Page 5 of 9
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 4:20 pm
by parson
all about the Tao
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 4:21 pm
by elbe
badger wrote:well that's the point of philosophy isn't it really? very little of it can either be proved or disproved. that doesn't stop it being interesting and intellectually stimulating though
Tomity wrote:Historically one of the first religions was Taoism, which believed that god was everything, something that if you apply to modern physics we now know to be true. So the idea of god has been corrupted and so has no legitimate standing imo.
that's pretty much my religious/spiritual/whatever beliefs. i definitely think there's some kind of higher ordering force because as parson said before the world is so minutely and intricately balanced that it's unlikely to have come about from chance. unless as some philosophers have said there's an infinite number of universe and ours just happens to be the one in which all the variables are right for life to be able to exist
point on philosophy taken.
far was you reasoning on god goes, I think the fact that everything works so intricately points the other way, it suggests that it is by chance rather than a higher orde/being/conciousness, the idea that any higher order, no matter how 'powerfull' (for want of a better word) could concieve such in depth complexities is beyond the capacity of my faith and reasoning.
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 4:23 pm
by parson
eLBe wrote:
far was you reasoning on god goes, I think the fact that everything works so intricately points the other way, it suggests that it is by chance rather than a higher orde/being/conciousness, the idea that any higher order, no matter how 'powerfull' (for want of a better word) could concieve such in depth complexities is beyond the capacity of my faith and reasoning.
if you came across a sandcastle on the beach and babylon told you it was just there by chance, would you believe it
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 4:25 pm
by elbe
Parson wrote:eLBe wrote:
far was you reasoning on god goes, I think the fact that everything works so intricately points the other way, it suggests that it is by chance rather than a higher orde/being/conciousness, the idea that any higher order, no matter how 'powerfull' (for want of a better word) could concieve such in depth complexities is beyond the capacity of my faith and reasoning.
if you came across a sandcastle on the beach and babylon told you it was just there by chance, would you believe it
no, but equally a sandcastle is not a living world full on concious beings.
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 4:30 pm
by parson
eLBe wrote:Parson wrote:eLBe wrote:
far was you reasoning on god goes, I think the fact that everything works so intricately points the other way, it suggests that it is by chance rather than a higher orde/being/conciousness, the idea that any higher order, no matter how 'powerfull' (for want of a better word) could concieve such in depth complexities is beyond the capacity of my faith and reasoning.
if you came across a sandcastle on the beach and babylon told you it was just there by chance, would you believe it
no, but equally a sandcastle is not a living world full on concious beings.
yeah, so a sandcastle must have been built by intelligent beings, but a complex universe full of intricate systems to support life of all kinds is mere chance. boy do you ever think about the stuff you say?
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 4:32 pm
by badger
eLBe wrote:far was you reasoning on god goes, I think the fact that everything works so intricately points the other way, it suggests that it is by chance rather than a higher orde/being/conciousness, the idea that any higher order, no matter how 'powerfull' (for want of a better word) could concieve such in depth complexities is beyond the capacity of my faith and reasoning.
that higher being could just be like the technologically advanced beings talked about in the simulation example. either they have could have the knowledge of the human mind or computer systems that's advance enough to create a simulation universe; or they could have such an advanced knowledge of physics/chemistry/biology that they can create a
real universe like the one we live in. anything's possible, but then nothing's provable either
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 4:34 pm
by parson
the moon is 1/400th the size of the sun and is 400 times closer to the earth than the sun, so it appears the exact same size in the sky, making solar eclipses possible. it is only significant from a human perspective on earth. like the alignments of stonehenge or pyramids.
this is considered to be the biggest coincidence in the universe. its also responsible for life on this planet.
there is design
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 4:41 pm
by badger
i take your point but is the size of the moon actually responsible for life on this planet? (not saying it isn't, have no proof either way)
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 4:41 pm
by parson
badger wrote:i take your point but is the size of the moon actually responsible for life on this planet? (not saying it isn't, have no proof either way)
the moon's size has everything to do with life on this planet. the earth is fine tuned as well
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 4:45 pm
by badger
of course it has a lot to do with how this planet works (tides etc) but i think to say it is directly responsible for life on this planet is over-stating the case a little bit
i'm sure if it was a few hundred kilometres further away from earth then life on earth would still exist. just not necesarily in the same way it does now
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 4:46 pm
by parson
so you're assuming that the moon is not precisely tuned. ok so lets say we have no moon. do you know what the earth would look like?
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 4:48 pm
by parson
i mean if it was further away, its going to mean its more massive, meaning its got greater gravitational pull, meaning more drastic tide changes, meaning crazier weather patterns, etc etc.
our shit is balanced nicely the way it is. if the moon was a different size, our planet would look entirely different.
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 4:50 pm
by badger
i'm not saying it isn't precisely tuned. it's vitally important for life as we know it now obviously, but would life not exist without it? if the moon was either further or closer away then the tides would be different, so possibly the earth would be far more covered in water and thefore there would be more aquatic life (this may be utterly wrong as i'm not really that sure how the tides work)
edit- bah beat me to it
yeah it would look entirely different but life would still exist
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 4:51 pm
by parson
tides don't add water volume
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 4:52 pm
by parson
and sure life may exist, but thats a huge assumption.
its pretty easy for a planet to die
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 4:57 pm
by badger
Parson wrote:tides don't add water volume
well yes i know that. i'm probably talking out of my arse but you get my point
Parson wrote:and sure life may exist, but thats a huge assumption.
its pretty easy for a planet to die
yeah true. it's all just assumptions though isn't it? even if it's very well informed or logically worked out or whatever, philosophy is basically just the assumption of an intelligent person based on the facts they see
anyway i'm going home. laters
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 4:58 pm
by parson
but i said huge assumption. meaning not small or safe, but rather a huge superman leap across the unknown.
i think its a safe assumption that fucking with the moon would fuck our shit up royally
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 5:01 pm
by ikeaboy
Parson wrote:so you're assuming that the moon is not precisely tuned. ok so lets say we have no moon. do you know what the earth would look like?
No idea, but has anyone come across the expanding earth theory before? Its a ten minute vid but its big on wow and low on wacko
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 5:02 pm
by parson
ikeaboy wrote:Parson wrote:so you're assuming that the moon is not precisely tuned. ok so lets say we have no moon. do you know what the earth would look like?
No idea, but has anyone come across the expanding earth theory before? Its a ten minute vid but its big on wow and low on wacko
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ
yeah i've seen that. i was pretty convinced subduction didn't exist for like a day. but if you look more into that guy, he seems to be fullashit.
edit: ha but now i'm watchin it again and its buggin me out all over again
editedit: but here's the debunkers
http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/1 ... ight_1.php
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 5:36 pm
by ikeaboy
Parson wrote:ikeaboy wrote:Parson wrote:so you're assuming that the moon is not precisely tuned. ok so lets say we have no moon. do you know what the earth would look like?
No idea, but has anyone come across the expanding earth theory before? Its a ten minute vid but its big on wow and low on wacko
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ
yeah i've seen that. i was pretty convinced subduction didn't exist for like a day. but if you look more into that guy, he seems to be fullashit.
edit: ha but now i'm watchin it again and its buggin me out all over again
editedit: but here's the debunkers
http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/1 ... ight_1.php
I just read the start, but.
It wasn't enough the earth is expanding eh? they had to assert that gravity doesn't exsist as well and the
PUSHING of the expanding earth creates the impression of gravity,. god i love genius gone wrong
The rest looks interesting and i just got lean, thanks Parson.