Fox Fire

The question is, how much money did you have to spend to earn the points for a $7,000 ticket?

Now I'm jealous. What did you make them with?

Because this is pretty much the coolest shit since sliced bread, I must share it with you all: https://sciencevsmagic.net/fractal/#0060,0090,1,1,0,0,1 The possibilities are endless! Math porn!!

This was a thing and I missed it?

This is what I do with my internet. Screw cable. Haven't had that in years.

Based off of observation? I was unaware we had people watching the birth of the universe . While the theory is backed by a lot of things it has yet to be proven. It is kinda similar with what people thought global warming was during the 90s, sure they read the signs and came up with an answer but it wasn't entirely correct. Yes we are screwing up the environment but they were wrong with the details. If we cant even figure out something we can see, feel and actually have detailed records for then why should we assume that the BBT is anywhere near fact? Furthermore we have such a small frame of reference for the observation to prove the BBT, and there is so much more we don't know. Hell we don't even have the faintest idea of whats out there to know what could influence the universe. With that said the BBT could very well be correct I just would like to point out that generally avoiding theories for ways to support an argument is a good idea. Also fun video that is semi relevant to this thread. https://youtu.be/Zgk8UdV7GQ0 Yes, observational. The cosmic microwave background is just one among many examples. There's no way of explaining it's existence without the Big Bang. We don't know every detail of the universe but no other theory comes even remotely or noticeably close to having the evidence that exists for the big bang. We've basically hit a wall with the Plank Epoch. Nothing prior can ever be experimentally verified. The topic of cosmogony is a guessing game.The Big Bang is not a "set in stone" theory. It's always being revised but the basic concepts always remain the same. Though I don't think the BBT conflicts with creationism. Unless you're a fundamentalist.

And my view is exactly what you just mentioned. That we are a universe that does not make sense. The phenomena of existence, with or without a god, is completely illogical. As a Taoist, my view is that existence itself is a paradox. There is no beginning or end. Simply endless being. EDIT: But I should avoid this thread. I like debating but I shouldn't preach. There is a demonstrable beginning to this universe (as you said, the BBT is pretty solid) and there will very likely be an end. I do agree that it does not make sense, and most importantly it has no PURPOSE. We humans like to find a purpose behind everything, it the way our psychology works. The universe however cares not about that I don't think that end is the ultimate end. I believe in a multiverse inherently connected to our own. I'm not completely sold on how exactly it works, but I like the idea of black hole cosmology and I'm pretty firm in believing fractal cosmology. So there are beginnings in some sense, but no overall beginning. All of existence in a perceivable form: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foxD6ZQlnlU

The Big Bang Theory is pretty damn solid. More than that. It's mostly based on math and physical observations. Doubting it is the equivalent of doubting gravity or that the sky looks blue. Having a great interest in cosmology I can certainly say it's about as proven as science allows something to be proven. Also, I don't think the universe ever actually "ends", like I explained above. I think it's a paradox.

If that were true, then why does so many thinks make sense? It always seemed to me that everything was set up in a manner that it is not chaos, everything has a reason why. For me that makes it seem like someone arranged it. With that said if we bring up death I wonder; if matter never disappears and only changes shape, then if a soul exists that means that death is not the end. Also neat, I have never met a Taoist before. It doesn't make sense in the sense that we can't understand it. We've taken things to the most fundamental level of existence and gotten down to the Plank Epoch. But according to the Big Bang, the Plank Epoch is not the "beginning" in the way we understand the term "beginning". Unfortunately, the Plank Epoch is essentially the beginning of time itself so attempting to describe anything beyond it is futile and trying to understand "beginning" in irrelevance to time is pointless. The universe, according to physicists is not as random as you might think. If you think of a Light Cone, Destiny or Fate is a thing, although it can be altered and perceived differently in certain places and distances. Essentially everything is chaos and ordered at the same time. But we can only base our perceptions on our own extremely limited experience. The true nature of nature is simply beyond our comprehension. To us, it seems like a paradox and according to our logic it likely is. And yes, I don't believe death is the end. Just like you said, our material goes on. I believe we lose our "ego", or our sense of self, but our existence certainly continues in a way that we can't possibly conceive. In Taoism there is a lot of debate about death because the religion itself doesn't really touch on that subject. Its largely ignored and considered irrelevant. I believe that consciousness is a temporary state. We didn't originate as consciousness nor will we end that way. The idea of "no me" is obviously concerning but it wont be while you're in that state. Because your ego will be gone, but everything that makes you up is still there, always will be and (referring to the light cone again) still impacts the evolution of the universe.

