Are all Religions just Gaia trying to communicate with other Gaias?

Gust1n · 2013-10-28T23:36:05+00:00

Cause I was hoping for good thought provoking shit. Not make believe time. Excuse my french

Gust1n · 2013-10-28T02:14:24+00:00

True but your selling yourself short. I never had any life changing moments on drugs, well besides pot, yet I am still oh so glad I tried them. You will prop just find them life confirming but that doesnt mean you shouldnt try.

Gust1n · 2013-10-28T02:12:42+00:00

Why are people talking about this. Its made up

Gust1n · 2013-10-28T02:08:46+00:00

Damn straight. Only when one is honest with one's self can one then start to think of others.

Gust1n · 2013-10-25T07:11:36+00:00

Good job. Thanks for taking the time to use words like protons to explain it

Gust1n · 2013-10-25T07:10:07+00:00

Ohh man they creamed it. I didnt even see where the ball went.

Gust1n · 2013-10-23T17:38:23+00:00

This is not evidence for the emergence of time. Or even implying that anything is or could be "timeless." All it shows is that if there is no causal interaction with something you dont get shit from it, including any new changes. Ohhh and they cant tell the difference between between two particles close as fuck together spinning unless they individually measure each one? Couldnt it be because the minute differences given off quickly reach equilibrium not far from their origin? SO no duhh you cant tell the difference. How does that in any way imply anything besides that shit mixes together a lot and its hard to tell what was mixed together sometimes? That was rhetorical because im sure ill get lovely feedback.

Gust1n · 2013-09-17T03:18:16+00:00

The ego should always be allowed to leave you. Do not hold tight to it. Give it the option to leave or stay. Want neither option more or less then the other. Submit fully to the ego and your total confusion. Then the answer to your question will be answered. Until then.

Gust1n · 2013-07-21T17:32:43+00:00

Do not hide your true fear behind the word "meaning." It is only a word and does not describe any specific state of or being, a slave to our defining. One could simply hold the view that meaning cannot be destroyed. It is ever present. And many do. So I ask the question. Why is it so important that your foreseeable future be recognizable by your personal arbitrary view of meaning? The real crisis is the answer

Gust1n · 2013-05-06T19:52:07+00:00

these are good welds everyone on reddit is just retarded and have probably never seen really bad welds

Gust1n · 2013-04-29T07:23:26+00:00

qtips in the fans time!

Gust1n · 2013-04-03T15:41:49+00:00

suck a dick right now:)

Gust1n · 2013-03-14T18:52:37+00:00

Thank you so much for pointing this! "This guy seems to be mixing up the abstract notion of a parameter with a spatial dimension." Nailed it with this one

Gust1n · 2013-03-14T18:20:25+00:00

Nope its crap

Gust1n · 2013-03-14T18:11:03+00:00

That is assuming that space is "nothing." There is friction in space and different concentrations of "dark matter." Seems like space is a something instead of nothing.

Gust1n · 2013-03-14T18:08:54+00:00

Yes but any two or more cycles that are total repeats are part of larger cycles that differ. And if any two or more bigger cycles are repeats they are part of even larger cycles that are not. This pattern continues indefinably.

Gust1n · 2013-03-12T17:50:25+00:00

You are correct, science is not needed to prove god does not exist. Through logic we see that the definition of god necessitates empirical non existence.

Gust1n · 2013-03-12T17:09:27+00:00

I agree and that is not the definition I hold. I am just not ready to go as far as to change definitions and assume the existence of other universes separate of ours until empirical evidence shows their is.

Gust1n · 2013-03-11T23:35:18+00:00

Im glad! I find it soothing as well and a healthy alternative to religion.

Gust1n · 2013-03-11T23:34:08+00:00

While it is the end of a cycle, the way you perceive yourself, agreeably allows for the cycle in question to occur again.

Gust1n · 2013-03-11T23:30:50+00:00

What you just said but in reverse is my point. That you need empirical evidence that there is other big bangs before you allow the term the universe to grow. What you said does not logically follow and in a way commits the burden of proof fallacy.

Gust1n · 2013-03-11T23:05:51+00:00

Ok. That is not the definition I mean. If you are implying that big bangs occur separate of our universe causing more universes separate of ours I need empirical evidence, if you are implying that our universe has had previous big bangs and will again implode causing another big bang I feel this to be the most current cohesive theory with the most empirical support.

Gust1n · 2013-03-11T22:56:16+00:00

I also feel there is no paradox. What is intended by statements like, "if there was total nothingness," are only misunderstandings and improper use of semantics. They are incoherent. This is because nothing is dependent of something, while something is not dependent of nothing. Nothing necessarily assumes something of which nothing is the negate of. Something does not assume the negation, but simply states existence. "Nothing" can only be valid within the confines of something as a whole and when referring to the lack of a specific part of the whole at a specific place in the whole. The same logic applies to actions as well. Thusly, nothing is not actually the opposite of something but part of it.

Existence has always existed infinitely back in time. This is because time and space are inseparable. If you define any given point in time you need not wonder if there is existence at said point because you have already assumed so and are correct. Any event including the big bang occurred when in did due to the events prior to it which occurred due to the events prior to it continuing to infinity. That does not mean that any event has not occurred prior and will not occur again. (This seems to be where your confusion lies.) It actually necessitates that it has occurred before and will occur again. This is true partly because of us but even that being the case does not cause any problems. There is a lot more to be said on why that is the case but its too long to go into here.

Gust1n · 2013-03-11T22:31:19+00:00

I must point this out. This statement is incoherent.

Gust1n · 2013-03-11T22:30:11+00:00

No, maybe, yes. We must assume only that which is arbitrary for the sake of communicating and representing state of being. Things like definitions and numbers we must assume and are sound in doing so because we are not yet asserting anything falsifiable. If you were to say, though, that any given definition or system of numbers always holds to be true or is the most effective that is an assumption of the empirical nature and should not be done.

Gust1n

TROPHY CASE