The LONGEST thread ever devised

[ElChevelle]

Asssuming this idea isn't locked, deleted or prohibited by those who think rollercoasters, sex, and drinking heavily aren't fun, let's play post alot of something which may interest other in our community.

I'll start by posting someone's opinions which may parellel my own:
"Your Ancestors May Be Martian" By Michael Paine
Suppose that billions of years ago life developed on Mars. Primitive, tiny organisms that thrived deep within rocks and made a living from water and chemicals seeping through those rocks. Now imagine that a huge asteroid collided with Mars. Millions of martian rock fragments were thrown into space by the force of the impact. Tough martian organisms hitchhiked on some of this ejecta. Many pieces went into orbit around the sun and, after hundreds of thousands of years, some of these collided with the Earth. Of those rocks, a few reached the surface. Some hardy martian organisms survived the journey, colonized the Earth and eventually evolved into the huge variety of life that we know today. Just a few years ago this scenario would have been dismissed as wildly imaginative and highly improbable. Though still highly speculative, recent discoveries in several fields of science have shown that it is far from impossible -- our ancient ancestors might have been martians. Enter the nanobes

It is not every day that a scientist discovers a possible new life form. Dr. Phillipa Uwins works in the Center for Microscopy and Microanalysis at Queensland University, Australia. Last year she was asked to analyze some rock samples taken from several miles under the seabed in a drilling operation off the coast of western Australia. The temperature at this location was around 300 Fahrenheit (150 Celsius) and the pressure was an incredible 2,000 times normal atmospheric pressure at sea level.

During an electron microscope examination, Uwins found what appeared to be tiny, dormant organisms only 20 nanometers across. (A nanometer is one -billionth billionth of a meter.) She named them "nanobes." To Uwins' surprise, filaments grew when samples of the nanobes were given some food and exposed to normal temperatures and pressures. She was also surprised because the cell walls of the nanobes survived the intense radiation and vacuum of the electron microscope.

Uwins teamed up with two microbiologists to further investigate the nanobes. A range of chemical tests indicated that the tiny objects contained DNA. This finding challenged the notion that a "cell" 20 nanometers in diameter was too small to have room for this essential ingredient of life as we know it (it is also one of the arguments against the "nanofossils" in martian meteorites -- discussed below).

Here was a tough little critter that was able to survive the heat and pressure deep underground and, possibly, the vacuum and radiation of an electron microscope. The Queensland team may have found an organism that can survive a ride between the planets aboard a meteorite.

Creatures don't have to be as small as nanobes to survive space-like conditions. Several other examples of "extremophiles" (organisms that can survive very hostile conditions) have been found by other researchers in recent years, including bacteria that live inside nuclear reactors.


Go for it! I'd love to hear your opinion's expressed through another :)

[d0rk]

Watch out chevelle. People might label this as a 'usless thread' because your asking for their opinions on a topic.

[ElChevelle]

Allow me to be more specific:

The purpose of this thread is to allow us all to throw forth opinions, ideals or suggestions which may be of interest to the rest of us. In other words, people, by nature are better expellers of thoughts rather than listeners of other's opinions. I have realized that I would rather express my thoughts than to listen to other's, hence the thread title "The LONGEST thread ever devised."

I'm not trying to invent yet another uselss thread yet trying to achieve the longest "all party involved debate table" of which we can all learn something.

[d0rk]

I know what your point was when making this thread. And I like the fact that you are asking for peoples opinions. I recently (today) made a post, and no not about my sig :P, asking for peoples opinions and I was flamed for 'making another usless thread'.

[ElChevelle]

Being an ex-mod and one of the best, I can tell you that this in no way, is a useless thread and I am a great judge of such.

[d0rk]

Never said it was :). I actually like threads that ask people to state their opinion.

[m0e]

Originally posted by ElChevelle
Go for it! I'd love to hear your opinion's expressed through another:)

Originally posted by ElChevelle
The purpose of this thread is to allow us all to throw forth opinions, ideals or suggestions which may be of interest to the rest of us.
Originally posted by ElChevelle
I have realized that I would rather express my thoughts than to listen to other's

So which is it?

[Orgone_Man]

It's totally possible for earth to have been seeded by mars. But it's also possible for earth to have been seeded by some other planet... woop-d-doo.

[ElChevelle]

Originally posted by m0e
So which is it?

Use your head, not your ass:rolleyes:
Editing one's posts is an old and over-used artform:down:

[ElChevelle]

Christ, you lamo's are dwelling on other's theories way too much.
It's kind of like the old Q;
If a
Chinaman eats rice all his life, how came his shit isn't white?

Express your ideals, not your negations as our politics present.

[ElChevelle]

Express your rebuttals here:

If the Canadian Lynx were to go extinct, how would it affect this planet?

