Another Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

Well, what conclusions about the nature of the universe could seeing color possibly grant you?

Since I'm pretty sure you're a decent guy, I'll take that at face value.

Color doesn't grant you conclusions about the nature of the universe. It was an analogy. About perceiving things differently.

A different perception on the existance of God however can totally change your view on the nature of the universe.

...where you're talking about a colorseer trying to convince others that color is there even though they can't see it. But that's the thing: color isn't there, it's just a perception.

Yes. That is kind of what I'm saying... neither person is necessarily wrong. They are both correct based upon what they perceive. I was merely acknowledging that people try to convince others about God, and a simplified version of why... not that it was the correct thing to do. This analogy was simply done to show how a Christian thinks. It doesn't have to be perfectly matched up with reality. Its just a metaphor.

Originally Posted by TheSpacePope

Honestly, perception defines reality, and in your reality God is a constant, definite figure, while in Zak's reality it's not.
That doesn't mean either of you are right,
just your different perceptual concepts define your realities.

I think, maybe, that we're kind of saying similar things here?


Okay, thats the last time I use an analogy in here. People overthink it too much. I guess we didn't all take those english classes on metaphors...

Or maybe I just suck at giving analogies. Who knows?

[Elminster_Amaur]

Those people don't literally sense something nobody else does. They worked with much the same facts, they just connected the dots better.

Taking Einstein as an example again, he said himself that he didn't think in words. He thought in pictures, because it took him a very long time to learn language. So yes, he had a completely different perception of the world around him because almost all of us use metaphor and simile to relate ideas to other ideas that we already have a good grasp on, whereas he used pictures to think with, and as we all know the saying goes "a picture is worth a thousand words". He had a far clearer view of the Universe because of the way he thought, and I'd wager that most of the Great thinkers of history did as well. I think that that would count as a vastly different manner of perceiving the world from the normal. I'm also fairly sure that every has the same "feeling" but everyone will interpret it differently based on their life experiences, education, background and maybe even genealogy. Just because I may interpret that feeling as meaning that Buddhism is the closest thing to the truth among major "religions", doesn't mean anyone else will. This is what I meant to say. I've always had a bit of a problem with writing in English.

[TheSpacePope]

Just because I may interpret that feeling as meaning that Buddhism is the closest thing to the truth among major "religions", doesn't mean anyone else will.

Bhuddhism is an excellent way of life,
There should be no doubt about that.

I've always wondered, as I go though life if religion is just one of those things like zen. As soon as you attempt to learn a "Way" you have lost your fundamental way, which is where you should be.

The farthest I've ever gotten in books about zen and spiritual enlightenment are where the author mentions that you cannot learn these tecniques, you have to experience them.

I am sure that in later editions, all pages beyond those will be blank, to save publishing costs.

I think, maybe, that we're kind of saying similar things here?

Precisely. Your preconcieved notions are different from mine.
So we have different experience that shapes our view of the world/universe.

Question: (not pickin on em) for Christians and athiests.
Are humans the only intelligent life in the universe?

[Azisien]

My gut would tell me no, we are not the only intelligent life in the universe. That doesn't mean we'll ever meet up with other intelligent life, but the sheer scope of the universe alone tells me it's highly improbable "we're alone."

Of course, that's speculation based on probability and the assumption abiogenesis or some similar theory will one day be supported. Currently, just my gut.

To attack my own position though, if there were intelligent life in the universe I am a little surprised we haven't spotted it yet. There must be some hyper advanced alien species out there, and I'm wondering why we haven't found their cosmic practical jokes yet, with our primitive monkey telescopes.

Also, the many intelligent animals and invertebrates resent your "human as the only intelligent life" comments!

[ZAKtheGeek]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

Since I'm pretty sure you're a decent guy, I'll take that at face value.

Color doesn't grant you conclusions about the nature of the universe. It was an analogy. About perceiving things differently.

A different perception on the existance of God however can totally change your view on the nature of the universe.

So you're saying that a belief in God makes the world seem very different? No question, I totally agree. What I thought you were trying to say is that feeling the universe in a different sort of way would make you realize that its nature involves a god.

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

Yes. That is kind of what I'm saying... neither person is necessarily wrong. They are both correct based upon what they perceive. I was merely acknowledging that people try to convince others about God, and a simplified version of why... not that it was the correct thing to do. This analogy was simply done to show how a Christian thinks. It doesn't have to be perfectly matched up with reality. Its just a metaphor.

Logically my next question here would be, "So God's just a perception?" Um... I guess I won't ask that.

Originally Posted by Elminster_Amaur

Taking Einstein as an example again, he said himself that he didn't think in words. He thought in pictures, because it took him a very long time to learn language. So yes, he had a completely different perception of the world around him because almost all of us use metaphor and simile to relate ideas to other ideas that we already have a good grasp on, whereas he used pictures to think with, and as we all know the saying goes "a picture is worth a thousand words". He had a far clearer view of the Universe because of the way he thought, and I'd wager that most of the Great thinkers of history did as well. I think that that would count as a vastly different manner of perceiving the world from the normal.

