Our Beloved Everything Defended (A Brief Inspection Of The Cosmos)

Humanity is the variable in the general outlook, not the control. Not
what is influencing anything. Thus, humanity isn't the source of the
obviously religious-influenced set of terrible outcomes. I'm saying
with scripture, there will inevitably be some people influenced by it
to kill. If, without it, there would be less meaningless murder, then
of course it's sinister. It directly influences fundamentalism, and
fundamentalism is directly inherited from it by means of a tenacious
way of living by it. Society would have been better off with the
simplistic Shamanistic practices, but I suppose that just as life
inevitably does, beliefs that require vast gullibility are bound, even
doomed, to evolve. However, there is nothing beneficial in this dreaded
process. I would have made fun of it, sure, but people aren't being
told to kill by its foundational text. I'm not even sure if it has one.
If you are to say that the morals of humanity, of civilizations, derive
from the Bible, think again. Morals predate the Bible, scratch that,
predate all religion by millions of years. Did you know Neanderthals
showed compassion for their friends that died during migration? They
would bury their dead. Evolution necessitates morality. Scripture is
hardly the derivation of good will, as archeology has actually proven
that.

Obviously I'm not saying that everyone that believes in scripture is
going to automatically go by everything it says. I'm saying that with
dogma, there will be dogs barking louder and louder, as a big burden to
society as a whole. It's a combination of the inevitable maliciousness
that the nature of religion leads to and the people that are actually
persuaded to such extreme extents by chance, to go by it word for word.

Indeed, there is always that ill will to misinterpret, to misperceive,
within the confounds of the conformist, controlling, overbearing
society. I'll keep things in a more simpler fashion, as when typing
most of these ramblings, or rather the bulk of them, I find that I
don't take into account that particular "ill will" to complexify the
obviously naturally-established foundations of observational evidences.
In summation (worth a thousand words to you), religiously-established
societies lead to fundamentalism, as fundamentalism is sticking more
closely to these, my ill-regarded blatherings, another man's/woman's
scripture. The hypothetical God hypothetically establishes a society
that will inevitably branch out a majority that is effected by the
previous, sinister, brainwashing, gullible class of people. It does
indeed function like a disease, and operates like the root of all, I
won't say evil, rather gullibility leading to a not-so-wanted set of
causes.

Often is morality a basis for the God of the gaps routine, and rarely
does it not come up as a typical question from the dogmatic, theistic,
perspective. Neanderthals, as we know so much about them, buried their
dead. I would confidently say that this is an indication that they did
in fact care for one another and were not concerned with the corpses
attracting wildlife. They were looking for any wildlife they could find
to kill. They were in the middle of migration and were starving,
migrating their way along with the animals. They wouldn't be afraid of
a tiger or a bison coming along. Everyone accepts that Neanderthals
were most likely a well functioning group, that did care for one
another. Not as civilized as us surely, but they did have some morals.
As I often point out, evolution necessitates morality, as it is
beneficial to a tranquil society, and simply put, tranquility is
beneficial in itself for the society that they were trying to build on,
but first they would have to survive. I believe this to be the
derivation of morals, and is a much more adequate explanation than a
galactic dictatorship telling us all to behave being the origin of
"goodness".

Marriage is great, but it's just an institution that derives from early
cultures that wanted to make relationships, as we refer to them as
today, simpler. It can be acknowledged by church or state. If by state,
then only the state should have a say in who gets to partake in the
institution (homosexual marriage). This is one of the many reasons I am
a firm supporter in the separation of church and state, but idiotic
government officials will be idiotic government officials, and a
corrupt, bias-tainted system will be a corrupt, bias-tainted system.

Why is it that several Christians easily establish that all laws of the
Old Testament were superseded by the New Testament except for the poor
treatment of homosexuals, or treating them as inferior? Every other law
is generally ignored by Christians except for the established views of
the Old Testament regarding homosexuals. Is this possibly because the
several Christians who share these views are merely just prejudice and
realize that they can use the Old Testament to justify their views,
which would otherwise be seen as sinister and irrational, and because
they can simply say that criticizing their biblically-acquired views is
taboo? That those views are sacred, and that no one should tell them
that they should just allow gays to marry and let them go on with their
lives, because it opposes the Old Testament? We're referring to the
same book that gives parents the free pass to kill their child if
he/she doesn't believe in God, in Deuteronomy. Imagine me introducing
my son to a chemical that causes him to sneeze out a blue liquid (use
your imagination), and then later telling him that it is immoral to
sneeze out blue liquid. Well, I am the one responsible for this
however. I introduced him to the chemical which caused this to be a
natural occurrence for him, so why would I label this as immoral, and
without any rational justification at that? The Garden of Eden story is
often used as justification for homophobia, however, using fairy tales
to condemn people with a natural attraction isn't going to fly with me,
nor will the typical, old euphemism "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve".