If the Honduran Hunchback Chirillian were to go extinct, how would it affect this planet?

If ANY non-human were to go extinct.....ANY......how would this planet be affected?

It wouldn't!

NOW....

If humans were erased from the planet, what difference would there be?

PLENTY!

The Earth would, MAYBE, eventually return to the way it should have been.
How can it be possible that one specie's eradication could contribute such a change to a whole planet?

We weren't supposed to be here in the first place.

In other words, we were "placed" here.

[Trigear]

despite having heard many MANY convincing arguments contrary to what you are saying, i have wholeheartedly agreed with your comments for about half a decade.

if you ever watch "mission to mars", even though it's a crap movie, it expands on that idea a bit.

[addendum]

another good argument for this idea deals with darwin's evolution principles. nature is governed by certain laws. under these laws, any naturally evolved species reaches an equilibrium with its surroundings. on the other hand, artificially-introduced species tend to destroy whatever ecosystems they are introduced into. for instance, the pig and the rat, both introduced to australia by early european settlers, are currently ravaging the continent from one coast to the other. humans fit in with the latter more than the former... we're destroying this planet, therefore a logical assumption would be that we were artificially-introduced onto earth.

the only thing i can't get around is the whole primate evolution thing. it might be possible that early homanids were introduced rather than modern humans. hence the missing link.

[ElChevelle]

Mission To Mars
Great segue from my idea!

[Trigear]

thanks

[webthing]

"Your Ancestors May Be Martian" By Michael Paine

God created life on earth in his own image. We did'nt come from space junk or apes. Also man has only been around about 5,000 years.

Here is the worlds largest thread. (http://www.tamuk.edu/music/gregsanders/Kansas/Images/Ball%20of%20Twine,%20Cawker%20City.jpg)

[Avion]

Originally posted by webthing - man has only been around about 5,000 years.
True - But the Earth is almost 10 billion years old and life has been obliterated 20 times before dinosaurs. That means there was life and DNA chains that were once on or plant but now there gone. Over 20 Obliterations took place while our solar system got closer to the center of our galaxy(where there is an extreme condensed population of stars - it would be like having a sun where every plant would be in our solar system but multiplied by the billions) within a couple billion years our solar system has made it's way to where we are now.
Will our solar system eventually make its way back to the center in another couple billion years? YES!
How do I know all of this? The Discovery Channel! but the one part I for got was how the scientist found this out? They actually had a very good, and descriptive answer but I have forgotten. The host was some StarTrek guy. It was one of those specials.

[Trigear]

Originally posted by webthing
God created life on earth in his own image. We did'nt come from space junk or apes. Also man has only been around about 5,000 years.

if you're interested in looking it up, the pope released a statement several years ago finally accepting the whole ape evolution thing. according to the statement, the pope is willing to believe that the human physiology may have evolved from the ape, but that the soul was created exclusively by god.

i learned it from catholic school, so it MUST be right (they would't say that if it wasn't true)

[Atmo]

Originally posted by webthing
Also man has only been around about 5,000 years.


Explain this then.

http://www.abc.net.au/message/news/stories/s791211.htm

For the first time, scientists have reached a broad agreement that Australia's oldest human remains - Mungo Man - is 40,000 years old

[m0e]

Not saying that I know what is true, but I have heard scientific debates on both the merits and the descrepencies of carbon dating. Since it is based on theory and not proven fact I can't be sure about it either way. Maybe mankind is only 5,000 to 8,000 years old, as written history says, or maybe not.

[caserock90]

Trigear, I like your theories, much like Dr. Spock, you and I think logically, follwoing laws of nature and asking questions with logical answers. I will only accept what makes sense and not what the bible or theories with no explaining background offer. Everything has an answer, we; humans are explorers that keep defying set limits we put on our selves. call me crazy but I beleive we were engineered by a superior humanoid race with permission from God to have souls.
Dimensions, wormholes, distant galaxies, millions and millions of planets much like our own we have not yet came accross, hold life.
It is logical and understandable to explore the universe and plant our seeds in other habitable planets.
We have begun by cloning...

I have said, hear my chant...now I have to get back to work.

[Trigear]

well, i don't know about all that... ;) :p :igor:

btw, dr. spock writes baby books. you're thinking of mr. spock from star trek :D

there's no real answer to the questions. there's only theory, and every theory is just as full of shit as the next theory. i choose to put some stock in the "mars" theory because, basically, it makes my outlook on life much more interesting. try walking around for a day thinking that we're all martians. i'll bet having to wait in line at the atm suddenly seems much less bothersome after that.

[caserock90]

you forgot to call me crazy, Live long and prospect.

[SSJ4 Gogitta]

Earth is about 4.6 billion years old. not 10 billion.

As for us, Lucy, one of the oldest skeletal, pre homo-erectus remains, dates back to about 3.2 million years ago.

So our likeness has been around for quite a bit longer than 5,000 years. as for humans, as Atmo pointed out, a good deal more than 40,000 years have we been here.

[m0e]

Originally posted by triGEAR
well, i don't know about all that... ;) :p :igor:

i'll bet having to wait in line at the atm suddenly seems much less bothersome after that.

Not to take what you said out of context, I have this to say about standing in line.

One day I was standing in line at the market, waiting to buy a couple of frozen pizza’s, a box of microwave popcorn, and a case of pop. A person three or four places ahead of me in line was paying with change, so of course the people in line were restless and grumbling about the extra time it was taking for her to pick through the pile of coins and count out the correct amount. And after she was gone the cashier was apologizing to everyone else about the wait. And I am standing in line thinking, “My grandfather never lived in a house that had running water”. Unless you count the hand pump in the kitchen. He owned a house that had running water in town, my grandmother and their kids stayed there during the winter so the kids could make it to school. But he always lived on the farm, and he never saw the need for indoor plumbing. It just wasn’t a necessity. He grew or raised almost all of the food he ever ate. Think about all the work involved with that. And this is only two generations away from me. This is a world my father lived in. Thinking about the way my grandfather lived, and the family he and my grandmother raised, I have a hard time being upset for having to stand in line an extra couple of minutes for instant food or instant cash. Or feeling sorry for any of the other people in that line.
:igor:

[feroxis]

Originally posted by m0e
...and a case of pop.

Why do you people call it "pop"?

Why don't you just call everything "Coke", like we do down South?

"I'd like a Coke."
"What kind?"
"Pepsi." :p

[m0e]

Normally I call it "soda" but a lot of people say "what?" when i say that.

[pixiefied]

when i moved from n.carolina i was like that. and when i came here to washington i though everyone was a dork for calling pepsi "pop".

[m0e]

I hear ya Pixie.

[d0rk]

Originally posted by pixiefied
when i moved from n.carolina i was like that. and when i came here to washington i though everyone was a dork for calling pepsi "pop".


Hey! Who you calling a d0rk :D

[pixiefied]

i imagine the people here in washington thought i was weird with my hick accent and me always saying "dooo what?"

[ertmann|CPH]

Some food for thought, from some wise people of the east


Dalai Lama
The purpose of our lives is to be happy

Confucius
Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated

Dalai Lama
Old friends pass away, new friends appear. It is just like the days. An old day passes, a new day arrives. The important thing is to make it meaningful: a meaningful friend - or a meaningful day.

Buddha
There is nothing more dreadful than the habit of doubt. Doubt separates people. It is a poison that disintegrates friendships and breaks up pleasant relations. It is a thorn that irritates and hurts; it is a sword that kills.

Zen
If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are

[SNYder]

http://www.d0rk.com/

:igor:

[pixiefied]

snyder... you finally gave us a pic of you for the pictureland!!!!

[SNYder]

NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! :D

p.s. nice pussy.

[pixiefied]

thanks..your the first to tell me that.... wanna date? :)

[ryan]

Originally posted by SSJ4_Gogitta
Earth is about 4.6 billion years old. not 10 billion.

As for us, Lucy, one of the oldest skeletal, pre homo-erectus remains, dates back to about 3.2 million years ago.

So our likeness has been around for quite a bit longer than 5,000 years. as for humans, as Atmo pointed out, a good deal more than 40,000 years have we been here.

Lucy wasn't a homonid (walks upright). http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0714_Lucy_fails_test.html

[m0e]

What if carbon dating doesn't actually work? At this point we can't prove it inconclusivly.

[caserock90]

I have to say something... my sisters name is Lucy. hear me scream
<-------- aaaaaaaaah !

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by m0e
What if carbon dating doesn't actually work? At this point we can't prove it inconclusivly.

We can't prove the man has been around more than 150 years, either - maybe we have just implanted memories. Actually, you can't really prove anything. But carbon dating follows the data we view as true.

[Trigear]

Originally posted by idiot24-7
Lucy wasn't a homonid (walks upright). http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0714_Lucy_fails_test.html

don't take this personal but i can't accept that statement as true, considering the source. if you go to forerunner.com the first words are "Greetings in the mighty, victorious name of Jesus Christ!" something tells me that site is just a little bit biased ;)

[m0e]

Once again, I'm not saying I know the truth. But if you don't rely on carbon dating most of the theories about the age of mankind are moot. Which for me makes any theory based on carbon dating suspect. But I also see the merits of many of the theories based on carbon dating. Now that I have made my position clear as mud I will shut up.

[Trigear]

well, along the same lines of your argument, if you don't believe in god, most of the theories against carbon dating become moot as well.

[m0e]

Good point. There is some scientific evidence to refute carbon dating but most of the arguments I have heard are based on religious rhetoric.

[meaisl8again]

I think carbon dating's relatively accurate. I'm sure aquila could explain this better, or cyana, but I'm going to try to do my best. Carbon molecules decay at a certain rate (half- hence the term half-life). Scientists use exponential equations to determine the rate at which the sample is decaying, and figure out when the sample started decaying in the first place.

While this can't be entirely accurate, it's accurate within a couple of thousand years from what I've read. (I'm no expert on the subject, just rembering some good olde AP Biology info.)

Also, if you use relative dating instead of carbon dating, you can determine that man has been around much longer than 5,000 years. Relative dating deals with determining the age of a specific object using the matter around them. Pretty cool, eh? Kind of like Sherlock Holmes, in a scientific way.

I hope this clears up some confusion that we seem to be having.

Lots of love,
Mea

[Orgone_Man]

"God" has been mentioned a couple times in this thread so I would like to propose an argument for the existance of god:

We can logically assume that every instance is caused by a previous instance, right? Well... if time is finite, what began the first cause? There has to be an initial cause that came from nothing i.e. God.
Now, if time is +/- infinite, then how does something "begin from nothing" when there is no beginning? And how is this infinite reality caused? Well, in that case, god would be considered to be outside of time. God would not exist and would not not-exist because god would be the base of the system that includes existance and non-existance. God would have caused "time" while outside of time.


http://firefly.sparse.org/~mrt/images/sucka.gif
"Chew on that, sucka!"

[Trigear]

Originally posted by Orgone_Man
"God" has been mentioned a couple times in this thread so I would like to propose an argument for the existance of god:

We can logically assume that every instance is caused by a previous instance, right? Well... if time is finite, what began the first cause? There has to be an initial cause that came from nothing i.e. God.

if every instance is caused by a previous instance, and god began everything, what began god?

Now, if time is +/- infinite, then how does something "begin from nothing" when there is no beginning? And how is this infinite reality caused? Well, in that case, god would be considered to be outside of time. God would not exist and would not not-exist because god would be the base of the system that includes existance and non-existance. God would have caused "time" while outside of time.

you're drawing complex conclusions out of thin air, which goes against the occam's razor principle. the conclusion of "god outside of time" is a far stretch, considering the given points.

http://firefly.sparse.org/~mrt/images/sucka.gif
"Chew on that, sucka!"

i pity tha fool!

now if you want a proof of god that's a little tougher to chew on, try the ontological argument (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological), which, while it IS flawed, it's extremely difficult to explain why.

[ryan]

Meh were here who cares how we got here, Because Trigear's sig just winked at me :)

[Paultx]

Just helping make thread longer...

Here was a tough little critter that was able to survive the heat and pressure deep underground
Once I was discussing some ecology subject with some guys. One of them came to a quite disputable conclusion that "every place on earth is an ecosystem". To what I asked: "Even inside an active volcano?" No reply then.

People might label this as a 'usless thread'
Don't think it's useless. Besides, I love the idea of my genealogy include some marian stuff :D

It's totally possible for earth to have been seeded by mars. But it's also possible for earth to have been seeded by some other planet... woop-d-doo.
Read above.

If humans were erased from the planet, what difference would there be?
Maybe it would turn into a better place to live.:cool:

God created life on earth in his own image. We did'nt come from space junk or apes
What if god is an ape?
the pope is willing to believe that the human physiology may have evolved from the ape, but that the soul was created exclusively by god.
What if soul is matter?
Not saying that I know what is true, but I have heard scientific debates on both the merits and the descrepencies of carbon dating. Since it is based on theory and not proven fact I can't be sure about it either way. Maybe mankind is only 5,000 to 8,000 years old, as written history says, or maybe not.
All measurement systems man uses were created by man. They are conventions. If carbon dating is more or less accurate, it's enough a convention to accept. The point is that it's useful for its purposes. "What's in a name", asked the Bard. Well, if I call one metter shlçscopsdkcsn and establish by convetion that it measures four kgdfmndviiesorus, what's the matter?
As for us, Lucy, one of the oldest skeletal
All this stuff made my "head radio" play "Lucy in the sky with diamonds"... :D

[m0e]

Not to be defensive, but to explain my thinking, I have always had a problem with accepting mans conventional forms of measurement. Length, weight, time, I have taken exception to all of these things being dictated to me by someone else. I understand the merits of having a uniform system of measurement to communicate these things with others, but I refuse to be limited by these conventions.

/me goes to listen to the white album now
(i know it doesn't have l in s w/ d but it is my fav beatles album)

[Orgone_Man]

Originally posted by triGEAR
if every instance is caused by a previous instance, and god began everything, what began god?





well.. thats the definition of god... the "First Cause".

Also, this is an ontological argument for god if you mean ontological to be external analysis of existance without biases.

[xzxzzx]

Perhaps we are just an imagining of a god. Perhaps some highly powerful being is having a daydream. Perhaps we are actually gods, but we cannot realize it, because we have prevented ourselves from knowing - in order to have fun in "life".

Think about it - if you could do anything, imagine how boring that would be.

Maybe I'm the only real being, and you're all delusions of mine...

:weird:

[Phat-Cow-]

o :)

[Paultx]

Hey, and how about polytheism? There is a composer/singer here in Brazil called Caetano Veloso who wrote a song like this (translated to almost literal English, it sounds quite horrible but...)

Miracles of the people
Who is atheist
And has seen miracles like me
Knows that the gods without god
They never end to sprout
(...)

I wish we had a time machine so I could go to Ancient Egypt an see how things did those days. All those gods...

[anubis2003]

Anubis says that you will spend eternal life in torment and misery. Mwa ha ha.

[Jedi Gemstone]

Jedi says: live your life and be happy dont commit suicide......:D

[xzxzzx]

But what if you have no soul, and you're just a bunch of neurons? What's the point of living?

Furthermore, if you are a soul, aren't you trapped in a body? And therefore, if you were to kill the body, wouldn't you be released from it's prison?

/me Nudges Jedi Gemstone off cliff:

"Let me know how that works out!"

So, why not commit suicide?

[s1138]

after reading LOTR...im inclined to believe that is where we came from.

[anubis2003]

I think we come from middle earth as well.:p The hobbits have just evolved into midgets, and the orc's are now cats(looks may not be similar, but they are both EVIL!!!).

[SNYder]

Originally posted by pixiefied
thanks..your the first to tell me that.... wanna date? :) yes :) can i pet your pussy?

[Paultx]

But what if you have no soul, and you're just a bunch of neurons?
What's wrong with a bunch of neurons?
Furthermore, if you are a soul, aren't you trapped in a body?
The idea of trap, trapping, trapped, whatever, is human. Prove me wrong. And what's a body?
And therefore, if you were to kill the body, wouldn't you be released from it's prison?
Who said the body is a prison?
So, why not commit suicide?
I have so many answers to reach that I have no chance to give in or give out. Is this the only solution you can think of?

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by Paultx What's wrong with a bunch of neurons?
Nothing, exactly - but if you are a bunch of neurons, then there is nothing, after you die - once you're dead, that's it. You're dead - nothingness.
Originally posted by Paultx The idea of trap, trapping, trapped, whatever, is human. Prove me wrong. And what's a body?
A body - that thing that you use to walk around, you have to feed, and use to type on these forums. It normally has a head, two arms, a chest, abdomen, and two legs.
Originally posted by Paultx Who said the body is a prison?
Well, if you are a soul, and you are in a body, then why can't you leave at will?
Originally posted by Paultx I have so many answers to reach that I have no chance to give in or give out. Is this the only solution you can think of?
Solution? Solution to what? I was simply giving food for thought. But again, you give only a generalized statement. The point was, that there is no reason to live, if all you are is a bunch of neurons - the universe goes on. Who's to say a piece of dirt is less valid then you, then, hmm?

[xzxzzx]

This seems about right - I can equivocate every person I know to LOTR characters.

Me: Gandalf - wise, and powerful, but with a short temper - though doesn't normally harm much while angry. Natural leader.

Friend 1: Sam - always screwing up, but *somehow* is still alive. Not too bright. Kinda fat. And much shorter than I am.

Friend 2: Aragorn - Avoids being seen, likes the shadows. Just *seems* like Aragorn.

etc...

Also, I think Gandalf was closer to an Elf than a Human.

[Trigear]

Originally posted by Orgone_Man
well.. thats the definition of god... the "First Cause".

Also, this is an ontological argument for god if you mean ontological to be external analysis of existance without biases.

when i said ontological i was refering to the given name of the argument that i linked to. your argument has another name, i can't remember it from philosophy 101.

you can't claim god is the first cause. one of the givens of your argument is "every instance is caused by a previous instance". if that is one of the rules of your argument, then you can't just come to the conclusion that god exists. it isn't philosophically sound. if the given is that every thing is caused by something else, your conclusion can't contradict that. it's just as easy to say that everything just suddenly started without god. an sound argument has to allow the reader or listener to come to the conclusion without any external information. you state your givens and from your givens you reach your conclusion.

