Correction; the opening quote should have read "InBetween said: etc
If there were a designer god he woukd have died laughing by now. Not even a god could survive laughing as hard as he would have laughed at the antics of humans. He woukd have had to say, “What horror have I wrought!"Speaking of which, right now one or maybe more than one of your own brain cells are laughing at what you uttered, they know you exist but here you are insinuating you don't. Diiing! That's basically what you are saying. ....Because if you Know for Sure, so do they.... Wow! How profound!
There will always be those who refuse to think and can only believe what they were indoctrinated to believe, no matter how bizarre. What a waste of human brains!Offler said, I brought him up because I thought he might have the answer to how the God Idea came about. That’s it.You'll need to go back much, much further in time. We can go back in time by observing the behavior of our distant cousin, the chimpanzee. I saw a recorded NOVA presentation of a family of common Chimpanzees during a monsoon storm. While the entire family sought shelter as best they could, the Alpha male exercised his duty as protector of his family. At one point he began to run around in a clearing, beating the ground and brush with a stick, to show his power to scare off out this "unseen enemy" who was making loud noises, and threw bright lights and water at him and his family. The end of the clip showed him standing in the middle of the clearing shaking his stick to the air above him, because he realized this threat came form "above". He had no idea this was a natural phenomenon, but assumed it was an "intentional assault" by an "unseen enemy" on his troupe. He had seen plenty of birds living in the sky, so he was familiar with the concept that living beings could and did live in the sky above, but he knew this was not an ordinary bird, but something much more powerful, even as it was invisible. IMO, this was the first rudimentary assumption of a intentional but unseen being which lived in the sky. Later in the evolution of the homo sapiens' brain, these unexplainable phenomena were given names such as the god of rain, the god of thunder, the god of lightning and still later in our evolution of the brain, eventually these gods were identified by proper names, such as Thor and a host of other "named" gods. And along with these "angry gods", other named gods were invented, each ruling there own domain and occasionally making war on each other.Throughout history, humans have ascribed various powers to supernatural beings. Chief among this world of spirits and powers are the immortal gods and goddesses. Some are given credit for the creation of the world and mankind, or food, warfare, love, and all the other good and bad elements of life. In pagan societies, people turned to specific gods for specific needs: seeking favor for good harvests, success in war, fertility in the home, and more.https://www.thoughtco.com/gods-goddesses-of-world-mythology-120541 IMO, the concept of a god (an immortal, powerful, but unseen being or spirit) started with the first hominids, and to me this sounds like a very reasonable argument and also explains the persistence of belief in gods and other spiritual beings as being causal to unexplained natural phenomena, which to the ignorant must have appeared as "miracles". I believe this reasoning of the evolution of the god concept meets Occam Razor in explaining the origin of the concept itself. Much later in the evolution of man, these concepts were not discarded, but refined and monotheism was born. But a variety of gods still exist in many cultures. But as science is able to explain the natural physics of naturally occurring phenomena, the concept of god or gods is steadily declining.
I don't need to convince you of anything as I love Atheists just the way they are. If they were just like me, I would not have had the privilege to learn from them in the past the way I have. The book is full of evidence. Of course one has to go out and double check everything that is cited on there. Or at least some of it. And that in and of itself requires some effort. I brought him up because I thought he might have the answer to how the God Idea came about. That's it.\ Not even scientific books contain the evidence, rather report about it. You should be able to get to the archive, or museum or archeological site and seek for the evidence. Some books fail at that.
Historians use scientific approach. Which means looking up in the archives. Journalists have to base their articles on facts, which can be proven and documented. This is how I perceive non-fiction literature. I did not read much of Daniken, but he took some fact and make huge exxageration on that base. In case of Bible, or Old and New Testament i percieve the whole as a subjective interpretation of events. Claim itself does not provide proof and thats why starting to argue with books is simply wrong. You have to first convince me that its objective non-fiction.I've always thought that if von Daniken had had a little bit more imagination, he would have written his books in the form of novels, and he would have sold a lot more copies.
I've always thought that if von Daniken had had a little bit more imagination, he would have written his books in the form of novels, and he would have sold a lot more copies.Stories which are semi-fictional get more attention. Great example is Dan Brown and his use of modern buzzwords and how he worked with reality. Daniken either moved that into "Uri Geller" level, when his claims remain ambiguous, or to level of conspiracy theories. I can closely relate that to nature of metal music culture. Some performers are clear about their real-life statements and they simply see the lyrics as figment of their own creativity. Other adopt the role of the bad guy on the stage, some play that even in real life. Its a way how to get more attention, even from the people who are not interested in the music itself - they will help to spread the word about the band, music or some of their act.
