@indonesia-phil saidWe were each given life, and in this world, it ends.
Appointed, we assume, by your god. Therefore people who kill other people, and women who abort their unborn children, are only doing your gods' will by ensuring that their victims keep their appointment. I don't think you've thought this through, you're ethics are completely at odds with your Christian beliefs.
@kellyjay saidIs this blindingly obvious statement supposed to be an attempt at responding to my post?
We were each given life, and in this world, it ends.
@pettytalk saidIt is not hell.
Yes, science has moved on, and will keep moving on. But so have many believers, and they too, I anticipate, will keep moving on even further.
However, your selection was biased to the group of believers, those who have been made to believe that the age of the earth can be determined through the tracing of the genealogy of the descendants of Adam, and reckoning up the da ...[text shortened]... eone pro-science it must be hell to have family members who have been brainwashed into such beliefs.
Show me two people who agree on everything, and I'll show you two people who don't know each other very well.
It is more important to get along with them than have arguments. Besides, the evidence is out there, should they care to see it.
@kellyjay saidBut you have stated many, many times that the end of each life is ordained by God and happens when God wants it to happen. It's almost as if you are now trying to distance yourself from that in light of Indonesia Phil's question.
We were each given life, and in this world, it ends.
@pettytalk saidNietzsche proposed the idea of eternal return, that everything repeats endlessly, so in that sense philosophy. But this could equally be a scientific supposition, though not a testable hypothesis: there are only about 100 naturally occurring elements, and given deep time (billions of years), every chemically possible combination will occur with 100 % certainty somewhere in this vast universe.
Is the assumption philosophical or scientific?
@bigdogg saidHear hear! How did we get here? is a question of biology. Why are we here? is a question of soteriology. Certain posters here routinely confuse the two.
This example favors my view, not yours.
If someone asks, "how does a car work?" they want the science answer. Sparks fire, burning gasoline, causing pistons to pump, axles to turn, and wheels to move.
If someone asks, "how does a car come to be designed?" then they want something different - probably a history of attempts to design cars.
There is no 'both answers are ...[text shortened]... ed topic of conversation, so you can better engage it in context, with the appropriate mental tools.
- Joined
- 14 Jan 19
- Moves
- 4282
@moonbus saidPoor Friedrich was not easily understood, in essence. However, this idea of eternal return was not a novel idea, especially if eternal returns are always returning, and us with them, I suppose. Nietzsche may have gotten this idea from another philosopher of the past, although it's also possible that he came up with it all on his own. Did he mention anywhere in his writings if it was his own idea?
Nietzsche proposed the idea of eternal return, that everything repeats endlessly, so in that sense philosophy. But this could equally be a scientific supposition, though not a testable hypothesis: there are only about 100 naturally occurring elements, and given deep time (billions of years), every chemically possible combination will occur with 100 % certainty somewhere in this vast universe.
There is so much more to be asked on the idea of eternal returns, therefore this concept could not be possibility covered in a few personal exchanges on this forum, if it is to be taken as a serious proposition of ultimate reality. As I have asked myself, and others, which is the one real cycle from all the cycles of repetition? In other words, I feel that in any discussion/debate of this kind, we are always returning to first principles. How it all started, especially when repetitions are involved. Perhaps it's only the simple minds who are still asking how the universe began, when they are told that it's eternal. And it must also be other simple minds which don't really have an answer for them which they can accept. Perhaps if someone were to propose the existence of a god of repetition to them, there would be more peace in the valley of shadows? But, if this idea of eternal returning of matter is to hold our attention, what are we to do with the idea of infinity? Can we discard the idea of an infinite physical universe?
This cycle of Big Bang, and Big Crunch, regardless of which occurred first, can be looked upon as a circle within a circle of endless repetition. Furthermore, the inner circle can be seen as some sort of a see-saw, the state of the going back and forth of order and chaos. As it's been related by cosmologists: the transition from the singularity to the Big Bang is often described as a transition from a state of maximum entropy to a state of minimum entropy, or from chaos to order. This transition is driven by the expansion of the universe and the cooling down of the early universe, which allowed for the formation of atoms and the subsequent development of galaxies and stars.
