It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

From Nothing to Nothing

page: 2
31
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69



I'm asking if it's possible that "We" will eventfully become the 'Creator of sorts" ?

Or will 'we' just come to realize it?

edit on b000000312016-08-29T15:35:31-05:0003America/ChicagoMon, 29 Aug 2016 15:35:31 -0500300000016 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: SLAYER69

originally posted by: grainofsand

Again, just more unverifiable belief.

You know why children who grow up in Pakistan generally have faith in Islam, children in India Hinduism, Bible belt US Christian?
Learned behaviour.


I'm not here to defend anyone, or sect, or denomination or faith.

I'm asking if it's possible that "We" will eventfully become the 'Creator of sorts" ?


Oh, so that is more of a general biological science and future advances question then?
Why go on about atheists? It is an interesting question anyone could contribute to.

I answered you point by point yet you only replied to my final paragraph.
That made me wonder why.



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: SLAYER69

How do we measure it? Its that simple. If you can not measure it, it can't be part of science.


A ancient Greek once pondered Atoms. It took almost 2,000 years to get that ball rolling



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

That's hairs you wish to split.?

I'm cool with that.

Why not ponder?

Expand your thoughts in an open and cooperative forum?

What, IF YOU WERE THE CREATIVE FORCE WOULD YOU CREATE?



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   
I'm defending this thread's discussion based on a Scientific logical understanding.

"Logic also applies to Belief"


(In this scenario) Leonidas is questioning using logic, Xerxes is "Science " denying......





edit on 29-8-2016 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69

Frank Tippler proposed much the same in his book "The Physics of Immortality".

He suggested that the ultimate heat-death of the universe would prompt any existing intelligences to seek ways to survive.

At some stage, intelligence would reach what he calls the 'Omega Point' where it had the capability to affect the differential collapse of spacetime or to calve alternate universes off our own and to go there.

At this stage, temporal control would likely also be achieved and so the Omega Point intelligence/s (godlike entity or entities) would be able to go back and set up conditions on this universe (at that stage probably a proto-universe at or before the Big Bang) to allow the eventual existence of the Omega Point intelligence/s and also allow for continued existence of the intelligence/s beyond the point that would normally be considered the end of the universe.



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SLAYER69

This is why I consider suicide an even FAR greater sin among atheists than Christians. At least Christians still live on to be punished for it in hell. If you are believer of atheism then you believe this is the only chance you'll get, thus you should make it want to count. Ending it early isn't "making it count."


But death is inevitable and the universe is amoral.

How could it be a sin? Such a thing could not exist.



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
Do you have proof of the "Luciferian elite"? I ask, because this sounds very Abrahamic to me, and well my own faith tells me, that we are in cycles, and the Gods are many. Can you disprove my path? Nope? I can't disprove yours. Science does not care. Its not Sciences Job.

Also this is a thread about science.

Thread about science, yet the elite who are in control keep showing the 'Devil Horn' of where their allegiance is with. Popes, Clintons and both Bush Snr and Jnr have done this sign.


Yet science was used to create Revelation 16:3 via scalar weaponry where the vortex-less whirlpool shows that a beam was shot down from space causing a third of world water (Pacific Ocean) to become bitter water (radioactive).



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69

Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

We are, for lack of a better term, "energy". To extrapolate beyond that is way above my pay grade.




posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: introvert

If you think about it, there is no such thing as the "supernatural", because everything in the universe is natural. In reality things are either known about by humans or unknown. Labeling something "supernatural" because we don't understand what is really going on is a cheap cop-out, but then when we DO end up understanding processes scientifically to the point they are normal, people choose to believe the supernatural explanations anyways.


You are making the assumption that science has the capability of explaining everything.

The first issue that I see is that science is reductionist. There are complexities that reductionism cannot ever explain.

The second issue is that science by definition must be able to be falsified or disproven. If there are no alternate cases, against which to test the science, then the science cannot be considered to be either provable or disprovable and therefore falsification is a requirement of testability. Without testability, it is pseudoscience. This limits science to only those things which may be tested.

So science at best is a subset of, and cannot encompass, all knowledge.



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

If you care to attempt to reduce it to that argument. I'm OK with it,

I am looking for a much larger global response



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69

"From nothing to nothing" is supposing the argument's premise is it not?

See, do we know we came from nothing? Do we know that we go to nothing when our time comes? We have a limited view of reality through our wonderfully interpretive brain (really, it will take almost any signal and try to make sense of it! How crazy is that?). And the basic model does not have, "last life on as the humans grow", to review. Nor can we skip forward to see how it ends. So to make a claim, "from nothing to nothing" is a bit much. How about, "from unknowing to unknowing"? But that is fun with philosophy stuff with some fun with grammar too.