Okay, I'm pretty sure we're using different definitions of "perceive" here, because what I'm reading here doesn't have to do with perception but does have to do with thought. Einstein felt the world same as anybody, but in his mind he represented and arranged these feelings in a unique way. In other words, he connected the dots differently.

Originally Posted by Crocodilus Pontifex

Are humans the only intelligent life in the universe?

Depends on your standard of intelligence. There could be other intelligent life right on earth.

If you specifically want extraterrestrial, the answer is obviously "I don't know." I'd say it's possible but I don't want to go out on a limb and say it's probable.

[Elminster_Amaur]

To attack my own position though, if there were intelligent life in the universe I am a little surprised we haven't spotted it yet. There must be some hyper advanced alien species out there, and I'm wondering why we haven't found their cosmic practical jokes yet, with our primitive monkey telescopes.

The first thing I want to say is this: Even if there is intelligent life out there right now, all of our observations are based on light that reaches us from elsewhere. That means that, unless they're within our solar system, it'd take at least 100 years between them sending any signals in our direction and us receiving them, and that's if they're at the closest system to ours, which I highly doubt.

My gut would tell me no, we are not the only intelligent life in the universe. That doesn't mean we'll ever meet up with other intelligent life, but the sheer scope of the universe alone tells me it's highly improbable "we're alone."

Of course, that's speculation based on probability and the assumption abiogenesis or some similar theory will one day be supported.

Even assuming abiogenesis or some other theory is true, with the sheer scale and unknown age of the Universe taken into account, who is to say that other intelligent species would be around right now? Even taking into account the whole "over infinite time, any theoretically possible thing will happen an infinite number of times" thing, who is to say that THIS is one of those times that multiple intelligent species are simultaneously existing in this universe?

Another thing about that, even IF this is one of those times, our galaxy alone is so massive that we'd never be able to detect them unless they were at least in our quadrant.

Assuming that there IS another (or multiple others) highly intelligent species out there right now, who is to say that they're even in our galaxy? I'll give that maybe there's life on other planets in our galaxy, but we can't assume that all life will be at our level or greater. Even if they're far more intelligent than us, who says they've got any interest at all in exploring space. Maybe they're more interested in playing with time, or maybe they're a Utopian society that doesn't need to physically expand to keep people happy.

If we assume 1 in 20 planets (including their moons) have life at all (a relatively high number, I'm thinking), how many of those would have evolved past single celled organisms?

Edit:

Einstein felt the world same as anybody, but in his mind he represented and arranged these feelings in a unique way. In other words, he connected the dots differently.

Obviously, it is the same world, right? However, the only way to come to a different conclusion about something is to perceive that something differently. I'm not sure what definition of perceive you are using, but I'm pretty sure that the way your mind represents and arranges feelings and observations is a major part of it. Perception is entirely in the mind's interpretation of that which it is perceiving.

Edit 2:

Originally Posted by Me

Obviously, it is the same world, right?

This was meant more as a rhetorical question to make people think, than as an actual question that I want an answer to. Observation has been shown to directly alter the physical world, so I don't think it's that far-fetched to say that the world is different depending on who does the observing.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Originally Posted by Azisien

To attack my own position though, if there were intelligent life in the universe I am a little surprised we haven't spotted it yet. There must be some hyper advanced alien species out there, and I'm wondering why we haven't found their cosmic practical jokes yet, with our primitive monkey telescopes.

Maybe we're supposed to be the pranksters.

Originally Posted by Elminster_Amaur

Obviously, it is the same world, right? However, the only way to come to a different conclusion about something is to perceive that something differently. I'm not sure what definition of perceive you are using, but I'm pretty sure that the way your mind represents and arranges feelings and observations is a major part of it. Perception is entirely in the mind's interpretation of that which it is perceiving.

Okay, well, that's not what I was talking about at all. So yeah, different things.

[Elminster_Amaur]

Okay, well, that's not what I was talking about at all. So yeah, different things.

If you don't mind me asking, what were you talking about?

[ZAKtheGeek]

Actually sensing the world in a different way. Literally having different information coming in than everybody else.

[TheSpacePope]

If we assume 1 in 20 planets (including their moons) have life at all (a relatively high number, I'm thinking), how many of those would have evolved past single celled organisms?

If only .0000000000000000000000lotsmorezeros1% of the planets life had evolved beyond single celled organisims, that is still an near infinte number of planets that have life.
I heard a formula that was....And I can't remember exactly.
10 trillion capable, 10 billion beyond single celled, 10 million with multicellular capabilities, 10,000 with intelligent life.
And that was for our galaxy.
Not sure on that.