I propose that our Universe must be expanding into something, rather
than nothing. So why not another universe that came about the same
exact way, with its very own set of time? Another realm if you will. So
an infinite amount of time hasn't gone by, but rather there is infinite
sets of time still going, and another set will come about "later" which
isn't really an appropriate word seeing as how it isn't technically
"later" considering that we define time as confined within our
universe. This is beyond our full comprehension, but this isn't the
same sort of defense that works for God, or rather, is abused in a
failed attempt to justify the unlikelihood of a cosmic deity. How could
we possibly hope to define something such as an alternative set of time
while going into detail with how and when. It instantly becomes a
matter of what is just is. God is entirely differential. Some may
define real as anything that can be perceived as existing as an entity
within the material universe. How about within the material infinite
sets of universes. I don't suppose God is real in any of them, and
existent. He can't be considered an entity of any sort, not as a
conscious being. In summation, or rather in conclusion, a conscious
being cannot be immaterial. There is no certainty to where or how he
exists, not even for the being himself/or herself, and there is no
materiality for this conscious being. There is, from here, easily
established by means of logical observation through the broad telescope
of reasoning, no possible way you can define a conscious being as
immaterial and existent at the same time. Both of these claims are
mutually exclusive within the confounds of actuality. People
desperately need to come to terms with reality.

I wouldn't say that the Bible as a whole is a beautiful set of morals.
Buddha's teachings are, but the Bible has several portions that are
vile and disgusting. Demands of murder of the women and children in a
town with one person believing in another God, God condoning rape of
virgins keeping them for the soldiers that have just followed God's
demands to slaughter civilians with differential views or beliefs. It
is in no way a book of morals. Only in certain instances with the
teachings of Jesus, but they contradict a majority of the rest of the
book. This could easily be refuted with the New Covenant replacing the
Old Covenant, but either way the supposed God figure of the Torah/Old
Testament, and in some instances of the New Testament, has a history of
sinister, malicious views and demands, and instances of a creepy
predilection for slaughter of baby lambs. At first glance you might
come to the conclusion that Jeffery Dahmer were the reincarnated
Yahweh/Jehovah.

I love the idea of referring to the mysterious force, or simple yet
complex entity, that is the universe or perhaps behind the
universe/universes as a whole, as a woman. Women endure such a painful,
and some may even say destructive, process, that we call birth, and by
means of that process, they give birth to a knew entity. To refer to
the universe as a woman is indeed the way to go with poetic,
thought-provoking, Pantheistic views.

Often is the vast oversimplification and misconception of us coming
from monkeys being the idea of Evolution put forward as a desperate
argument from the weak-minded.

The primates share the same ancestor as us, that ancestor being the
Hominids. This isn't to be interpreted as us deriving from the same
groups as them, just the same species. This is proven in the fossil
record. In case you're wondering, yes, transitional fossils are
considered a kind of evidence that borders along observational
evidence, because you are pretty much looking at the change, the
different stages caught in time. Several hundred thousand transitional
fossils have been found, and a huge abundance are consistent in human
evolution alone. Every individual fossil from several different
categories of stages have been tested with several different dating
methods, and every dating method has come up with the same results for
each individual fossil of the same category. Not only this, but all of
the results of these testings have met with evolutionary expectations
to a T, and estimations for average brain capacity of each stage of man
fits tranquilly.