As for the big question, we (humans) are going to be more god-like than we know! The upcoming tech revolution of 2D materials, where we grow useful items atom by atom, will give us a power undreamt. Stronger, smaller, lighter everything. All under our control.

Do people not see that the best thing they can do for the planet is to keep themselves in check by not being so extreme viewed? Life is funny and fun but it should not be fundamental (emphasis on 'mental'). With great power comes a level of sophistication. I wonder how many of my fellow humans can wield that power. I wonder this about nuclear fusion all the time. Does the mouth-breathing, queer-hater next to me deserve unlimited electricity? At such moments I wonder if it is all worth it. That is the other part of the question, besides what you build, "what do you do with the power"? "Are you worthy of this responsibility?" Some days I am optimistic and others I just feel sad for the state of human affairs.

I always like the challenge to stop and think! Even if the title could be a little less heavy handed, S+F, for the excuse to think for a bit about my own behavior!




posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: SLAYER69
Now, Scientifically speaking, of course.

Since there is no after life, and "We" were just the result of some random cosmic genetic lottery. Are you comfortable with the concept that our consciousness came from nothing before we were born and that after our Deaths we will simply blink out and nothing more?

Yep, more than comfortable. I've thought I was going to die a few times in my life and just felt sad thinking I'd never see the people I love again.
*Edit to add* It is why I do my best to stay alive lol, I enjoy being alive and this perception of existence I have right now. What happens after is meh, because it won't involve the people I love right now, be I worm food or in some celestial heaven or whatever.


If so, Then, wouldn't you agree that our finite amount of time here could be said to be very special in that you are presently totally animated, aware of your surroundings, able to think about things beyond Earth and envision multi dimensions?

Yes, it is exactly why I do my best to be kind and make a difference in the only existence I know I'm perceiving.


You are after all a 'Higher Life form" with that regards. Do you imagine a time when we will be able (Given enough time) through various scientific advancements to eventually, one day not only live forever but also eventually come so far as to be a creative force and duplicate that which we ourselves were evolved from, complete with a set of genetic coding and spacial awareness and the medium within which to evolve?

If we were to eventually recreate that which we came from complete with all the supporting parameters wouldn't we then be 'The Creators" in a sense?

Yep that works for agnostic-atheist me.
Absolutely zero verifiable evidence to support such claims though so, as with gods, I don't believe your creator scenario to be fact. I do not believe it is not fact though, there is no way to verify it either way.

Children are atheist until parents or whoever indoctrinate them. It is learned behaviour.


After millennia of the best minds of humanity probing the questions of God and existence, the evidence is voluminous and totally 'in your face'.

Take a look around, nothing is likely or probable, everything exists in defiance of the absence of atheist ideas of how complexity and order could possibly arise from nothing.

There is no evidence at all that there is no God.

It is the atheist's case that lacks evidence or rationale.

edit on 29/8/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: SLAYER69

Energy cannot be created or destroyed.


Bro.

I've got a great thread in the work about that.

Very Perceptive...

You know me. I don't poster unless something comes a few weeks or months later...



Yeah.


edit on 29-8-2016 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

Holyl # dude.



Very nice, imho



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69




If we were to eventually recreate that which we came from complete with all the supporting parameters wouldn't we then be 'The Creators" in a sense?


Well...if you believe the word...we were created in Gods image, then we are already and always have been creators.
We indeed have been creating since our "humanity's" beginning.

leolady



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69

I did not even realize it but on my iPod was New Model Army's song White Coats. The song is about the crux of science and nature. The lyrics start..

Well we know what makes the flowers grow but we don't know "why"
And we all have the knowledge of DNA but we still die
...
Down in the lab they're working... still finishing off
How do we tell the people in the white coats, enough is enough


The song's main refrain is "She [nature] will dance on our graves when we are dead and gone".

Kind of keeps things in perspective!



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: SLAYER69

How do we measure it? Its that simple. If you can not measure it, it can't be part of science.


Perhaps we just haven't yet developed or discovered the proper tools or instruments to measure "it".

BTW - Rather than look at it as science vs. supernatural, I prefer to think of it as physics and metaphysics, as it seems more precise to me.

But then again, I might just be pedantic...




posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

Many things assumed to be limited by natural processes are no longer the case because we are intelligent and technological.

Evolution is always described as being driven by randomness and natural selection, but since we now own gene technology, it is now what we determine we want to do. The natural is superceded.

This means that the Omega Point described by Tippler is almost inevitable. Nature be damned.



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69

That ancient greek was a philosopher not a scientist. They are not the same.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join