This is very nice. Thank you so much for taking time. I have no problem with your entire post. I am personally not worried about god existing or not. What I am more into at this point is the visible vs. the invisible. What do you think of the visual of half full glass vs. the same glass being half empty. They are not mutually exclusive as they are both true. If that's not a good example, let's state for example a color that's been bleached out by a chemical. Carbone monoxide, etc. science can sort out some stuff but not all of it. It's on the way of doing that, but, while waiting for experts to get us there, what do we do in the mean time? Science tells us that there is no invisible anything but on the other hand, it seeks to break out to a parallel universe via building for example the great hadron collider. This causes me to be skeptical and rebellious. I hang on to this because I had experiences that necessitate for me to sort out before I move on. Thank you so much.Offler said, I brought him up because I thought he might have the answer to how the God Idea came about. That’s it.You'll need to go back much, much further in time. We can go back in time by observing the behavior of our distant cousin, the chimpanzee. I saw a recorded NOVA presentation of a family of common Chimpanzees during a monsoon storm. While the entire family sought shelter as best they could, the Alpha male exercised his duty as protector of his family. At one point he began to run around in a clearing, beating the ground and brush with a stick, to show his power to scare off out this "unseen enemy" who was making loud noises, and threw bright lights and water at him and his family. The end of the clip showed him standing in the middle of the clearing shaking his stick to the air above him, because he realized this threat came form "above". He had no idea this was a natural phenomenon, but assumed it was an "intentional assault" by an "unseen enemy" on his troupe. He had seen plenty of birds living in the sky, so he was familiar with the concept that living beings could and did live in the sky above, but he knew this was not an ordinary bird, but something much more powerful, even as it was invisible. IMO, this was the first rudimentary assumption of a intentional but unseen being which lived in the sky. Later in the evolution of the homo sapiens' brain, these unexplainable phenomena were given names such as the god of rain, the god of thunder, the god of lightning and still later in our evolution of the brain, eventually these gods were identified by proper names, such as Thor and a host of other "named" gods. And along with these "angry gods", other named gods were invented, each ruling there own domain and occasionally making war on each other.Throughout history, humans have ascribed various powers to supernatural beings. Chief among this world of spirits and powers are the immortal gods and goddesses. Some are given credit for the creation of the world and mankind, or food, warfare, love, and all the other good and bad elements of life. In pagan societies, people turned to specific gods for specific needs: seeking favor for good harvests, success in war, fertility in the home, and more.https://www.thoughtco.com/gods-goddesses-of-world-mythology-120541 IMO, the concept of a god (an immortal, powerful, but unseen being or spirit) started with the first hominids, and to me this sounds like a very reasonable argument and also explains the persistence of belief in gods and other spiritual beings as being causal to unexplained natural phenomena, which to the ignorant must have appeared as "miracles". I believe this reasoning of the evolution of the god concept meets Occam Razor in explaining the origin of the concept itself. Much later in the evolution of man, these concepts were not discarded, but refined and monotheism was born. But a variety of gods still exist in many cultures. But as science is able to explain the natural physics of naturally occurring phenomena, the concept of god or gods is steadily declining.
Science tells us that there is no invisible anything but on the other hand, it seeks to break out to a parallel universe via building for example the great hadron collider. This causes me to be skeptical and rebellious. I hang on to this because I had experiences that necessitate for me to sort out before I move on. Thank you so much.I believe you are looking at this from the wrong perspective. In order to prove how the universe works, scientists need to create infinitely (relatively) small models of universal conditions as they may exist in its almost incomprehensible vastness. To the universe the Cern collider is totally insignificant, but to our scientist it was a great leap in understanding one aspect of the greater whole. Nothing we do on earth affects the universe, it affects only life on earth. The universe doesn't care, never has, never will. Compare the size of Cern, where we managed to create a few bosons, to super-novae which create entire galaxies. Perspective!
I believe you are looking at this from the wrong perspective. In order to prove how the universe works, scientists need to create infinitely (relatively) small models of universal conditions as they may exist in its almost incomprehensible vastness.Thank you. Pretty cool as outrageous as that sounds. Amazing!
