So i came up with a thought
Nothing created the big bang.
And nothing created god
Both come to the same issue "Nothing created this thing or being that created something"
Have any of you ever wondered if maybe both sides are wrong if maybe the answer lays deeper then we may ever discover? What if none of what appears in front of us is even real or what if its something so simple much simpler then any of this that none of us even notice?
have you ever wondered?
i do am i thinking to hard?
Some people say i think to hard but i cant stop.
LOL no. Solopism dude...it was a joke. I don't think there's much dickey on this site.
Oh okay i wasn't sure i was trying to figure it out. =D
Honestly i thought of this before i even new it's been asked before then i looked it up and found i wasn't the only one. It's neat to see others think the same...but i'm sorry could you repeat this in a simpler way with less confusing words i'm not to good with big words. and i don't wanna be a jerk but it would take a while to look all them up :D
I'll try to break it down, but I might not get it all correct. It's hard to interpret somebody else's words. I put definitions in parenthesis ( ). I replaced words and then put my way of saying them in brackets [ ].
"This is a rather old question. I remember discusing it while working in a bean field, with a friend, when we were about 11 years of age.
'[Getting ideas from just yourself]' can be a [a hard way to think]. [When you think this way, if something doesn't make sense to you, you can decide it's not real/right and ignore it], while [an idea] which seems [to make sense] might be [believed in and used to build more ideas on]. [Some people really want to] to believe...that [they are] the only sane person in the world, or [they have a direct connection to the highest, purest truth (some people call this God)]. [Some people really want to believe that] 'god' [picks a few people as his favorites], and [this link to God gives them the only 'real' knowledge of the highest, purest truth (Enlightenment)]
Sadly we are [simple humans who fall somewhere between] our abstractions (high-minded theoretical ideas), [and a] primordial muck (ancient, simple living cells in a nasty mud-like paste). With just a little mind (this is unclear to me--does it mean 'a small mind' or 'with a little intelligence?'), I expect transendence (reaching Enlightenment; going beyond our human limits) could be desired (to want) and pursued (to go after) [I think this sentence means 'we simple minded humans can think enough to want to have Enlightenment and to go after finding Enlightenment].
Does an ancient fish (a fish from a time long ago when there were only sea-creatures on Earth) [really want to walk on land and discover a new world of ideas], or is it something else (does something else push the fish to try to walk on land/evolve)?"
Sorry I really was not trying to make it this hard..;p(
I sometimes wax poetic(doing poetry), when something/idea seems to be very important. During a recent OPB conversation the idea of the 'muse' was discussed. A few considered it as something that resides outside of human nature, as in 'god' created, and others as the expression of something either very human, or 'organic', arising out of biology. This seems to be similar to the 'if'.
I mention the ancient fish as a way to consider biology as the origin.
What calls us out to explore? What causes us to ask questions?
I am uncertain if we can link the abstraction of 'transendence' to biology and/or evolution, but it seems tempting. I would suggest that it is something we 'point at' as a result of much smaller processes that emerge/defined by biology. A little like saying 'god did it'.
I mention the 'Getting ideas just from yourself', because of the possible confining nature of isolation. We need each other at times.
In my experience, most of us have just enough natural intelligence to figure things out 'if we do not give up too soon'. Sadly we might not always have enough time before we win the Darwin Award.
I wonder how many ancient fish 'tried' to walk on land before they found a foothold?
How many attempts will it take before humans find a foothold on another planet and call it home?
How many forms or types of 'enlightenment' will be tried, before we find a collection of them that enhance our survival and help us find a bigger humanity?
Any ideas? ;-)
I tell searchers such as you that knowing the answer(s) won't help me pay the rent.
BTW, "pay the rent" is a metaphor for all the other things I do.
However, if you've found someone who will pay you to provide answers, go for the money.
Very good questions. This is a thought that may never be 100% answered. At the forfront of answering this in any way scientifically is Lawrence Krauss. you could read his book on the topic or watch this video where he has discussion with Richard Dawkins.
I hope this has been useful, to at least give another perspective to your thoughts, though it all really comes down to how important you view the question 'Why?', some see it as relevant to reason and belief, some see it as a central focus.
You know i like richard dawkins but he seems a little angry and it reminds me of a angry christian.
It's odd...maybe hes a good guy but i just am unsure about him i like videos but videos without a fight if it docent have yelling across the room on it sure.
yea, I know what your mean. Richard can get a bit stressed when talking to people who refuse to consider evidence because 'faith' already answered the question.
This isn't one of those videos, instead of talking to a young earth creationist or fundamentalist or any type, he's talking to an accomplished physicist.