I can't believe my ears: Munjibunga just said the universe itself is alive and self aware: sentient.
I hope the slide rule gang don't read that and bust his ballzack too much.
How could it not be? And why would they?
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Question about mankind.
- Thread starter Metalbasspro
- Start date
How could it not be? And why would they?
Well, this is essentially what leads me to say that global warming or climate change, whatever it is this week, is fundamentally inconsequential whether humans are causing or not. The earth has endured many catastrophes far greater than glacials and interglacials. There have been several extinctions of most life on earth, all prior to the evolution of us, arguably the most advanced life form ever.
So, bottom line, the earth doesn't care about global warming. Humans are concerned with humans, and some humans play like it's about the earth as a whole, but really it's about humans. In the long run, humans can't even begin to impact the earth as much as one large asteroid or a massive volcanic eruption would.
Now I will say it one more time: If this is natural warming, there's not a single thing we can do about it but move to higher ground. My personal opinion is that whether or not humans are causing it or contributing to it, the scales have already been tipped, and reversing it is probably not possible. If that's the case, we're better off spending our time planning for it than figuring out ways to reverse it.
<Note> I know you just said that.
I didn't say there is no cause, I said there is no plan. Big difference. Everything happens because of something else, which is what Newton said. But just because something happens doesn't mean it has an end purpose.
Yes, nature has more than one meaning.
However, my comment, which you quoted, was in response to this:
∴
^ This is the context by which the term was used.
^ This is the reason the thread is going the way it's going.
^ This is the inevitable PacMan lock & pun when the thread is closed
.Scientists don't claim to have all the answers and their answers are always open to question.
That's really interesting-- the more we learn about the vastness of the universe, the more preposterous it seems to me that it could have been planned and created by a being. Intuitively, it seems to me that the complexity and variety has accrued incrementally over billions of years by a beautifully simple process: whatever works, persists and whatever doesn't work, doesn't persist.
Happily for me, science -- the most reliable tool we have for REALLY understanding what's going on rather than what we'd LIKE to think is going on -- agrees.
Intelligent design is a nice thought, and it's ever so comforting to feel that the universe was created specially for our wonderful species. But it's not based on empiricism.
Give one rational reason why "science needs to pay attention to religion" (other than to study how the human mind works, perhaps).
I get it now.
Someone doesn't want the thread to continue because they read something they don't like, so they insert something that will get the thread closed toot sweet.
I guess for some folks, the best discussion is none at all.
Someone doesn't want the thread to continue because they read something they don't like, so they insert something that will get the thread closed toot sweet.
I guess for some folks, the best discussion is none at all.
Nahhhhh it just needs ... more cowbell....
I get it now.
Someone doesn't want the thread to continue because they read something they don't like, so they insert something that will get the thread closed toot sweet.
I guess for some folks, the best discussion is none at all.
I hope you aren't referring to me... because if you passed MindReading 101.. you need to get a refund. Why would I want to get a thread locked because I read something I didn't agree with? (Like or dislike doesn't even apply in this case.. because... well... it's just a thread on the internet... and if I don't like it .. relief is just a mouse click away.)
Why not? You demand proof of viewpoints that oppose yours. Only what's convenient, I guess.
Exactly. The earth is a tough, old rock and will be around long after we're gone. If we (humans) eff things up too much, we die off and the earth does a reset. No prob. And yes, I am related to Captain Obvious.
Very true, but the point is that it seems desirable (to me, anyway) to attempt to do what we can to make life better. Otherwise, it's like saying, "I'll just dump this garbage and poison on my front yard because some day I won't be living here."
Not necessarily. There are more than a few posts here that make references that could get this locked, and yes, yours may have been one toeing the line. No offense intended. I have a fear that when people start quoting the Bible or supplying links to political websites, the thread is doomed and it may end a worthwhile discussion.
I get it now.
Someone doesn't want the thread to continue because they read something they don't like, so they insert something that will get the thread closed toot sweet.
I guess for some folks, the best discussion is none at all.
The best course is to ignore all baiting comments and continue the discussion as politely as possible.
maybe black sabbath just needs more cowbell. But I digress, whatever is going on its still comes down to the adapt or die principal, its how we made it this far to begin with.
That's because the being you're contemplating is not omnipotent.
But your intuitive supposition doesn't explain the origin of your various "whatevers."
Yes, science can explain SOME things, but not all things.
No, it's not, and there's a reason for that. But a discussion of it would probably get the thread closed...
I would simply suggest that since science doesn't know it all it should consider every possibility.
Several anti-religion/anti-belief posts (some thinly-veiled; others not so much) always pop up in these kinds of threads as well. I would hope that the "no religion" rule goes for both religious AND anti-religious commentary.
EVERY possibility? Or maybe it would be okay if it just considered your ideologically preconceived possibility?