To address some of the common misconceptions in full, primates from the
same species as we did, although there were different groups of
Hominids that were separate, thus there would be a different
environment or situation of things, thus the change would be influenced
differently, thus the change would be different. So, primates are more
like our cousins. On a side note, the Hominids that were leading to us,
the modern humans, diverged into separate lineages, or branches. This
was thousands and thousands of years ago. The two groups being the Homo
Sapiens and the Neanderthals. The Homo Sapiens of course beat the
Neanderthals in the quest for survival. The fact that they had better
tools and weapons more than likely contributed to this. So, the
Neanderthals died out. This would be Survival of the fittest, as much
as I hate saying that I feel obligated to. It's basically like saying
"What is, simply is". The Hominids went through a certain stage where
their backs began to straighten. This was the stage known as Homo
Erectus. So, you might ask where the Hominids came from. Well, they
derive from earlier forms of mammals, which derive from amphibians,
which derive from aquatic wildlife, which derive from single-celled
organisms, which originate from RNA/DNA, which originates from basic
building blocks of life.

You can either believe that everything we know today was created
instantly by a supernatural space daddy/magician in a universal magic
act, or you can believe that everything came about through slow,
natural progression.

We are of course the modern day humans, or Homo Sapiens Sapiens. We
evolved from the Homo Sapiens, more than 100,000 years ago, that had
beaten Neanderthals in the quest for survival during a time and in a
place of fierce blizzards and unbelievably low temperature that made
migration necessary. Some Neanderthals died during migration, and the
reason that we happen to know as much as we do about Neanderthals is,
as I had previously mentioned a while back, because they buried their
dead. This resonates with massive implications of the roots of
morality, keeping in mind that Neanderthals had a larger brain capacity
than that of Homo Sapiens, and even modern day humans. The Homo Sapiens
that had beaten Neanderthals in the quest for survival came in around
200,000 to 500,000 years ago. At around 300,000 to 1.8 million years
ago, the Homo Erectus species lived successfully for a million and a
half years ago. This is the stage coming in right Homo Habilis, and
this is where man becomes less hunch-backed, and also where the brain
steadily grows and is nearing modern day human brain capacity. Of
course, Homo Habilis lived between 1.5 and 2.4 million years ago, and
some scientists argue that it either should be regarded as a later
version of Australopithecine or an earlier version of Homo Erectus.
Coming in before this is Australopithecus boisei, which lived some time
between 1 and 2 million years ago. Before this is Australopithecus
robustus, living around 1.5 to 2 million years ago. Australopithecus
aethiopicus comes in earlier between 2.3 and 2.6 million years ago, and
scientists say that it is most likely an ancestor of Australopithecus
boisei and Austalopithecus robustus. Next, further back in time, comes
Australopithecus africanus, which lived between 2 to 3 million years
ago. Before that comes Australopithecus afarensis, which lived 3 to 4
million years ago. Further back is Australopithecus anamensis, which
lived around 4 million years ago, and before that finally comes
Ardipithecus ramidus, the earliest Hominid. It is estimated at living
around 4.5 million years ago. This still isn't quite covering all of
human evolution though, but I've made this rant dry enough as it is,
and there are of course gaps of knowledge, as is to be expected.

The ancestor of all mammals alike is said to be a possible weasel-like
species known as Morganucodon watsoni, though we can't be certain. Of
course birds are the closest relative to the dinosaurs that is still
alive today, and some time before the rise of mammals, a mysterious
event occurred that eradicated most life on Earth, including dinosaurs.
Everything at the time of that mysterious occurrence derives from early
amphibians that derive from the fish that developed lungs and legs,
changing into an amphibious stage. Think of the transition from a
tadpole to a frog when thinking of this. All of the aquatic wildlife
originated from single-celled organisms. The transition from single
cells to multi-celled forms of aquatic wildlife is known as the
Cambrian Explosion, and took place around 500 million years ago. These
single-celled organisms developed from self-replicating molecules,
which only need a way of preserving their chemical structure. Whichever
ones have a more sufficient chemical structure would defeat the lesser
ones in the quest for survival. Yes, natural selection was at work from
around the time of the beginning of life. You may ask where these
self-replicating molecules came from. You must understand that we are
dealing with something with a fairly simple structure, so it's no
stretch to say that the building blocks of life that had already been
around on Earth for the first billion years had just randomly clumped
together by accident. The only criticism of this is that "it would make
life completely meaningless", however, randomness being amongst the
beginning point of life hardly robs fact of its validity and hardly
establishes meaninglessness in life. I believe life to be whatever you
make of it. If you waste your life in bondage of a demanding, supposed,
celestial emperor, then I would say life is more meaningless in that
sense than learning about the history of life and the cosmos, accepting
scientific fact, and not wasting your life on scripture.

