1. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    25 May '08 14:49
    The universe before T0 isn't the universe because it just isn't anything. The notion of something which sits in a causal chain before time (and therefore causality) began is just nonsensical. Time and space are bound together and it would be meaningless to talk about something which happened before the chain of happenings began.
  2. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    25 May '08 15:01
    Originally posted by Starrman
    The universe before T0 isn't the universe because it just isn't anything. The notion of something which sits in a causal chain before time (and therefore causality) began is just nonsensical. Time and space are bound together and it would be meaningless to talk about something which happened before the chain of happenings began.
    Precisely. It's a bit like talking about going slower than 0mph! Even going backwards has a positive velocity, albeit going in the opposite direction.
  3. weedhopper
    Joined
    25 Jul '07
    Moves
    8096
    25 May '08 17:18
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    Hawking is actually right.

    The reason is that anything which happenned "before" the Big Bang could have no influence on this universe. It simply isn't relevant to our universe.
  4. Joined
    10 Jul '07
    Moves
    12389
    26 May '08 06:53
    Originally posted by CalJust
    Here is a puzzle I have been pondering for some time: How come there are so many atheists on this particular forum trying to denigrate or dissuade theists from their beliefs?

    Consider this: go into any newspaper or magazine shop and you will find many different titles to please all tastes. For example, Bicycle racing mags or Boxing mags. Now, I for one ha ...[text shortened]... test too much?? Are these theists secretly doubting their own convictions??

    In peace

    CJ
    Hello CJ,

    I agree with 100%. Also atheists can not be spiritual.
    1)To be an atheists, there is no spirit. When you die that's it there's nothing.
    As far as pushing christianity on you, ( I read that in someones post) don't listen if you don't want to hear it. With all the technology we have you can just tune it out. Those of us that believe, let us believe. Those of you that don't, leave us be.
  5. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    26 May '08 07:51
    Originally posted by realeyez
    As far as pushing christianity on you, don't listen if you don't want to hear it. With all the technology we have you can just tune it out. Those of us that believe, let us believe. Those of you that don't, leave us be.
    And we'd like it not in our science classrooms, nor in our governments, please.

    You want religion, fine. Keep it to yourself (and that includes not brainwashing your children - let them make up their own minds when they are good and able).
  6. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    26 May '08 08:01
    Originally posted by realeyez
    I agree with 100%. Also atheists can not be spiritual.
    1)To be an atheists, there is no spirit. When you die that's it there's nothing.
    This is just equivocation. If you define spiritual to rely solely upon a belief in the supernatural then of course anyone who doesn't believe in the supernatural can't be spiritual. But as I and many others have pointed out already, the definition of spiritual can also rely on the human spirit, something which isn't bound to the supernatural.
  7. Standard memberCalJust
    It is what it is
    Pretoria
    Joined
    20 Apr '04
    Moves
    66757
    26 May '08 14:41
    Originally posted by Starrman
    But as I and many others have pointed out already, the definition of spiritual can also rely on the human spirit, something which isn't bound to the supernatural.
    True, many others have tried to make this point, but very ineffectually.

    Can you please explain to me what, exactly, you mean by "the human spirit". How, exactly, is it different from the physical body?

    Is this something that lives in your thoughts and actions (I recall somebody saying that acts of kindness and generosity are "spiritual"😉.

    If your "human spirit" is not supernatural, is it at least metaphysical??

    Please explain!
  8. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    26 May '08 15:00
    Originally posted by CalJust
    True, many others have tried to make this point, but very ineffectually.

    Can you please explain to me what, exactly, you mean by "the human spirit". How, exactly, is it different from the physical body?

    Is this something that lives in your thoughts and actions (I recall somebody saying that acts of kindness and generosity are "spiritual"😉.

    If your "human spirit" is not supernatural, is it at least metaphysical??