To the universe the Cern collider is totally insignificant, but to our scientist it was a great leap in understanding one aspect of the greater whole. Nothing we do on earth affects the universe, it affects only life on earth. The universe doesn't care, never has, never will. Compare the size of Cern, where we managed to create a few bosons, to super-novae which create entire galaxies. Perspective!I tried to look up the meaning of "boson" but Google threw me bunch of other terms I never heard of. Is boson a type of sub-atom, or sub/sub-atom? And I never said the universe cared. Not that it's not alive or it does not have its own brain or some type of equivalency. It probably does. Also, something else, the thing about the monkey who thought the moon (and whatever else) has had it for him and his clan. Him having grown under it and accustomed to seeing it come on every night should eliminate the supposition or the conclusion the NOVA show gave. So we're back to square one. But still, I agree with the general theme.
InBetween said, I tried to look up the meaning of “boson" but Google threw me bunch of other terms I never heard of. Is boson a type of sub-atom, or sub/sub-atom?Look up Higgs boson and Higgs field.
Higgs boson The Higgs boson is an elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics. It is the quantum excitation of the Higgs field—a fundamental field of crucial importance to particle physics theory, first suspected to exist in the 1960s, which, unlike other known fields such as the electromagnetic field, takes a non-zero constant value almost everywherehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson and
The Higgs field is an energy field that is thought to exist everywhere in the universe. The field is accompanied by a fundamental particle called the Higgs boson, which the field uses to continuously interact with other particles.https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_field As we cannot observe the Higgs boson directly, we had to create the approximate conditions which allowed to make the Higgs boson visible. This was the reason for building the Cern collider, which is used also for other experiments of the fundamental nature of spacetime.
The Cern collider is a remarkable machine. It is able to circulate two massive particles in opposite directions and on a collision course. Each particle cannot travel at the speed of light, but the closing speed between the particles comes close to attaining the speed of light (the universal constant “c”.)
Like two cars at 50 mph on a collision course will result in them closing and colliding at 100mph (50 + 50 = 100).
Look up Higgs boson and Higgs field.WoW!!!!! .....Now I have a sense of what you guys and girls mean. Thank you ever Soooo OoooO so much!!!!! Maybe I should start praying that Atheists take over the Educational System in this country.....and I mean this literally. Please forgive my past, present and future idiocies. ... I almost have the goose bumps LMHO.Higgs boson The Higgs boson is an elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics. It is the quantum excitation of the Higgs field—a fundamental field of crucial importance to particle physics theory, first suspected to exist in the 1960s, which, unlike other known fields such as the electromagnetic field, takes a non-zero constant value almost everywherehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson andThe Higgs field is an energy field that is thought to exist everywhere in the universe. The field is accompanied by a fundamental particle called the Higgs boson, which the field uses to continuously interact with other particles.https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_field As we cannot observe the Higgs boson directly, we had to create the approximate conditions which allowed to make the Higgs boson visible. This was the reason for building the Cern collider, which is used also for other experiments of the fundamental nature of spacetime.
The Cern collider is a remarkable machine. It is able to circulate two massive particles in opposite directions and on a collision course. Each particle cannot travel at the speed of light, but the closing speed between the particles comes close to attaining the speed of light (the universal constant "c".) Like two cars at 50 mph on a collision course will result in them closing and colliding at 100mph (50 + 50 = 100).Yeah I got the speed part. And the universal constant "c", does it have to do with the theory of everything? because Google said it " is a universal physical constant important in many areas of physics.". Also, another question. How did they know the compounded speed of the 2 particles will come to add up to the speed of light, not below and not above? or is the sum of both a range within which the speed of light happens to 'fall'? Thank you so much.
The Cern collider is a remarkable machine. It is able to circulate two massive particles in opposite directions and on a collision course. Each particle cannot travel at the speed of light, but the closing speed between the particles comes close to attaining the speed of light (the universal constant "c".) Like two cars at 50 mph on a collision course will result in them closing and colliding at 100mph (50 + 50 = 100).Yeah I got the speed part. And the universal constant "c", does it have to do with the theory of everything? because Google said it " is a universal physical constant important in many areas of physics.". Also, another question. How did they know the compounded speed of the 2 particles will come to add up to the speed of light, not below and not above? or is the sum of both a range within which the speed of light happens to 'fall'? Thank you so much. In my layman's opinion, the speed of light ("c") is a limit imposed by QM. My speculation is that a quantum event requires time for the physical change of states. If something travels a superluminal (faster than light) speed it ceases to be physical beause there is not enough time for a physical quantum change to occur. As I understand it, a massive particle can never attain "c" , but a photon has the ability to reach this speed because it has zero restmass and is exempt from the limitation of quantum change. However when a photon reaches "c" it does acquire mass from its momentum alone, and becomes subject to quantum limitation. So it is forever traveling at "c", which may be the speed limit imposed by the Higgs field itself. What I find most interesting is the fact that a photon instantly attains the speed of "c", without having to accelerate to reach that speed. I believe this has profound secondary implications, as all massive particles require acceleration to reach their own speed limit allowed by its mass. I may be completely wrong in this speculative thinking, but I intuit a fundamental aspect of the properties of spacetime.