"given: bob is a pig
given: all pigs can fly
therefore: bob can fly"

the ontological argument of god that i refered to is a much sounder proof of god, and yet even believers in god do not accept it as a viable proof. it's a strange paradox, and it's hard to put your finger on why it just doesn't sound right. it goes something like this:

first, we have to agree to some terms. we can hold that if something exists in the mind of anyone, it exists conceptually, and if something exists in reality, it exists really. for instance, mark twain exists really, and huckleberry finn exists conceptually. similarly, we can allow that god (the judeo-christian-muslim perfect god, that is) exists, at least conceptually, because at least one person holds the concept of god, true or false, in their own head. right? now on with the argument.

1: god exists, at least conceptually.
2: god is defined as a being greater than which is not possible (the uber-being).
3: it is greater to exist really than than conceptually.
4: therefore god exists really.

get it? it's philosophically sound and accurate, and yet there's something not quite right about it. there you go.

[Orgone_Man]

Yes! I've studied this argument that you have shown.... /me digs out some old documents...

I've read some critiques of this argument and, basically, it is sound. But, you realize that he is making a big assumption (and a play on verbage imo) in saying that something is greater if it exists in reality compared to if it just exists conceptually. Also, it gets weird imo when it assumes that since god is considered ultimately great, then god must have the trait of existing in reality...

So, I agree with you in that, yes, it would be hard to refute this argument with debate and words, but there is something not quite right about it.

[MetallichicA]

I remember doing this one in philosophy classes, and I think our main argument against it was that you have to explain why it is greater to exist really than conceptually. That's not covered in the argument. I'm going to have to think about it more, since I can't remember offhand how we got to that point, but right now I have to go grocery shopping lol.

[InvisableMan]

Originally posted by ElChevelle
Being an ex-mod and one of the best


one of the best? i say top two

[MetallichicA]

For one thing, when you say God exists really, what does that end up meaning? Nothing, in this argument. It's like saying "the smartest person must exist." Well sure. But so what?

Who determines what is greater? When you say there is nothing greater than God, can you also interpret that to say that there is nothing more evil than God? There is nothing more hot than God, but there is also nothing more cold than God?

[Orgone_Man]

There are two other main arguments for god that I know of. The "Design Theory" and the "Moral Argument". Both of these have criticisms of equal strength, though. I don't think we can ever prove the existance of god.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by triGEAR
1: god exists, at least conceptually.
2: god is defined as a being greater than which is not possible (the uber-being).
3: it is greater to exist really than than conceptually.
4: therefore god exists really.

get it? it's philosophically sound and accurate, and yet there's something not quite right about it. there you go.

reductio ad absurdum:

1: I exist, at least conceptually
2: I define myself as the greatest being
3: It is greater to exist really than exist conceptually
4: Therefore, I am the greatest being

This has the flaw that it assumes that something conceptual is not conceptual if it is conceptually not conceptual. Get it?

Just because I think something is real, and it is defined as real, doesn't make it real.

[MetallichicA]

But the flaw with your argument, xzxzzx, is that YOU are choosing how to define something. That doesn't make it so. God is truly defined as a being which nothing is greater than. Not because _I_ say that's what He is, not because _you_ say that's what He is.... it's the definition. You've essentially changed the argument.

The original argument actually is fairly sound. But like I said before, there is a problem defining what "great" is.

[Paultx]

Nothing, exactly - but if you are a bunch of neurons, then there is nothing, after you die - once you're dead, that's it. You're dead - nothingness.
AFAIK, a dead human body can be buried, then it will, by decomposition, become energy. Nevertheless, what's wrong with nothingness?
A body - that thing that you use to walk around, you have to feed, and use to type on these forums. It normally has a head, two arms, a chest, abdomen, and two legs.
Lol.
Well, if you are a soul, and you are in a body, then why can't you leave at will?
Maybe because the body and the so called soul are actually inseparable.
Solution? Solution to what? I was simply giving food for thought. But again, you give only a generalized statement. The point was, that there is no reason to live, if all you are is a bunch of neurons - the universe goes on. Who's to say a piece of dirt is less valid then you, then, hmm?
In a somewhat twisted way you answered my question. Why should I commit suicide if I can stay around while I can be giving food for thought? What means that, although a piece of dirt can't produce thought in and by itself, it can produce energy like mine or your dead brain, or bunch of neurons. Besides, a piece of dirt gives matter for thought too. And for me it's an excellent reason to live. I can't see any problem if I die and no soul of mine is left and the universe goes on its own way without "me".

[caserock90]

Im so confused.... am I really here? in how many other dimensions am I asking the same question?

If I fart, and it makes no noise, or has smell, and there is no one around. Is it really a fart?:confused:

[Paultx]

Well, there will at least be gas around, methane or whatever.
Oh, yeah, buttane :)

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by MetallichicA
But the flaw with your argument, xzxzzx, is that YOU are choosing how to define something. That doesn't make it so. God is truly defined as a being which nothing is greater than. Not because _I_ say that's what He is, not because _you_ say that's what He is.... it's the definition. You've essentially changed the argument.

