Existential Nihilism

[Stevil]

Every question seems like an attack.  I'll try and view it as you state here.  

Yes, I know you see me in this light, as an aggressive, angry person.
Unfortunately via the written word, much of the communication is lost.
I am very objective, mostly unemotional. Just inquisitive and skeptical/free thinking (meaning that I always listen to others with much doubt and need to form my own opinion based on my own reasoning/logic).

I certainly find religion fascinating and am often left in a position of disbelief with regards to how the other person has come to their conclusion, do they really believe what they are telling me?

People are entitled to believe what they want, the problem is me and my inability to understand them.

[Stevil]

I highly suspect the very nature of "nothing" means that there will always be "something" even if the sum total of "something" exactly equals "nothing". I hope this makes sense. It does to me, but then again I know what thinking goes behind this statement.

Nuh'uh! You'll have to expand on this one please.

It is postulated that the sum total of all the energy in our Universe is 0
Positive and negative energy cancel each other out. So it is possible that the sum total of all that exists within infinite space = 0.

We are literally nothing, although broken down to the micro level (sub universe) it appears that there is something (galaxies, solar systems, planets, people, atoms...).
But the very nature of nothing might mean that it is impossible to have literally nothing, maybe this is why we have quantum fluctuations, maybe this is the very reason why things pop in and out of existence all the time, everywhere.
If this is correct then there never was a point in history where there was absolutely nothing.

Of course, trying to think backward along a linear cause and effect path would mean that you need to go backwards an infinite amount of time (however you define time). So thinking about how we get to now, you might suggest an infinite amount of "time" must have happened first, thus you might conclude that we never would have got to "now". This stuff can do your head in.

I think the only thing that is important is that we are here now, we live in the "Now", so we need to start at a point relative to now, possibly that could be related to the initial big bang of our universe.

I do like to assume infinity, this makes it clear to me that what goes on in space is perpetual thus no system or state is forever. "Now" is most likely some kind of perpetual equilibrium. Black holes must stop being black holes at some point. They cannot go on forever collecting mass and energy, that mass and energy must escape somehow. A big bang and expanding universe would be a nice result of a black hole which has reached some critical mass point. So I also conclude that there are universes all over the place, throughout space. We just can't see them due to the limitation of the speed of light as well as the distance they necessarily must be away from us. Maybe it is their gravity which is causing our own universe to continually expand rather than contract as it otherwise would. Maybe some of the background radiation that is present is part of past universes (not all because of our big bang). Maybe dark matter/dark energy is what happens to energy over a huge amount of time once it eventually "dies" (becomes inert) or maybe dark matter/dark energy is simply the result of an incorrect assumption.

Anyway, this is an unfounded unbased theory of my unscientific mind. Maybe it has flaws, I don't know. But I don't think we have to assume an intelligent creator that had knowledge before there was existence, that existed before there was existence, that is made of nothing and can causally think things through before there is the notion of time.

[Crow]

What relevance does a creator (if one exists) have with regards to the ability of systems to ponder?

For example if you look to evolution you can see that complex systems developed from non complex systems, we are much more complex and "smarter" than our distant ancestors. Our creator could simply be unintelligent autonomous forces e.g. gravity, electromagnitism, nuclear forces. Can you prove otherwise?

Well we may have actually been more intelligent in our evolutionary forms prior to modern humans due to the reduction in brain size, as is seen with cro-magon skulls, also the same is true with neanderthal skulls and is strong evidence that cro-magon and neanderthals interbred. So our reduction in brain size might have been more beneficial to us as a species as we were more reliant on each other.

I don't really know what I am trying to say to be honest I just fancy writing so this is a bit of a ramble. The "spark" concept just doesn't really hold any weight any more with our ever expanding knowledge on our evolutionary past. What was the spark concept again? something along the lines of around ten thousand years ago there was a leap forward in technology and there must have been some spark that created it and the human soul or something? This is poor hang on to a god (im not saying its impossible), you can look at any of the technological leaps forward all it takes is one person to figure out the basics of farming. Sometimes its the most simple ideas are the hardest to discover because the signs are so subtle we ignore them, and the technology for the method of production has been found with  other forms of the homo genus, and the image of other species . The other "spark" concept for evolution could have simply been something as simple as an asteroid, it doesn't need to be manipulated from anywhere, it may even just need the right elements temperature and time.

We don't actually know and may never know, you might be right, maybe the matrix is right, maybe the scene from the end of the first men in black film is correct, maybe the guy with the crazy hair on the discovery channel is correct, there are just as many different theories as the human brain can think of and I have just highlighted some of the most obvious, the thing is nobody knows and I am cool with that, people can talk about god and aliens and robots and multidimensional interaction and whatever else but without any solid evidence its just talk, sure its interesting but that's all it will be to me, a bit of fun.

[Firebird]

The spark, so to speak, that began evolution.

My first instinct when I read this was the lightning bolt that struck that pool of goo billions of years ago and began the process of amino acids forming into proteins, thus forming life. Maybe I'm thinking too literally

[Genericguy]

Of course, trying to think backward along a linear cause and effect path would mean that you need to go backwards an infinite amount of time (however you define time). So thinking about how we get to now, you might suggest an infinite amount of "time" must have happened first, thus you might conclude that we never would have got to "now". This stuff can do your head in.

The only other time my mind has been blown this much, was when I saw a picture of both actors that played Starbuck inside of a Starbucks!

[Crow]

The only other time my mind has been blown this much, was when I saw a picture of both actors that played Starbuck inside of a Starbucks!

Just a picture, imagine if you had seen them both in Starbucks - mind fucked.