"Peter Dettmann" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 19:55:03 GMT, Moose wrote:

Who/what created you?
Your mother and father?

Who/what created your mother and father?
Their mother and father? Your grandparents?

Who/what created your grandparents?
Their parents? Your great-grandparents?

The honest answer:

They were not created, or at least many say. They, more exactly, "CAME INTO
BEING." What might lead one to conclude that this "coming into being" is
more right than "created to be" is that things are coming into being right
now, as we read this post.

Why did amino acids do what they did? Because they did, because that's what
chemicals seem to DO. Why did the first life from what these chemicals
did - get so diverse and spread out? Because that's what living things seem
to DO when they adapt. Living things? How did inorganic chemicals develop
the ability to THINK - part of the definition of life? Guess that's what
happens, that what some chemicals, not all chemicals, DID. And so the
diverse forms of life adapt. Otherwise they perish. My computer was
"created" - by people. Amino acids were not created.

Where did the amino acids that ended up being US come from? Well, even some
scientists get into the "far out" with an attempt at an answer. A comet?
If so, how'd they get on the comet? Infinite regress. Whether you see this
as creation (who created the creator) or as we do, as EMANATION (came into
being, that is what that means, "emanation"), the answer is NOT KNOWN. We
have a word for that: THATness. Everything else is "THIS." Sound funny?
It's a concept that predates Judeo Christianity by thousands of years. It's
absolutely NOT a creation philosophy or doctrine. And in case you look for
it on the internet, the purest unadorned version of "thatness" predates
Buddha by a long time. Call it Tao if you like. If you think you know it,
then that's not it.

A noble attribute Moose, and one that is sadly very rare.

Nobody knows. Many guess, and many believe different things throughout the
world, but the question, as it stands, cannot be answered.

True. So why do people argue about what they CAN NOT KNOW? I was just
playing around with some of the dogmatic atheists on here. But to say that
all people that think the answer is God are retarded or low IQ is just a
plain all-out lie - and that got stated on this thread. That is what some
atheists were saying. It's not true. Atheists are even against the
Deists - and as far as I know, it's the Deists that figured out a whole lot
of the technology we have today and invented all this stuff.

The 'honest' answer here seems to be that you do not know.
Second guessing other people and generalising seems out of place with
your later comment about "conclusively proven without real evidence".
Mind you the real problem is actually determining just exactly what
constitutes 'real evidence'.

True. THEORIES in quantum physics are not facts. They are based merely on
observations and most of that is over most heads anyway, unless it's
presented by physicists on shows about it for LAYMEN (which I do watch,
beatuful images is reason enough to watch). There are more than 5
completely contradictory string theories out there - all based on the same
identical observations and known facts about some things. Others think
string theory is rubbish (some top guys think it), they also have access to
the same identical observations and the same facts about some things.
(Kinda exactly like how those with an alternate explanation for "The All"
have Allah, Adonai, Jesus.... - all different enough to often hate each
other for their differences and kill each other over it...) Keep in mind,
the observers are humans. They are relying on the HOPE that the facts that
they DO have hold up when ways to better scrutinize become available, and
hoping that they thoroughly observed all that they can possibly observe - in
order to form their so-different theories.

This is what it is all like - a real analogy. People on sci.physics MIGHT
like the analogy, but they'd surely see the humor in it. You and other
humans are in a house in a specific location and you can't venture far from
that location at all. All of the humans are male. One of the humans is
African American and speaks with a very high falsetto voice as his norm,
he's also sort of short. Another human is Zulu from Africa and speaks with
a very low baritone voice, he's very tall. One is Russian with low baritone
voice, he's very tall. One is Italian with high tenor voice, he's very
short. One is Chinese with a voice hard to classify as high or low, and
very tall. One is Vietnamese with a voice hard to classify as high or low,
and very short. One is Native American Lakota and he's quite tall, he has
the ability to vary his voice and make it very very low or very very high.
One is Native American Navajo and speaks in a total monotone, he is of
medium height. I don't have to spell out how different these humans look
from each other, with regards to color, hair, facial features and etc. That
should be as-given. They are in this location and they can't really venture
too far from that location.

Now, let us say all these humans, in their location, see 5 animals. The
animals look very different from each other, different color, different
size, different facial features and they make different sounds; but they
also do share certain things - a bodily structure and the way they walk on
all four legs and are able to lift themselves up on two hind legs at times,
and they all have two eyes, nose and mouth in pretty much the same place as
each other, with ears up top of their heads.

Lumpers in the room say "They are the same animal, the differences are
superficial. They are all four-leg walkers just as we humans are all
two-leg walkers.." Splitters come along and say, "They are 5 separate
species of animal just as we here in this room are of different races."
When the arguments over those two statements are done with, they pick up the
broken furniture, clean up their cuts, scratches and bruises, and the
observations continue.

The observers, as humans, are animals themselves that rely primarily on
eye-sight as their main sense, and they use speech to communicate. And so -
the observation is biased right there. The observers can't smell the
difference or do anything other than listen to the noises the 5 animals
make, and look at them; but they can only look at them when they come close
enough to see - the humans can never go to where these 5 animals go when
they wander away. It doesn't yet occur to the humans that the animals might
act very differently from their norm when in close proximity to these
eavesdropping humans..... which they can surely smell, heh. Well, the
humans see different color and different sizes and different faces but
similar body structure. That's established.

