PoorOldPo

Well love between other beings, animals, nature. Jesus I sound like a hippie, Imma shutup now. But that is how I feel so ****it.

__________________
https://www.instagram.com/hennas.lullaby/

RVCA

I think you've got it wrong. Religion is the culprit, having "completely bastardised" spirituality. Religion is inherently political, by and large.

Neapolitan

Supernovae are responsible of creating the higher mass elements (greater than Fe) and even though a very tiny small amount of those elements are found in a human being, how important they are only one can guess - here's a list:
1. Oxygen (8) - (65%)
2. Carbon (6) - (18%)
3. Hydrogen (1) - (10%)
4. Nitrogen (7) - (3%)
5. Calcium (20) - (1.5%)
6. Phosphorus (15) - (1.0%)
7. Potassium (19) - (0.35%)
8. Sulfur (16) - (0.25%)
9. Sodium (11) - (0.15%)
10. Magnesium (12) - (0.05%)
11. Copper (29), Zinc (30), Selenium (34), Molybdenum (42), Fluorine (9), Chlorine (17), Iodine (53), Manganese (25), Cobalt (27), Iron (26) -- (0.70%)
12. Lithium (3), Strontium (38), Aluminum (13), Silicon (14), Lead (82), Vanadium (23), Arsenic (33), Bromine (35) -- (trace amounts)

Anyway if you follow the cause and effect of everything on Earth happening now you could go back in time following the sequences of causes and effects, and still further back in deep time to the formation of the Earth and and you could trace further back the early foundation of this solar system you could go back to a supernova. Everything we know is dependent on a supernova, it is important for the creation of the solar system, and the creation of an inhabitable planet like Earth. Hypothetically without those higher mass elements an Earth-like planet would (if it ever could form without a previous supernova taking place) would have cooled off a lot sooner. And that Earth-like planet would be like a Mars-like planet without any Teutonic plate movements, and subsequently that would change the whole outcome of evolution and ultimately change the whole course of history, there would be no monkeys turning into human being pondering questions of life like "Where do we come from?" etc etc

Guybrush

I think you missed the point. I don't see love in your list of elements there As Pratchett might put it, even if you'd grind the universe to the finest powder and sieve it through the finest sieve, you won't find one atom of "love".

It's a name we put on a set of feelings which have an existence entirely dependent on our highly advanced biology and not a force of nature.

__________________
Something Completely Different

Neapolitan

Well Pratchett needs more than one finest sieve, there are about 118 (known) elements and it goes without saying they have different diameters, the finestest sieve should be no smaller than roughly 150 picometers.

Why within language there is an understanding of the difference between what is abstract and what is concrete, but Pratchett throws that whole idea out the window?
"...even if you'd grind the universe (concrete) to the finest powder (concrete) and sieve (1st time around a verb) it through the finest sieve (2nd time around a noun), you won't find one atom (concrete) of "love" (abstract)." honestly Tore that goes without saying.

But understanding cosmology, Earth history, Human History can only answers how we got here, not why are we here. If one looked at the whole history of the universe and understand what took place before man appear on Earth one could appreciate the near infinite variables that it took to have the Earth the way it is for it to be inhabitable. I don't think that you could only use science to fully understand the meaning of life, certain science only have a strict system they study, and nothing outside of it pertains to what is being studied. So you need something more then Astrophysics, that encompasses more then one specific system, like the universe. Science is only good for answering how things work in the universe, not why things are....If one believes in God, then one can understand what done for us to be alive.

Guybrush

Honestly Neapolitan, you know how to pick the strangest arguments.

The quote you're having trouble grasphing was based on a quote from a book where a character has a dialogue with Death. Let me fetch it for you :

This is light fantasy fiction, not a philosophical book, but Death points out that without people or other intelligent things (it's fantasy after all) to dream it up, justice and mercy do not exist. You could say the same for love. That's the point really, not to say something which you're supposed to interpret literally about sieves and mortars.

You can't know why we are here in the same way that you can never use a measuring tape to measure something that is exactly one mile. It will always be somethingth of an inch wrong, but for all practical purposes, you can know what it is.

What I mean is we have scientific theory which is perfectly able to explain why we are here and there's no empirical testing so far that has proven it wrong. As studies in perhaps especially chemistry and biology progresses, but also in other fields, we're finding support for that theory and perhaps one day, the evidence will be so good even you will be convinced. Just like it's hard to measure a mile with a tape, using that knowledge to pinpoint the point in time when life originated on earth or the exact chemistry of those first replicating molecules may be difficult or even impossible. But, we will have a pretty good idea of how the chain of cause and consequence that started life on earth and eventually gave rise to me and you one day started. We sort of do already.

Neapolitan, here's a challenge for you. If you can get a hold of it, check out the Selfish Gene. You wouldn't even have to read the whole thing if you didn't want to, just the first chapter or two. It beautifully summarizes many of the ideas that biologists were having before the time of it's first publication in 1976, ideas which have evolved since then but remain absolutely relevant in science today. You argue a lot on this topic, so why not educate yourself a bit on what the opposition says?

__________________
Something Completely Different

cardboard adolescent

Gravity is love

As for justice, I think causality is just another way of saying the universe is just. What goes up must come down. What could be more just than that? And the universe is certainly merciful, though it is equally ruthless.

Buzzov*en

Do not believe in a god at all.

__________________

Bloozcrooz

I think I may have posted in this thread before reguarding a question on the Moses movie. Ive read a lot of different peoples very knowledgeable insight from both aspects of the topic. Honestly each year I get older I find more reasons to lose what faith I have left for beleiving in God. Its been a slow continious battle..I think its more just wanting something more concrete to justify the miracle of things that are good. For instance witnessing the birth of my son. So now that is the last of the reasons for me conjuring the hope of an after life. Just hoping that if something that miraculous could take place. That somehow I could be reunited in a happier place than Earth one day after ive perished. Or that a higher power is somehow watching over my child and protecting him. Other than that ive all but given up my religion. To much contradiction,hypocracy,greed, lust and other every day challenges of life. The only difference is I have yet to really find anyone who on a daily basis isnt guilty of some glitch they have and cover it up with being judgmental of others. There isnt anything that hasnt been said before on this topic im sure and nobody can prove either point. For me im just having less and less to hold onto the more I see how corrupt and hypocritic Christianity can be. Power and corruption play a role in every walk of life and in every life to some extent. Only some dont pretend to hide it by pointing out the flaws of others. Then sitting in judgment and condeming our so called souls to hell. When all along the one doing the accusing is in no position to set in judgment of anyone. Ive seen this all my life and have just grown tired of the same justifacations of the cliche excuses given. Everyone hides their shades of shame by hoping someone worse will over shadow their own. This has been weighing on me for some time now and just thought id share it. The thought of there not being a God is scary for me to say. I want there to be a better place but it just seems more like a fairy tale the older I get. Honestly I dont know what I beleive anymore. Any good argument given from either side is merley opinion and nothing more.

Dotoar

No, and for the very reasons ou point out. Atheism as a concept points to the lack of belief in deity, nothing less, nothing more, although its common extension is a viewpoint of knowledge, but not necessarily and not by definition. Agnosticism is the viewpoint where one believe we cannot know wether or not there is a deity, or to put it more crassly, a position where one avoids making a decision at all, although in the process you end up in a theist position since the possibility of a higher deity is by no means rejected. Thus, the two concepts are incompatible, because the very moment where one, even on a theroetical basis, takes a stand even for the mere possibility of a higher deity, one is rejecting the concept of atheism.

__________________