I think dying is not the end. People just need to realize that the ego is an illusion. It's a temporary state. Dying isn't the end. It's just the end of your perception of "me". What lies beyond death is inconceivable and futile to attempt to describe since it is beyond concepts of perception. When you die, you return to the nature from which you came. And you're already there anyway. You've always been there, even before you were born. People shouldn't worry about death since it's an inevitable fact of nature. They should concern themselves with life and doing what they truly believe. Fear of death shouldn't dictate peoples beliefs. Death is nothing to be craved, but nothing to be feared either. The thought of "no me" might scare some people but that's silly. You can't be scared if your ego doesn't exist. You will exist beyond concepts, even time itself.

We're talking about a natural disaster like a hurricane here though. Not a zombie apocalypse. TBH, the first thing that came to mind when I read this post was the TV show "The Walking Dead". Probably because I've been watching it lately. A hurricane isn't quite THAT desperate of a situation. I'd like to think people could still work together and trust each other in most cases. It's the best chance they all have. Maintaining society rather than raping it. To quote the TV show "We're on the same side- the living side". Although if it were a zombie apocalypse I'd probably be a lot less trustworthy. But in the case of a natural disaster, you don't have 90% of the population trying to eat you alive.

Well this doesn't much apply to me for 2 big reasons: 1. I live in Idaho. 2. Virtually everyone here is pro-guns. But assuming a massive disaster happened, I wouldn't really give any fucks about politics at that point. I'd be open to helping anyone within reason, although handing firearms to anyone should always be carefully considered. Can't say I wouldn't hand a firearm to a complete stranger, but likely not. It would depend on the situation. Though, overall, I would prefer to avoid situations where I or anyone else would need to use a gun. This seems to be more about politics and gun control than disasters and survival.

Now that's just silly.

And my view is exactly what you just mentioned. That we are a universe that does not make sense. The phenomena of existence, with or without a god, is completely illogical. As a Taoist, my view is that existence itself is a paradox. There is no beginning or end. Simply endless being. EDIT: But I should avoid this thread. I like debating but I shouldn't preach.

If God can influence the natural world, then it also must have its roots in the natural world. There must be observable mechanisms through which it acts, however mighty it is. If there are NO WAYS in which this can be done, then one might say it resides purely in the realm of imagination. If God however is rooted in the natural world, then the "no beginning" is problematic, as then we have to explain how it can exist, let alone act outside of space time (as it must have before the beginning of the universe). As I said, too many questions, and you're only further complicating your model I disagree. If you read William Lane Craig's writings on the kalam cosmological argument, he says that God existed outside of time, and in creating time and space entered time. There's no logical inconsistency there. What that means is that God need not have a beginning. (As an aside: Christians, of course, believe God is Trinity. That means that God the Father is outside of time, and God the Son is within time. So God is both inside of time and outside of time.) You're also presuming that God has to act within the physical laws of the universe. Christians believe in the uniformity of natural causes within an open system. In other words, we do accept that the universe behaves according to physical laws, however, these laws are subject to reordering by God: hence why Jesus could rise from the dead. That is not an impossibility. Look at developments in quantum physics: at a quantum level, electrons and various components of atoms do not act according to any discernible laws. So what? As to how precisely the spiritual world interacts with the physical world: sure, there are limits on what we can know as human beings. That doesn't make the concept of God affecting stuff in the physical world *improbable* per se, it simply means that we don't know how precisely that occurs. Isn't that exactly what we should expect when it comes to God? He is infinite, we are finite: there are some things we should not expect to understand, especially as we operate in the physical world. I am a former militant atheist who converted to Christianity after a series of supernatural events in 2008, climaxing in one particular experience which has absolutely changed my life. As a result of that encounter I went instantly from hardcore atheist to believer. I can say without the shadow of a doubt that God is real and that spirits (good and evil) can affect the physical world because I have witnessed that with my own eyes. You can believe me or not but when we start having an abstract conversation about how exactly God or evil spirits affect the physical world I just find it a moot point. Yet there is no explanation as to how a fully formed ego can exist outside of existence itself. Because it can't. If God exists, he simply another aspect of the phenomena known as existence. Otherwise, he does not exist.

