More like trial and error. I observed and researched. Then came to my conclusion.
-
Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
- Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral
Just a question. Why is everyone so scared of Rapture or Armageddon?
- Thread starter Wolfnox
- Start date
Is it too far fetched to use the plural purposes? I’m posing as a question threw the lens of history. Noting the accomplishment by various individuals small and large. With many aiding the few exceptional individuals we hear most about.
I don't think that it is far-fetched at all. When I say this, do consider the nearly infinite contexts and perspectives of everyone who has ever lived. Consider all the religious influences, all the cultural influences, all the socio-economic influences, and all the wisdom accumulated through time. I may have my purpose(s) in my life. You have yours. As a Christian, your personal belief system will most certainly be different than a non-Christian, and as such, you have a view of life and the purpose of life through that lens. Even within the Christian religion, historically, culturally, socio-economically, from one society to the next, it is likely to be somewhat similar, but also likely somewhat different than your views.
Personally, I could use my example of passing along wisdom (as I am older, and an educator). I find that people can live beyond death amongst the living, ONLY if they are remembered. So, I have to consider my legacy both professionally and personally. I stood upon the shoulders of others, as I would hope others will stand upon mine. That's important to me. That's a noble purpose. I could also say that your example of "to love and be loved" is a noble purpose, as well. I am a father, a son, a husband, so again, giving and receiving love is valuable. I could say that being a protector and a provider as a father and husband is also a noble purpose. I do a lot of things daily that frankly, I don't want to do, but I feel I have to do, because I have a purpose, a responsibility to be that person for my wife and children. So, at a minimum, for myself, personally, I can think of 3 purposes in my life.
If you believe in God, the almighty and wise creator, well then, you have to widen your focus beyond that of human beings on Earth. Certainly, we have to consider all the life in the entirety of the cosmos. As human beings on Earth, we are not a singularity, but more likely one of an infinite amount of examples of life. What is the purpose of life on the broader, more generalized perspective? Chew on that one for a while. What was God's intent and purpose for creating life, not only on Earth, but throughout the cosmos, in all its forms?
So, what is THE purpose of life? I think that answer is difficult to define, as it is likely different from person to person. As such, narrowing it down to a well-thought and wise phrase, may be out of our reach.
Last edited:
I would still say love primarily from what I know and have learned. But, certainly with other reasons. I’m somewhat a skeptic on extraterrestrial life. But, that’s because of a possibility I’ve glimpsed. A theory I’m working on where it could exist at a later time in more than one universe/dimensions.
It’s the timing though. I don’t think it’s time yet for extraterrestrial life to exist.
The latest science and imaging would suggest that the universe is still expanding. OK, let us assume for a moment that this is true. Expanding outward into what? This implies that there is something outside the universe to expand into. What is on the other side? Is God on the other side? Is He not finished with His creation? It would seem so. Countless stars in the universe, countless planets orbiting these stars, and none of them except Earth have life? That is almost a mathematical and theoretical impossibility. I am not God, but one might logically think that God likely had more in His plan than Earth and the humans on it. I would never have the arrogance to think that we are a singularity. The mind of The Creator would logically have a significantly larger plan.
Unless it begins with us. Maybe we’re the foundation for extraterrestrial life to begin later.
Just a thought.
MNAus
Well-Known Member
Haha, yeah, it messes with your mind a bit, but it's not expanding into anything. Because as far as we can tell it IS everything. I think when you hear the word "expanding" the temptation is to think of it as an object, which then raises the question of where that thing actually exists. So don't think of it as growing, think of it as the distances between things is getting larger.
Given our location within our galaxy and in the universe, and the sorts of timelines that it takes for the universe to expand at the rates that it is, we certainly are not the "center" nor "origin point". Which implies there are galaxies with solar systems with planets much older and younger than ours, and with at least the potential for life. Again, I would never be arrogant enough to think that humans on Earth are the slightest bit "special". Furthermore, that sort of thinking might also imply that God, as we have become to know Him, might be more "local" and perhaps not overseeing the entirety of the universe. I highly doubt that within the vastness of it all, He decides to "park his butt" here and just watch over Earth. That's some small thinking.
If we were to entertain this idea of God, as we have become to know Him, then how does God come into existence? It would appear that God has a life of His own, the thinking, the planning, the creation, the overseeing, etc. God certainly did not come from nothing, and all His knowledge and wisdom was either bestowed upon Him from "someone" or He lived a life of his own. Certainly, this may suggest that He was not alone, that perhaps there were others like Him.