In my layman's opinion, the speed of light ("c") is a limit imposed by QM. My speculation is that a quantum event requires time for the physical change of states. If something travels a superluminal (faster than light) speed it ceases to be physical because there is not enough time for a physical quantum change to occur."layman"? then I must be, ...a praying mantis. And to you I probably am. You said "requires time". Time is elastic. So in that regard it is unreliable. So why do we need it?
What I find most interesting is the fact that a photon instantly attains the speed of "c", without having to accelerate to reach that speed. I believe this has profound secondary implications, as all massive particles require acceleration to reach their own speed limit allowed by its mass.I have a vertigo. LOL. how does a photon reach such speed without any "assistance? does it do it on its own? and since a photon is massless, its "behavior, or mechanics" can't be compared to those of particles that are different than its own?
I may be completely wrong in this speculative thinking, but I intuit a fundamental aspect of the properties of spacetime."spacetime". They are both alterable or manipul-able. So can their properties be relied on to conduct a work that will allow one to draw safe conclusions ? txs. ========================== "Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever." ~~Daniel 12:3~~
if we cannot tell the difference between higher being, and a god, is there really any difference???
My website: làm lông mày ngang]
As I understand it, a massive particle can never attain "c" , but a photon has the ability to reach this speed because it has zero restmass and is exempt from the limitation of quantum change. However when a photon reaches "c" it does acquire mass from its momentum alone, and becomes subject to quantum limitation. So it is forever traveling at "c", which may be the speed limit imposed by the Higgs field itself.I think you mean relativity theory, not quantum mechanics. c is the 'cosmic speed limit'. It is the only possible velocity of all particles without mass.(Photons, gravitation). As you say, particles with mass can never reach c. You can pump more and more energy in them, but the effect on the velocity becomes less and less (but energy and momentum increase further). I am not aware of any connection with the Higgs, because photons do not interact with the Higgs-field. And not all masses are due to interaction with the Higgs field.
What I find most interesting is the fact that a photon instantly attains the speed of "c", without having to accelerate to reach that speed. I believe this has profound secondary implications, as all massive particles require acceleration to reach their own speed limit allowed by its mass.Photons are the quanta of the Electro-Magnetic field. Any change in an electrical or magnetic field travels with c. So there is no need to accelerate for photons: it is their natural velocity.
Spacetime is four-dimensional: 3 space directions and one time direction. c is the 'scaling factor' between the space dimensions on one side, and the time dimension on the other. See Minkowski diagram]. Spacetime can only be 'manipulated' by velocity (and gravitation). One can imagine it like this: when you move in space, you move less in time. So 'manipulations' of spacetime are related, like a rotation in normal 3-D space: when a line turns shorter from your view point because it rotates, you can bet on it that there is at least one other view point, where the line becomes longer.I may be completely wrong in this speculative thinking, but I intuit a fundamental aspect of the properties of spacetime."spacetime". They are both alterable or manipul-able. So can their properties be relied on to conduct a work that will allow one to draw safe conclusions ? txs.
if we cannot tell the difference between higher being, and a god, is there really any difference???That depends how you define "god". The general definition is "a superior being of supreme power and worthy of unconditional worship". I personally have very high standards for "unconditional worship". :)
if we cannot tell the difference between higher being, and a god, is there really any difference???That depends how you define "god". The general definition is "a superior being of supreme power and worthy of unconditional worship". I personally have very high standards for "unconditional worship". :) This whole "worship" notion is intentional misleading, because it assumes that the higher "state of being" is also sentient. If we were to replace the term "worship" with "respect for it's implacable power" then we are looking in the right direction, IMO. From Webster;
Definition of implacable : not placable : not capable of being appeased, significantly changed, or mitigatedThus worship is a self-serving activity to make the person doing the worshipping believe he/she is actually communicating with a higher sentience. Of course this would be a waste of time, but might in fact offer comfort to an individual's psyche.