My thoughts on theism: Theism is impossible. If you believe in the Big Bang then you essentially believe that everything in the universe is one thing that is expanding and separating itself into countless different aspects. This same idea is a core concept of Taoism (my religion) called the "10,000 things phenomena" (10,000 being the ancient Chinese number used to express infinite). It implies the concept of Pantheism, that everything is one and individual "things" are simply the countless aspects of the one. Now if this is true, it goes down to the most fundamental levels. Meaning that even simple concepts like good, evil, up, down, light, dark, and everything that makes up perception and ego are all contained within the universe because they are simply different aspects of that universe. That being said, we cannot apply any kind of concepts to a diety that may exist outside the universe. Whenever we make a statement about God, or apply a concept to God, we are by default, wrong. For example: If we say "God is good" we are wrong. Because the concept of "good" is just an aspect of the universe and contained within it. Anything that exists outside of this universe cannot possibly be described because it is beyond any and all concepts we can possibly conceive. Or in the words of Lao Tzu: Tao Te Ching: Verse 4 (As translated by Ralph Alan Dale) Tao Te Ching: Verse 25

I think you need to take a step and think outside the box of a common 'westerner'. Because this sentiment is how us westerners see things, i'm not muslim, but I can very proudly disagree with this. I have several female muslim friends and I was always curious why about this too, but after talking to a few, i'm honestly satisfied it has nothing to do with 'abuse' or anything else you mentioned. It's completely a religious choice (for most anyway). I won't deny hearing stories about muslim women being oppressed by their husbands/family to dress in a certain type of way, but those stories are very few tbh. To you it's a black tent, to them it's a way of dressing modestly. You need to step out your comfort zone and realise there are different cultures with different ideas of what is right to them I'm kinda with ccabal here. I know a girl that wears hijab sometimes and it's definitely her choice considering her husband is Christian. Hijabs that cover the hair and neck give off a sentiment of modesty and Islam is not the only culture who does this. However full body veils that cover your face give off a whole different sentiment. A very sexist one considering the men in said culture are not nearly held to the same standard. Further more, faces are.... well, faces. They are an important part of human communication and individual identity. When we say "________ is the face of _________" to describe things we use the word face because faces are the single most important identifying factor of any person. Humans evolved to have complex faces and the ability to recognize all sorts of things just from observing the face. If we were intended to hide our faces, we'd probably be a whole different species. You can hide your face and interact with people, but that's about the extent of the human to human connection. Otherwise it's more like talking to an avatar on an internet forum. Which is fine for the internet where people are separated my miles, but not in person. Not in physical proximity. It goes far beyond modesty and into the realm of identity white washing, patriarchal mental manipulation and control out of irrational ego based fear. It's not just barbaric, it's animalistic. We don't need to cover our wives to prevent others eyes from simply doing what eyes do. Not everyone that looks at your wife wants to fuck her. Not every woman who doesn't properly wear a tent is being shared by her husband. Of course we can always say that viewing another culture this way is simply bigoted. That such people just don't understand. But does that also make someone a bigot for criticizing the social values of Nazism? For equating it to oppression? I'm sure most women who cover their faces do so out of choice. But I'm also sure most of them make that choice because they're mentally manipulated and indoctrinated to believe they are essentially subhuman from birth. I don't need to be a Muslim to understand that. In fact if I was, I'd probably have less understanding of that reality. FML religion is stupid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcO9svaOahM

Playboy is incredibly over rated. Good riddance.

Tell that to Ukrainians.

This particular argument does not make sense to me. There is a very real reason to consider the scenario that the universe is being governed and created by a supreme being (God) who loves his people so much that he sacrificed his only Son (Jesus) to save those who accept him. The bottom line is: if Christianity is incorrect (which I do not believe it to be) then we really won't lose anything in the end. However, if atheism is incorrect, you will have lost everything. I would think that it would be worth it for anyone to live their life believing, rather than gamble on being incorrect in the end. I don't see any reason to believe that. Equally speaking, if you go through life believing in something that isn't real, following it's teachings, is equally a gamble in the sense that you may be wasting your life and brain power when for we all we know, YOLO.

Atheist movements that make it a goal to discredit theism or pretend to have a higher moral stance with no basis for said morality.

You can't have read the article this quickly. Let's focus on debating its points. Maybe I'll read it later but like I said, I'm not big on "hollier than thou" atheism.