The more you keep pushing the questions, the more one has to think that we are not that special, but more a part of a community of mortals and perhaps, immortals.
Last edited:
This is the problem with trying to wrap ones mind around this idea of the "Big Bang". So, as I understand, "everything" was located into a singularity and then it exploded outward. Well, "everything", no matter how compacted, no matter how dense, still occupies a space. All this "stuff" is made up of "something". This also implies there was "something" outside it. If the created objects actually have a mass and they are traveling away from each other, this implies that distance also exists, which means that as this happens, it is occupying "a space" that it didn't before. What is that "space"? It certainly is "something". It can't be "nothing".
I can't help but to think that many of us are still thinking way, way too small here, that we are limiting our thinking to something that our brains can actually comprehend. I think it's all much, much bigger.
Maybe.
MNAus
Well-Known Member
It's super weird to wrap your mind round, indeed. You have to be careful not to use words that kind of infer conditions that we don't think existed. So "located" infers dimensions outside the singularity, which as it was the entirety of everything didn't exist. Likewise "outward", there's nothing outside to expand into.
The trouble is we are creatures of this universe at this time, which means all the analogies we have are imperfect because, well, they use things in the current universe in our sphere of understanding. Here's a couple.
So take a chess board. There's 64 squares. That is where the game happens. Asking what is outside the universe is like asking what happens on the 65th square of the chessboard. There is none. Saying "but 65 comes after 64" is correct, but that is all there is for the game, just that chessboard.
And for the idea that time started at the beginning of the universe, asking what happened before is like listening to a song and asking which note came before the first. There was none, the song is a whole, there's no bit of the song before the start. There are no prior notes.
Last edited:
I just love these discussions.
Speaking of imperfect analogies, the examples you gave don't really work. 64 squares is 64 squares. A song has a beginning and an end. However, when we are discussing the origins of the universe, it's on a whole different level. However, to oversimplify: "Something" does not just magically occur from "nothing". There has to be "building blocks" of "something", and we have gone to great lengths to discover these subatomic particles. How far down can you go with it? Even the smallest particles are made of "something", and that "something" is made of "something" else, so on and so forth. Furthermore, if "something" has a mass, it occupies a space, which also means it has a location within a space. So, if we are talking about a Big Bang, then whatever materials, that "everything" had to come into existence by some force(s). The materials, those building blocks had to come from somewhere. Which also implies a timeline beforehand. Again, I think we are limiting ourselves.
MNAus
Well-Known Member
Agreed, always great to stretch those neurons.
The two analogies are imperfect, but what they both attempt to do is demonstrate that there is no outside or before. Like I said, that's not something we can really comprehend, because everything we experience works according to things like before and after, inside and outside.
So in terms of the song, and thinking only in terms of the song, there is no note before the first, it is the first, it is not a part of a melody. There's not infinite pages of empty score we might witness prior. We cannot turn to the previous page of the score, there is no score prior to that. No notes, no bars, and importantly, no staff. In the musical dimension there is no before. Not a place where music might be, just nothing, not even the place where we might find music. So, we cannot answer the question "which bit of the song came before the first note". There was no song.
And the chess board, in terms of a game of chess, and thinking only in terms of what happens on a chess board. We can't have any discussion about what happens on the 65th square, because it doesn't exist. It's not an unused square, it's not a little area where we might paint an extra square should we want to, it's not even a concept, there's no lack of 65th square.
It's really weird. But arguably it's something we need to come to terms with because even answers that offer an extra layer as context for our universe suffer the same challenges.
He was always here. As I understand it in the void. Where nothing was.
This thinking is human as we understand things and reckon them. Humans know of beginning and endings. God is neither of these words. He is outside of their definition.
Truth.
Not this.
Certainly this.
God himself said there are no others in Heaven and even in the beginning there was only him. Genesis speaks of it. As does other parts of the Bible.
He oversees it all from beginning to end. I suspect at the same time.
We are to God. Hugely so. Each and everyone that ever was and ever will be.
Of course, the Bible was written by human beings, that, frankly, had a very limited understanding of their world and universe. I am cautious about taking some of the descriptions and explanations within the Bible literally, because as written, it is within the perspective of man's understanding those many years ago. That said, I believe the message(s) are rather timeless.
Even within the metaphysical world, "something" never comes from "nothing". There is a "cost", if you will. If there is a "void" as we understand it, I may be inclined to interpret it as simply another dimension that we cannot experience. However, even within THAT dimension, "something" never comes from "nothing". Energy and matter could have been transferred from one realm/dimension to ours. You can take that to satisfy both our understanding of God and our understanding of the beginning of the universe.
