created. If they have also appeared alone and included us, they have a lot merit! Or not?

And we still don't know what the future holds about this effect and its evolution (and its intelligence evolution) in, for example, hundred billions years everywhere in the universe. An till the end of the universe. What acually is this curious effect of the Chemistry? We still have no idea. Maybe some day in a far future with the reaction of a formula changes everything everywhere in the universe. Who knows.

 

It's what I think: there's someting really odd in all this state of things. The rest, the 99%, is added fantasy.

Edited by Enric
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

If you're implying that a creator started the mechanisms that eventually developed the universe we observe around us but left it all alone after that, then such a creator would have to be awesomely patient, wouldn't it? It seems more credible than a personal deity, but it still adds an unnecessary supernatural element.

I agree with you on the time thing. Though I vehemently deny any sort of personal or biblical God, I used to give a slight chance of a nonpersonal Deistic Creator Force existing. Like a Universal Mind, maybe?

 

But as you say, the time deal. Why would it take a Deity over one BILLION years for even microbial life to begin? Why so long for even get first strand of DNA? And, why all the waste? A full 99% of all species that ever lived are now extinct. It just doesn't wash...Any sort of omniscient Deity. Oh, and what of the meteor strike that annihilated the dinos 65 Mya?

 

All deal breakers for a Creator hypothesis, imho.

Edited by Velocity_Boy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Life forms change and disappear, but intelligence continues evolutioning in different species in a non-stop advance that needs its time. And maybe in other places of the universe DNA and life has appeared more time before and we wait our moment here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.