    Please explain!
    Oh come on, are you honestly telling me you don't know what I mean when I say human spirit? What drives us to rise up against oppression, what keeps us going when all hope seems lost, what touches us when we empathise with acts of kindness, or see suffering. All this and more. It is in our thoughts and deeds, and unless you're a mechanist materialist I guess it would be metaphysical in nature. It's not nearly as hard to understand as you're making out.
  9. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    26 May '08 15:04
    Originally posted by Starrman
    Oh come on, are you honestly telling me you don't know what I mean when I say human spirit? What drives us to rise up against oppression, what keeps us going when all hope seems lost, what touches us when we empathise with acts of kindness, or see suffering. All this and more. It is in our thoughts and deeds, and unless you're a mechanist materialist I g ...[text shortened]... ould be metaphysical in nature. It's not nearly as hard to understand as you're making out.
    What you call human 'spirit' are, in fact, traits of human psychology. Of course, putting it like that wouldn't fit your fallacy of equivocation.
  10. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    26 May '08 17:14
    Originally posted by Palynka
    What you call human 'spirit' are, in fact, traits of human psychology. Of course, putting it like that wouldn't fit your fallacy of equivocation.
    I'm not equivocating at all. Regardless of what they are traits of they are still there and to be spiritual is to seek answers on these and on the human condition. Why is this equivocation? Or are you just following me around sniping for lulz as usual?
  11. Joined
    06 May '05
    Moves
    9174
    27 May '08 01:531 edit
    Originally posted by realeyez
    Those of us that believe, let us believe. Those of you that don't, leave us be.
    Is it too much to ask the same from christians?

    Those of us that don't believe, let us not believe. Those of you that do, leave us be!
  12. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    27 May '08 08:102 edits
    Originally posted by Starrman
    I'm not equivocating at all. Regardless of what they are traits of they are still there and to be spiritual is to seek answers on these and on the human condition. Why is this equivocation? Or are you just following me around sniping for lulz as usual?
    I don't know what's spiritual about it. Is anthropology or sociology spiritual now? Is psychology? Philosophy, perhaps? Certainly not inherently. The truth is that there are many possible worldly explanations for it without requiring the metaphysical nor being necessarily mechanicist (which is now contradictory even with modern physics).

    To the point, I think this relates closely to the conversation about the mind we had some weeks ago.
  13. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    90892
    27 May '08 08:27
    Originally posted by Palynka
    I don't know what's spiritual about it. Is anthropology or sociology spiritual now? Is psychology? Philosophy, perhaps? Certainly not inherently. The truth is that there are many possible worldly explanations for it without requiring the metaphysical nor being necessarily mechanicist (which is now contradictory even with modern physics).

    To the point, I think this relates closely to the conversation about the mind we had some weeks ago.
    Note to self: change all references to 'spirit', 'spiritual', 'spirituality' to 'brain', 'neurological', 'neurology'. New MS title: 'The Neurological Quest'.
  14. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    27 May '08 08:362 edits
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    Note to self: change all references to 'spirit', 'spiritual', 'spirituality' to 'brain', 'neurological', 'neurology'. New MS title: 'The Neurological Quest'.
    Like I said, the word spirit in 'human spirit' is a way to equivocate such psychological traits into notions of spirituality, which require the metaphysical.

    All I'm saying is that the notion of 'human spirit' does not necessarily require spiritual answers. Edit - And not just 'neurological', but also 'cultural', 'social', 'anthropological', etc. Many fields of social sciences try to deal with such issues. Are such fields spirituality now?
  15. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    90892
    27 May '08 08:451 edit
    Originally posted by Palynka

    All I'm saying is that the notion of 'human spirit' does not necessarily [b]require
    spiritual answers. Edit - And not just 'neurological', but also 'cultural', 'social', 'anthropological', etc. Many fields of social sciences try to deal with such issues. Are such fields spirituality now?[/b]
    No, they are all merely applied neurology.

    Nietszche wrote, 'The brain is dead! And we have killed it.'
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree