No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

[genedigger]

evolution puts the faults on humans.religion gives people some kinda hope.evolution doesnt offer hope or happiness.if folks want to believe in a god because it helps them be a better person or show more love to there fellow man then whats wrong with that?evolution has made that dawkins dudes life mission to bash god.again sowing seeds of discord.the evolution theory is so dangerous because it doesnt help humans live with each other better,it doesnt offer any hope,and it threads real close to all of us become apathetic.why should we care about our fellow man we only evolved,cant change anything, and will be gone in 70 or 80 years so lets just do whatever the hell we want as a species.oh wow thats whats happening already.great theory.

 

[bombadil.360]

Survival of the fittest hehehe...

If there is an afterlife, and it turns out some form of justice/karma is delivered, survival of the fittest will have brought you a shit ton of trouble...

If not, you played your hand well while alive.

But who knows for sure what happens when we croak?

 

[D. B. Doober]

Some people suggest aliens had contact with the Nazis...if aliens knew how evil the Nazis were they would have vaporized them. That's my take. So I don't see any Nazi/alien connection.
Now machines and programs involving space flight and time travel, I think the Nazis were up to something.
What would BLOW is if we found another universe that had already been discovered/inhabited by Nazis. That I'm afraid of.
To the resistance! Puff puff pass

 

[genedigger]

hitler looks like an alien

 

[Midwest sticky]

Is this the culprit genedigger?

 

[Corpsey]

this thread should be closed

from the TOU

14. Politics/Religion: Threads or posts pertaining to political and religious discussions, by their very sensitive nature, can incite or flame others due to the wide and varying personal beliefs that naturally exist in a global community and will be deleted. ICMag is an international site attracting members from a multitude of religious and political backgrounds. We do this in favor of harmony and unity, rather than the divisions created by permitting open discussions of politics and religion requiring an opinion from such a global community. Political discussions pertaining specifically to cannabis laws/legalization are only accepted in the appropriate forum.

This is why we can't have nice things

 

[Midwest sticky]

I tried to edit out the we come in peace part.

 

[genedigger]

that picture is some funny stuff.i just stared at it an laughed.im gonna look at it again.

 

[waveguide]

This is why we can't have nice things

not to validate the discussion but it's hard to discuss experiences without cosmology occuring here and there, and no real efforted aggro, so why not let it roll?

 

[Mad Lab]

I love when i converse with someone about religion, and they say:

"I think religion is great for people! i think believing in a God is a good thing! I think hope is something the human race needs! BUT ME? IM SO MUCH SMARTER THAN THAT!"

Lol, science has made people who arnt even farmiliar with epistemology so confident that they are smarter than what is good for mankind. But if you asked them the details of these scientific theories that they supposedly claim is the light away from religion, they dont know much.

Why did man evolve with the urge to worship something greater than himself? Because as we all know, mankind is not great, but destructive. You cant put a human or yourself on the throne, because noone including you cant live up. Which is kinda what set Jesus apart. He 'supposedly' came and lived a truly sinless life in front of large masses of people who would have likely just stoned him to death the second he mentioned "son of god" or "messiah"

If I had to pick a God to worship, If I had to or it was smarter too, I think Jesus would be the guy. I feel anyone if had to make a choice would agree when evaluating all beliefs systems. And the fact he is the best example in history of a man who proved to mankind he was God is supportive to Christians claims. No deity has done to history what Jesus has. Awesome that the New Test is truly a philosophy of love, generousity, and non-violence with nothing that would indicate a motive for man to use this philosophy for harm. Catholtics needed to add to Jesus' philosophy and contradict things to really assert the belief it was ok to kill so many in the Crusades in the 'name of God'.

 

[Mad Lab]

this thread should be closed

from the TOU



This is why we can't have nice things

aw. i understand when admin has to follow protocol, but if your not admin, why not let it roll and just leave if this isnt your cup of tea?

they want us to shut up about the only truly important things in life, politics, religion and history. we need all of these elements with certain scientific topics. especially those that relate to evolution and creation of the universe.

 

[RetroGrow]

WTF! Do I invoke Poe's Law, or what?

You say you're a scientist, MadLab ─ well gee, I'm a fucking giraffe!

If he's a scientist, I'm the queen of England. He might be a Christian Scientist, but that's the extent of it. He's barely literate in English, which I'm assuming is his first language. All that bible nonsense has stunted his brain.

 

[mr.brunch]

Maybe we could veer back to the science, as that's what this thread was originally about.... Don't get me wrong religious discussion has its place, but there is some good mind bending chat in this ere thread, and I'd rather it didn't get binned.
Trust organised religion to muddy the waters

 

[RetroGrow]

the evolution theory is so dangerous

Said the creationist. Evolution is not a theory. It is fact. What you are spewing is gibberish. Satan? LOL! Yeah, that's the ticket. Satan made me do it.
So why did your imaginary god create Satan?
In effect, you're saying that god created evil.
Hmmmm.....what a conundrum!

 

[RetroGrow]

Maybe we could veer back to the science, as that's what this thread was originally about.... Don't get me wrong religious discussion has its place, but there is some good mind bending chat in this ere thread, and I'd rather it didn't get binned.
Trust organised religion to muddy the waters

Yes, a discussion of science is interesting, except to creationists, because it flies in the face of their superstitious belief systems. Organized religion=organized ignorance. These folks don't want to know about science. Their gods have already given them all the answers they need or can comprehend.
That said, physics is fascinating and it's theories get more complex as we move forward. What we have here is a creationist passing himself off as a scientist, although he can barely write in intelligible English. Creationism and science just don't mesh, and never will. It's reminiscent of the statement:
"never argue with the ignorant, as they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience".