I've opened those doors and windows in my mind to accept the possibility of beings and consciousnesses beyond our realm, but I do it within the context and perspective of science. When I say this, it is with the understanding that both can co-exist. People who completely separate science from theology probably haven't taken a "deep dive" into understanding how something actually works down at the subatomic level. When you start to have that kind of understanding, then undoubtedly one begins to question is there the possibility of "intelligent design".
This world and the forces within this universe are amazing.
Even within the metaphysical world, "something" never comes from "nothing". There is a "cost", if you will. If there is a "void" as we understand it, I may be inclined to interpret it as simply another dimension that we cannot experience. However, even within THAT dimension, "something" never comes from "nothing". Energy and matter could have been transferred from one realm/dimension to ours. You can take that to satisfy both our understanding of God and our understanding of the beginning of the universe.
I've opened those doors and windows in my mind to accept the possibility of beings and consciousnesses beyond our realm, but I do it within the context and perspective of science. When I say this, it is with the understanding that both can co-exist. People who completely separate science from theology probably haven't taken a "deep dive" into understanding how something actually works down at the subatomic level. When you start to have that kind of understanding, then undoubtedly one begins to question is there the possibility of "intelligent design".
This world and the forces within this universe are amazing.
Vindiesel
Well-Known Member
God was a pre governmental ideology created to bring order within society through a plethora of stories and it also brought hope to people that feared death and to have a definitive answer to the unknown given science hasn’t uncovered it during that time.
I find it interesting that people still feel the need to debate of existence because if there is no proof from either understanding it cancels out and one must come to their own understanding. Most of what we understand is physical realm based through science and what we don’t understand just haven’t been uncovered.
My favorite quote is from George Carlin “ Tell people there's an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority will believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure.”
I find it interesting that people still feel the need to debate of existence because if there is no proof from either understanding it cancels out and one must come to their own understanding. Most of what we understand is physical realm based through science and what we don’t understand just haven’t been uncovered.
My favorite quote is from George Carlin “ Tell people there's an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority will believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure.”
No it doesn't. I think that's just how we intuitively see it because of our everyday experience. But that's not how physics works.
For useful discussions about whether the universe can come from nothing, and whether it might end up as nothing, or indeed whether perhaps it cycles (big bang - expansion - heat death - big bang...) you can read works by:
Lawrence Krauss
Frank Wilczek
Roger Penrose
The detailed math which describes an expanding universe does not imply it is expanding into some other space that already exists. In fact, the mainstream view of this right now is that space and time (and spacetime) are properties of the universe and do not exist outside of the universe.
Lawrence Krauss has a very accessible book titled "A Universe From Nothing" which discusses this.
Frank Wilczek's book "Fundamentals, Ten Keys to Reality" is similarly fascinating and succeeds in simplifying things without losing the important bits.
Penrose in particular has tried to extend this view to look at the physics that might apply as the universe expands. He developed a cyclical universe theory which suggests that as the universe cools and becomes less dense, the concept of scale ceases to have any meaning - so a large universe of almost nil density is mathematically equivalent to a small universe (singularity) of infinite density (which will explode with a big bang). He found some tentative evidence for this in the cosmic microwave background radiation, but by his own admission there is nothing anywhere near conclusive yet. However, last time Penrose put forward a theory it turned out to be true... and he won a nobel prize for it.
Lawrence Krauss
Frank Wilczek
Roger Penrose
The detailed math which describes an expanding universe does not imply it is expanding into some other space that already exists. In fact, the mainstream view of this right now is that space and time (and spacetime) are properties of the universe and do not exist outside of the universe.
Lawrence Krauss has a very accessible book titled "A Universe From Nothing" which discusses this.
Frank Wilczek's book "Fundamentals, Ten Keys to Reality" is similarly fascinating and succeeds in simplifying things without losing the important bits.
Penrose in particular has tried to extend this view to look at the physics that might apply as the universe expands. He developed a cyclical universe theory which suggests that as the universe cools and becomes less dense, the concept of scale ceases to have any meaning - so a large universe of almost nil density is mathematically equivalent to a small universe (singularity) of infinite density (which will explode with a big bang). He found some tentative evidence for this in the cosmic microwave background radiation, but by his own admission there is nothing anywhere near conclusive yet. However, last time Penrose put forward a theory it turned out to be true... and he won a nobel prize for it.
Last edited:
New Threads
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The problem I have with DSM-5-TR's diagnostic criteria for ASD
- Started by Oz67
- Replies: 23
-