Naturally occurring elements, as far as how many there are, the number can change, but that's not the point. The point is this, do we know, or assume we know, how long this cycle we are in, 1/2 cycle that is, will last before the Big Crunch takes us back into the singularity state? I mean, when will all the possible chemical combinations be exhausted? And is this exhaustion mandated before the Big Crunch phase begins? Or is it independent of exhaustion, and therefore possible for the Big Crunch to begin at any time? Still, how far will the expanding universe stretch out before it reverses the expansion into a contraction? A sort of exercise of breathing out and breathing in.
Furthermore, will the Big Crunch occur in the same fashion as the Big Bang, in reverse? It's been supposed that the Big Bang began with a sudden explosion-like inflation. It's stated, theoretically, that the universe experienced a rapid expansion in the first fraction of a second after the Big Bang. If the Big Crunch is to occur, will it be an almost full crunch in a fraction of a second?
2 edits
@PettyTalk
The Hindus postulate Great Years of enormous length, and cycles of the rise and fall of civilizations on a fantastic scale. Why not? And why should a beginning be so important? Many ancient religions posit that Mother Night or chaos has always existed, before gods. The infatuation with origins is peculiar to the Jews. Buddhists say that the origin of the universe is undefined, like division by zero; knowing how or whether the universe originated has no moral imperative or significance.
Nietzsche was postulating eternal return more as an ethical imperative than a metaphysical truth: don't do anything you are not prepared to keep on doing, infinitely often. It hardly matters whether you really have to repeat it as a metaphysical truth. Just make sure it counts now, as if you would have to repeat it infinitely many times again.
1 edit
@pettytalk saidThe "conformal cyclic cosmology” explains that the universe will expand until all matter decays and ultimately turns to light. Since nothing in the universe would have any time or distance scale associated with it, it becomes identical with the Big Bang, resulting in a type of Big Crunch which becomes the next Big Bang, thus continuing the cycle.
Furthermore, will the Big Crunch occur in the same fashion as the Big Bang, in reverse? It's been supposed that the Big Bang began with a sudden explosion-like inflation. It's stated, theoretically, that the universe experienced a rapid expansion in the first fraction of a second after the Big Bang. If the Big Crunch is to occur, will it be an almost full crunch in a fraction of a second?
If it helps, go back to the snooker table analogy. As long as there are balls on the table we can talk about distance and the balls getting further apart, but when the balls are gone (in the pockets) and the table is completely empty, all talk of time and distance is irrelevant. The entire table shares the same singularity of emptiness and light, ready for the next game.
- Joined
- 14 Jan 19
- Moves
- 4282
@moonbus saidI'm a fan of repeating. I repeated my mistakes on school tests often, especially in math. I'm also a fan of eternity, as I always wanted to live in eternity, but so far I have only managed to visit there, once.
@PettyTalk
The Hindus postulate Great Years of enormous length, and cycles of the rise and fall of civilizations on a fantastic scale. Why not? And why should a beginning be so important? Many ancient religions posit that Mother Night or chaos has always existed, before gods. The infatuation with origins is peculiar to the Jews. Buddhists say that the origin of the univers ...[text shortened]... truth. Just make sure it counts now, as if you would have to repeat it infinitely many times again.
I would not tag the Jews as being peculiar in that respect. A physical human being has always a beginning, and an ending. Therefore it's only natural for any human being, and not just Jews, to ponder the old question. Not only about its own human origin, but also about the origin of where we live, the universe.
Besides, I left the philosophical assumption behind, going strait into the scientific assumption of an eternal repeating universe, and the questions which must be asked, assuming there are possible answers.
I'm repeating... it's not a moral issue which was brought out by our mutually beloved Club leader for introducing in the discussion an eternal repeating universe. It was introduced, and presented, in favor of science having a more logical explanation than the Bible, and to counter the bouncing ball analogy made by our Christian fighter wearing the Christian God gloves, the sparring partner for a few here, including myself, since I have landed a jab or two at him also.
Math wise, as far as division by zero, it's highly recommended to be always avoided when real numbers are involved, or reality, in general. Because, as the mathematicians say, in regular arithmetic, if you divide any number by zero, the result is going to be infinity. Yes, the division by zero is better off left undefined. And even more undefined is the eternal repeating universe. I posed some questions to you about it, obviously. And what I got was a moral and religious runaround.
But since it's Christmas, we better leave it here, and take it up on the next repeating year.