Lets go back even further. How did the Earth which life is existent on
come about? Explaining the history of the cosmos proves to be more
difficult than explaining the history of life and how it has evolved in
reverse. I'll start with OUR solar system, the Milky Way galaxy, and
explain its history starting from its beginning and will work my way to
now. Our solar system was originally a rotating cloud of dust, rocks,
and gas. It contained Hydrogen and Helium, obviously, which were
created through nucleosynthesis, which I will be discussing later on.
There were also other heavy elements as well. One explanation is that a
supernovae destroyed a nearby star and a shockwave was sent in the
explosion through the solar nebula, and in result of this, the effect
of conservation of angular momentum sets in. As the cloud that our
solar system once was accelerated, its gravity, rotation, and inertia
(the resistance an object has to change in its state of motion)
flattened it to the point where it was a "protoplanetary disk"
(rotating disk of dense gas surrounding a new star) adjusted
perpendicularly to its axis of rotation. I should probably elaborate on
a lot of this though.

Simply put, it requires incredible heat to fuse atoms together to
create new elements. When a star explodes, it scatters these elements
into space. Our sun is apparently a third-generation star, formed after
two waves of supernovas. Basically the dust and gas would be enriched
with heavier elements. Those heavier elements became the rocks that
make the planets of our solar system. Of course the derivation of
original heavy elements, (Hydrogen and Helium) lie within Big Bang
nucleosynthesis. They were created in the cosmic nuclear furnaces, as
they are often referred to, when the young universe was undergoing
nuclear processes in its hot, dense state. On a side note, the center
of it all is hottest because the gravitational energy is stronger,
which in turn heated up the gas that became our sun.

In summation regarding the shock waves from a nearby supernova leading
to the effects of conservation of angular momentum, basically,
continued gravitational collapse of the cloud toward its center of
gravity was caused by all of the parts and the particles within the
cloud putting gravitational attraction on each other. According to the
law of conservation of angular momentum, the speed of the solar
nebula's rotation would have been increased when the particles would
have been spiraling inward. During this, their translational motion
(centrifugal force) would counter their inward motion. This would slow
their inward motion, and that would in turn result in the nebula
flattening into a rotating disk, with most of the mass in the center.

So now we have established how solar systems could have easily formed,
how stars formed, and how the heavy elements that made those stars came
about. Nuclear fusion of the stars is of course what all of the
elements came from. So, here we are, to ponder about how the
singularity could have possibly come about, the universe as it original
was. Time and space are ultimately two entities of the same reality.
They are confined, they are bound, within our universe. This means that
time was not existent prior to our universe. To our, what once was,
very dense and very small universe. This leads us to conclude something
along the lines of another universe that is "prior" to our own with its
own set of time. "Prior" is a very flawed word, because with an outside
source of time you can't define an alternative time source, or
containment, as something before that of our own, however we have very
limited terms, so we'll have to make due. The particular model that I
mentioned near the beginning of this blog consists of a model where
time is indefinite in a sense. Where even though you have the instance
of another Big Bang beginning with a singularity, an early universe in
an infinite set of universes that aren't really co-existing, you can't
define any instance in another universe as "before" or "after". This is
the mystery of individual containments of time along with infinite
alternative sets of time. It is far beyond our full comprehension, but
we can still certainly think about it.

We must also consider the fact that things do indeed come from nothing,
which isn't to be mistaken with creating themselves. That is more of a
God-like claim. No, I am simply putting forth the fact that energy,
particles, matter, that it can all come from nothing in the quantum
microworld in an unpredictable, spontaneous fashion. The only rebuttals
of this that I have come across are those without a foundation, based
purely on uncertainty while they can't even grasp what's behind what
they are saying (not that I can either), and border along the lines of
the wishful thinking fallacy with a negative stance.

I envision us all as individual systems of various properties that
derive from uncertain nothingness. We have won the lottery of
everything (don't perceive this as being related to the typical, old,
creation argument). Someone had to win this lottery, so why not us?
Perhaps there's another winner out there, but that is neither of our
knowledge or our concern if there is nothing we can do with the
possibility or to prove it. We mustn't waste our lives on old, outdated
guesses of the cosmos. It is an insult to this fine mistress we we
inhabit. That has given us so much. We must dedicate ourselves to
making her proud, and learning of her and her origins and entities.