The original argument actually is fairly sound. But like I said before, there is a problem defining what "great" is.

So if I conceptualize myself as the greatest being. Invent a new word, to define myself as the greatest being, and so forth, and get people to agree that that word means me, as the greatest being, does the argument apply? Does that make me the greatest being, in reality?

No.

OF COURSE I AM CHOOSING HOW TO DEFINE SOMETHING! All conceptualized things have been chosen to be agreed upon, not agreed upon due to existence, because they do not exist.

Language, conceptualized ideas, etc, are do not define use - use defines them.

So let's look at this from another perspective.

"The greatest being must exist". This, of course, is true. Also, "The least great being must exist". Of course. Everything can be compared. However, this does not mean that there is even more than one being.

The argument is not changed, as existence does not define ideas. Definition defines conceptualized things. Bridging that is the fundamental flaw. I could envision a particle, knowing it's exact speed and location, simultaneously. This is not possible in reality. Or maybe it is, but that is truly beside the point. But again:

Originally posted by xzxzzx
This has the flaw that it assumes that something conceptual is not conceptual if it is conceptually not conceptual.

Whether or not true existence is greater than conceptual existence is inconsequential, as the argument is flawed, even if you take the assumption that true existence is greater than conceptual existence. The two cannot be breached, simply due to conceptual definition. Defining my, or any conceptual existence as real does not make it so.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by Paultx
AFAIK, a dead human body can be buried, then it will, by decomposition, become energy. Nevertheless, what's wrong with nothingness?

Ha. What's wrong with nothingness? Well, if you will be nothingness, then what's the point? Once you change from a bunch of neurons into a bunch of dirt, you, as life, will no longer exist. There is no point to this universe if that is the case, besides simply to exist.

In that case, you should go and kill as many people as possible. The world is overcrowded, and killing would, in the end, help this species to survive.

IF, however, you are a soul, then perhaps there is some real point.

Originally posted by Paultx
Lol.
Maybe because the body and the so called soul are actually inseparable.

Ahh, now we are getting somewhere. So if the soul and the body are inseparable, then what makes a soul different from a bunch of neurons? That it can leave, after the body is no more?

Originally posted by Paultx
In a somewhat twisted way you answered my question. Why should I commit suicide if I can stay around while I can be giving food for thought?

Ahh, but if thought is simply a few trillion electrons firing around in your brain, then what makes a thought of yours more valid than, say, an atomic bomb? Hmm? That it contains form? An explosion contains form too, you know.

Originally posted by Paultx
What means that, although a piece of dirt can't produce thought in and by itself, it can produce energy like mine or your dead brain, or bunch of neurons. Besides, a piece of dirt gives matter for thought too.

Ok, then, so a piece of dirt is not less valid then you. Is that what you are saying?

Originally posted by Paultx
And for me it's an excellent reason to live.

What is an excellent reason to live?

Originally posted by Paultx
I can't see any problem if I die and no soul of mine is left and the universe goes on its own way without "me".

Ok, so if there is no problem with that, why not kill yourself?

[Paultx]

Ha. What's wrong with nothingness? Well, if you will be nothingness, then what's the point?
The point is that you may believe in afterlife stuff and I don't. If there is... well, the concept of being here starts to get meaningless... if there is only nothingness after death, why should I care? I care about what I do while I'm alive.
Once you change from a bunch of neurons into a bunch of dirt, you, as life, will no longer exist. There is no point to this universe if that is the case, besides simply to exist.
I repeat: I care about what I do while I'm alive. That's the point in the universe for me. Don't you think it is enough?
In that case, you should go and kill as many people as possible. The world is overcrowded, and killing would, in the end, help this species to survive.
One thing I care of is killing people. What's more, I get a concern with you being recurrent on that...
Ahh, now we are getting somewhere. So if the soul and the body are inseparable, then what makes a soul different from a bunch of neurons? That it can leave, after the body is no more?
Read that again: I said the so-called soul, which for me is a bunch of neurons, for your it's a soul. The concept of a soul leaving a body is yours, not mine. For me, the bunch of neurons dies along with the body. And the whole stuff (matter) becomes energy, and that's not little.
Ahh, but if thought is simply a few trillion electrons firing around in your brain, then what makes a thought of yours more valid than, say, an atomic bomb?
Don't forget matter comes before the thought, and thoughts created the bombs. As for me, since I care about what I do while I'm alive, and care of not killing people, I would never ever think of creating bombs.Ok, then, so a piece of dirt is not less valid then you. Is that what you are saying?
Replace piece of dirt with a tree, oxigen, a cloud, a plant, whatever. All is matter, and matter matters. So, yes, it's exactly what I'm saying: a piece of dirt is not less valid than me. That's the beauty of the whole thing. And that's the excellent reason to live...
Ok, so if there is no problem with that, why not kill yourself?
There you go again... Why on earth would I want to kill myself if I want to live the only life I have to live? It's nonsensical...