 

[Corpsey]

aw. i understand when admin has to follow protocol, but if your not admin, why not let it roll and just leave if this isnt your cup of tea?

they want us to shut up about the only truly important things in life, politics, religion and history. we need all of these elements with certain scientific topics. especially those that relate to evolution and creation of the universe.

I don't want it to 'roll' because it is dividing us, and if you truly want to share your "truth" you can do that on tons of other sites. But why on a cannabis site? You are just trying to stir shit.

We should be sticking together but the drivel that you and others spout in here has done the opposite for me. It makes me want to never listen to a thing you say on this site. The exact thing that the TOU is trying to avoid.

 

[Mad Lab]

Said the creationist. Evolution is not a theory. It is fact. What you are spewing is gibberish. Satan? LOL! Yeah, that's the ticket. Satan made me do it.
So why did your imaginary god create Satan?
In effect, you're saying that god created evil.
Hmmmm.....what a conundrum!

It's both theory and a fact you dip.

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html



And what is a fact Retro?

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow, therefore is not using the same definition as the "truth" non-scientist think of.

What is a theory Retro?

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node9.html

 

[Mad Lab]

I don't want it to 'roll' because it is dividing us, and if you truly want to share your "truth" you can do that on tons of other sites. But why on a cannabis site? You are just trying to stir shit.

We should be sticking together but the drivel that you and others spout in here has done the opposite for me. It makes me want to never listen to a thing you say on this site. The exact thing that the TOU is trying to avoid.

welcome to earth.

BTW - i dont mind this topic staying on creation/non-creation and evolution, which is what this thread topic is.

 

[armedoldhippy]

I don't want it to 'roll' because it is dividing us, and if you truly want to share your "truth" you can do that on tons of other sites. But why on a cannabis site? You are just trying to stir shit.

We should be sticking together but the drivel that you and others spout in here has done the opposite for me. It makes me want to never listen to a thing you say on this site. The exact thing that the TOU is trying to avoid.

people are always divided, which is why there are different forums for landraces, autos, greenhouse growing, hydroponics, etc. if you are not interested, stay out instead of whining. if you have a closed mind because one persons opinion does not match yours, then you have a closed mind...this is your problem, not ours.

 

[RetroGrow]

lol no wonder why Hawkings is only referenced in pop culture, or why his books are not required reading in any institution of higher learning. On the other hand, Einstein and Godel are, which is quite revealing.

The first tries to tackle a metaphysical issue using empiricism (can you say Categorical Error!) While the latter two use empiricism only in relation to the physics of the perceivable universe.

Hi Bombadil!

From your post, I am assuming you think Einstein believed in god. Correct me if I'm wrong. Actually, Einstein was an agnostic, and did not believe in a personal god, an "afterlife", or the bible.
In his own words:

"Albert Einstein's religious views have been studied extensively. He said he believed in the "pantheistic" God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized. He also called himself an agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist, preferring, he said, "an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."
"I came—though the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents—to a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression. Mistrust of every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude toward the convictions that were alive in any specific social environment—an attitude that has never again left me, even though, later on, it has been tempered by a better insight into the causal connections.
It is quite clear to me that the religious paradise of youth, which was thus lost, was a first attempt to free myself from the chains of the 'merely personal,' from an existence dominated by wishes, hopes, and primitive feelings. Out yonder there was this huge world, which exists independently of us human beings and which stands before us like a great, eternal
riddle, at least partially accessible to our inspection and thinking. The contemplation of this world beckoned as a liberation, and I soon noticed that many a man whom I had learned to esteem and to admire had found inner freedom and security in its pursuit. The mental grasp of this extra-personal world within the frame of our capabilities presented itself to my mind, half consciously, half unconsciously, as a supreme goal. Similarly motivated men of the present and of the past, as well as the insights they had achieved, were the friends who could not be lost. The road to this paradise was not as comfortable and alluring as the road to the religious paradise; but it has shown itself reliable, and I have never regretted having chosen it."Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding an anthropomorphic deity, often describing it as "naïve" and "childlike". He stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza:admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems."

On 22 March 1954 Einstein received a letter from Joseph Dispentiere, an Italian immigrant who had worked as an experimental machinist in New Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was disappointed by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious. Einstein replied on 24 March 1954: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."In a letter to Beatrice Frohlich, 17 December 1952 Einstein stated, "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve." Eric Gutkind sent a copy of his book "Choose Life: The Biblical Call To Revolt" to Einstein in 1954. Einstein sent Gutkind a letter in response and wrote, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text."
On 24 April 1929, Einstein cabled Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein in German: "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." He expanded on this in written answers he gave to a Japanese scholar on his views on science and religion, which appeared as a limited edition publication, on the occasion of Einstein's 50th birthday:

Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect.
Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order... This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as"pantheistic" (Spinoza).

On the question of an afterlife Einstein stated to a Baptist pastor, "I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it." This sentiment was also expressed in Einstein's The World as I See It, stating: "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvelous structure of reality,
together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein

I agree totally with Einstein. He expresses these views so much better than I could. Without question he is one of the most brilliant minds ever, and a real scientist, not a message board pretender.