What do the observers hear? Well, they have to use human sound-names for
what they hear, or try to mimic what they hear and even maybe try to spell
it. #1 yells in a specific way, long drawn out, tonal yells that a human
can make if he says "ooooo," like a long "oo" sound, as in the word "boot."
That animal does this in a falsetto voice, like a female opera singer. #2
grunts in short-spaced baritone oooo's and also makes a gargling sound. #3
makes a very low-pitched, lower than baritone, raspy gargling sound in long
drawn out almost-yells and sometimes makes the same sound but shorter in
duration, like a grunt. #4 shouts in high short bursts like a person saying
"hey!, hey!, hey!," in a tenor tone #5 whines in long tonal whines like an
alto woman singing, or short whines in a falsetto voice.

Theories abound. Arguments continue. "ALL ARE FOUR LEGGED!!!" screams one
human repeatdly. "Number 1 and number 5 sing," says another, as he by-now
learns to sing the same tunes, or similar tunes in mimicry. "Number 2 and 3
gargle and grunt." "Ah ha," says the human who was previously not saying
much: "Numbers 1 and 5 are closely related, numbers 2 and 3 are closely
related, and number 4 is markedly different." Everyone ponders that, "yes,
that's correct" they agree. Someon else chirps up and says "Yes, but
closely related, how closely? We humans are closely related to chimps, but
we aren't chimps. They still are all four legged and they "speak" in their
own way. Well, don't we all walk on two legs and speak different native
languages?" Good point. They all agree it's a good point.

Thus far, NONE have identified which, if any, are different, how many
different types they may be, and if any, which are actually related or the
same species of animal. All of them see the same 5 animals and hear the
same things.

And that's about how "WELL" humans can actually "go and see" things about
the cosmos. Now this is not even close to the question: "Where did it ALL
come from."

For me, it makes no difference at all if people think it ALL came from a
creator god (pick one), or an emanating god (pick one), or a THING (pick a
name for the thing). It is UNKNOWN. I think it can not BE known. What we
CAN know is that somehow, things are here, stars are here, planets,
galaxies, black holes, etc. What we CAN know is that LIFE is here and that
life did indeed, come into being from inorganic chemicals. Why did that
happen? Because that's what happened. It happened, therefore it is logical
to deduce that it CAN happen. Does someone or some THING make this all
happen, or kinda of drive it in motion? MAYBE.

Since the detractors insist that sci.physics see this, OK then. I say that
I think, "Thatness" (the unknowable THAT) is the thing that set all THIS in
motion. That is a BELIEF. Let someone try to refute that an "unknowable
that" set it in motion. Try to do it without putting words in my mouth,
gods in my intent when there are none, or flaming me. TRY. In the USA,
people shouldn't be trashed or flamed for having their BELIEFS.

People who believe that MS Windows sucks, believe so because of their
experiences. People who believe MS Windows is the best believe so because
of their experiences. That is WHY we have choices - Mac, Windows, Linux,
etc. CHOICES - the ability to CHOOSE. Beliefs are the same - people are
free to choose and are SUPPOSED TO BE left in peace with that. Not harassed
or called names. I find it amusing that a "CHAOS MAGICIAN" is calling me
names for voicing my beliefs about "unknowable that." The irony is not
elusive at all. I find it sickening that atheists are accusing all God
believers (Christians, they did not trash Jews) of being of sub-moron IQ
when they are in the vast majority. Ain't atheists HAPPY that we aren't a
democracy where the majority RULES, after all? I bet they are.

Some may say that my analogy above was all so obvious. Yeah? THEY didn't
come up with it. I did. Touche.

Problems DO NOT arise when a large group of people, the majority in a
nation, claim that they KNOW what made it all happen, call it XXX. Problems
arise when they claim that they know what XXX thinks and wants and then
they try to make YOU DO what they claim XXX wants. Do it or die! Do it or
be persecuted. Do it - OR ELSE (fill in blanks) - the least of it, DO IT or
get harassed. This is just a PRIMATE tendency to go for the Big Authority.
Whether the authority is on the top branch of a tree waving his arms around
to show that he rules, or in a white coat in a lab or priest's garb makes no
difference. It's the same BEHAVIOR. The behavior is primate.

Kinda wonder if other animals are that dumb to argue about such things. For
most other land mammals at least, it's a lot simpler. Fight it out or
gesture it out. The one who wins - rules. Not exactly sure how dolphins
and whales decide who rules, but they and other land mammals manage without
slaughtering each other over trivial ****.


Peter Dettmann

Seek happiness, enjoy your life, and don't believe anything that can't be
conclusively proven without real evidence.

Touche on that one. Live IS a wonder to be lived. It shouldn't be a
problem to be solved. And, order to make life more a wonder to be lived -
maybe we should fix the health insurance problems, the job problems and
other all TOO human problems in our own damned country (get to the rest of
the globe much later) before spending any money on the cosmos. My take?
Speed of light travel is either way too slow if it could be done (we are
nowhere near anything like that), or ya can't get off to anywhere due to the
increases in mass that would happen at that kind of speed. Too heavy to
MOVE. Instead of seeing pieces of some animal, trunk, foot, ear and
theorizing thru the roof at the cost of BILLIONS over time - how about
fixing the human things that are NOT theoretical and CAN BE fixed. Can
humans manage that? Not so far - which means humans aren't so smart.

Moose