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by caserock90
Im so confused.... am I really here? in how many other dimensions am I asking the same question?

If I fart, and it makes no noise, or has smell, and there is no one around. Is it really a fart?:confused:

Here's the annoying scientific/medical answer to an amusement question:

Sort of. Normally, your body would be releasing a small amount of gas. Excess gas would be termed "fart".

-----

The way I see it, yes - if you can feel gas expulsion, it's a fart.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by Paultx
The point is that you may believe in afterlife stuff and I don't. If there is... well, the concept of being here starts to get meaningless... if there is only nothingness after death, why should I care? I care about what I do while I'm alive.

I didn't say that I believe in afterlife stuff. I'm saying that if there isn't, there's no logical reason for living. If there is nothingness after life, then what you do in life doesn't matter. If people's being is entirely a bunch of neurons, then there's no reason to keep life going. Letting a virus kill you is as valid as explosive decompression in space is as valid as you living.

Originally posted by Paultx
I repeat: I care about what I do while I'm alive. That's the point in the universe for me. Don't you think it is enough?

But why? You don't have a point, except to "do stuff". But whatever you do is inconsequential.

Originally posted by Paultx
One thing I care of is killing people. What's more, I get a concern with you being recurrent on that...

Are you saying that the planet is not overpopulated? Because it is. We are quite quickly killing the planet, and once it's dead, it's not going to be able to replenish itself in time for humanity to survive.

So how is killing off part of the population, or at least limiting it, bad?

As a side note, I haven’t killed anyone, at least not to my knowledge, and I don't intend to. I think I could do much more outside of bars, thank you. Also, I have no way of accurate discrimination. So I could be killing the inventor of the "warp drive" (or whatever).

Originally posted by Paultx
Read that again: I said the so-called soul, which for me is a bunch of neurons, for your it's a soul. The concept of a soul leaving a body is yours, not mine.

A soul is not a bunch of neurons. If you, as a being, are a bunch of neurons, then you have no soul.

[noun]"the immaterial part of a person; the actuating cause of an individual life"

Originally posted by Paultx
For me, the bunch of neurons dies along with the body. And the whole stuff (matter) becomes energy, and that's not little.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

Originally posted by Paultx
Don't forget matter comes before the thought, and thoughts created the bombs. As for me, since I care about what I do while I'm alive, and care of not killing people, I would never ever think of creating bombs.

Matter may come before thought. Yes, thoughts created the bombs. But why do you care about not killing people? They'll just be a piece of dirt, or air, or a plant, after a couple years.

Originally posted by Paultx
Replace piece of dirt with a tree, oxigen, a cloud, a plant, whatever. All is matter, and matter matters. So, yes, it's exactly what I'm saying: a piece of dirt is not less valid than me. That's the beauty of the whole thing. And that's the excellent reason to live...

You are contradicting yourself. If any matter is just as valid as any other piece of matter, then there is no reason for you to live. None! Anything you do, any action you take, does not matter - because it was just as valid before then as it is now.

Originally posted by Paultx
There you go again... Why on earth would I want to kill myself if I want to live the only life I have to live? It's nonsensical...

If there is only one life to live, then there is no reason not to kill yourself. Once you're dead, it doesn't matter. Not that there really is a reason to kill yourself, either, from what you are saying. Everything is just as valid as anything else, so why do anything?

[Trigear]

m-chica,orgone-man , xxxxxzxzxzxzxzzzxxxxx... (how do you pronounce that?), you're all right, i think.

[Paultx]

I didn't say that I believe in afterlife stuff. I'm saying that if there isn't, there's no logical reason for living.
Wow, now I finally can understand you!!! For you, the only logical explanation for life is the necessary existence of afterlife... OK. End of story.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by Paultx
Wow, now I finally can understand you!!! For you, the only logical explanation for life is the necessary existence of afterlife... OK. End of story.

Indeed. If there is no "afterlife", then the universe is simply a random system. There is no point to life, if we are simply a random oddity.

[Trigear]

here's a possible point to life without an afterlife:

we are god's playthings. the lord giveth and the lord taketh away, just to watch us cry.

[Paultx]

IMHO, your afterlife after you die is what you've done when alive and that is what you've left for the others that stay alive and the others to come to life, some call next generations. It's my sense of eternity, although I know humankind will disappear one day. For example, I love the idea that, when I die, my daughter will get a better version of Winamp, and her kids, and so on, till the end of times. (Hope Winamp can do it! :) )

[caserock90]

aaah, its all clear now... I can sleep well tonight.