Are some people just born with a natural edge, or is it something more?

man;

...God doesn't exist... There’s no choice, there’s no universal objective meaning.

Everything in nature—how things behave and grow—is just driven by these insanely complex math algorithms.

Honestly, anything people claim about nature that isn't backed up by actual, hard observation is just guesswork at best, or just humans being full of themselves and projecting our own traits onto the world at worst.

But look, isn't the mere fact that matter in the universe "just organized itself" (like, randomly fell into place... despite the law of entropy!?) to the point where it eventually formed humans—who then spend their entire lives obsessively questioning why they even exist and treating that question like the most important thing ever—kind of a sign that existence might actually have a purpose?
Just a tiny bit?
Where does that drive in us even come from?
We call ourselves "randomly high-organized matter" (aka humans) , yet when faced with this desperate need to find meaning, we’re capable of totally ignoring our basic biological needs just to stay true to that search; we starve, we suffer, we sacrifice our own lives, basically going against every single instinctual process dictated by our chemistry, hormones, and everything else inside us.

If nothing else, just because of that one fact alone, you shouldn't just toss the idea of purpose out the window.

Anyway; what even made the universe (space-time and all that baggage) in the first place, and how can you say you know?
Can anyone actually explain or wrap their head around what space-time is truly contained within... where it actually comes from?
Oh, so quantum physicists explained that, you say!?
And what exactly is their "knowledge" based on? How do they prove it?
Theories and hypotheses?
And why are those hypotheses somehow better than saying the source of creation is intelligent or meaningful?
Just because Hawking or Dawkins are the ones backing them up?
Give me a break.

When we hit that wall (the moment before space-time even existed), we all just go silent... we're all purely, strictly hypothetical.
Whether you're looking for meaning or arguing there is none.

Only someone incredibly stubborn would try to deny that reality.

So, I’m just gonna stick with my gut feeling.
I'm betting on meaning.
Even if it's just a hunch, I feel just as qualified to hypothesize about this as any big-shot quantum physicist.
Doesn't matter what their credentials are.

Facing something that exists outside the boundaries of our own existence, we’re all equally speechless.

The only difference between us is how arrogant or cocky we act while defending our own mental constructs (which, let's face it, can't be proven using space-time or material methods anyway).

Given everything I just said; meaning has an equal shot.

50:50

That's enough for me.

frozengull2 said:man;

...God doesn't exist... There’s no choice, there’s no universal objective meaning.

Everything in nature—how things behave and grow—is just driven by these insanely complex math algorithms.

Honestly, anything people claim about nature that isn't backed up by actual, hard observation is just guesswork at best, or just humans being full of themselves and projecting our own traits onto the world at worst.

But look, isn't the mere fact that matter in the universe "just organized itself" (like, randomly fell into place... despite the law of entropy!?) to the point where it eventually formed humans—who then spend their entire lives obsessively questioning why they even exist and treating that question like the most important thing ever—kind of a sign that existence might actually have a purpose?
Just a tiny bit?
Where does that drive in us even come from?
We call ourselves "randomly high-organized matter" (aka humans) , yet when faced with this desperate need to find meaning, we’re capable of totally ignoring our basic biological needs just to stay true to that search; we starve, we suffer, we sacrifice our own lives, basically going against every single instinctual process dictated by our chemistry, hormones, and everything else inside us.

If nothing else, just because of that one fact alone, you shouldn't just toss the idea of purpose out the window.

Anyway; what even made the universe (space-time and all that baggage) in the first place, and how can you say you know?
Can anyone actually explain or wrap their head around what space-time is truly contained within... where it actually comes from?
Oh, so quantum physicists explained that, you say!?
And what exactly is their "knowledge" based on? How do they prove it?
Theories and hypotheses?
And why are those hypotheses somehow better than saying the source of creation is intelligent or meaningful?
Just because Hawking or Dawkins are the ones backing them up?
Give me a break.

When we hit that wall (the moment before space-time even existed), we all just go silent... we're all purely, strictly hypothetical.
Whether you're looking for meaning or arguing there is none.

Only someone incredibly stubborn would try to deny that reality.

So, I’m just gonna stick with my gut feeling.
I'm betting on meaning.
Even if it's just a hunch, I feel just as qualified to hypothesize about this as any big-shot quantum physicist.
Doesn't matter what their credentials are.

Facing something that exists outside the boundaries of our own existence, we’re all equally speechless.

The only difference between us is how arrogant or cocky we act while defending our own mental constructs (which, let's face it, can't be proven using space-time or material methods anyway).

Given everything I just said; meaning has an equal shot.

50:50

That's enough for me.

That works for me too 🙂

Really, really great post! 👍

steelmarlin19 said:Look, you're entitled to your opinion, and that's totally fine.

But it's my right to think that you AREN'T right. Simple as that!

And you aren't right because NOT everyone can be a Mozart, or a Buddha, or a Nikola Tesla, or an Einstein—and certainly not a Jesus Christ.

To be one of those, you need "knowledge" that is far "older" and "more advanced" than us humans—believe it or not. Even Nikola Tesla admitted that none of his inventions were truly his own; he claimed he received everything from the "core of all knowledge" that exists in the universe (and even beyond it—if you ask me!).

I assume Tesla knew best how he arrived at his inventions—unless you think you know better than he did, right? Tesla is one of the "chosen," that's a guarantee. I am one hundred percent sure of that! But hey, I'm not forcing you to believe it. Not at all! ☕

It doesn't actually matter if someone is right or not. What interests me more is where the truth lies. And from where I'm sitting, truth isn't something you just see; there are just endless different commentaries on what people observe. Humans crave order and meaning, so they cook up all these various theories just to feel satisfied with themselves.
The facts are that people are born in all walks of life. Some are brilliant, some are geniuses, and some are... well, less gifted.
Ultimately, it's just whoever happened to be smarter in that specific moment who survives.

So, where does this "knowledge"—this inspiration—actually come from?
Some say it comes from the Akashic field, while others argue it’s nothing more than a lucky combination of genes and neurons:

frozengull2 said:man;

...God doesn't exist... There’s no choice, there’s no universal objective meaning.

Everything in nature—how things behave and grow—is just driven by these insanely complex math algorithms.

Honestly, anything people claim about nature that isn't backed up by actual, hard observation is just guesswork at best, or just humans being full of themselves and projecting our own traits onto the world at worst.

But look, isn't the mere fact that matter in the universe "just organized itself" (like, randomly fell into place... despite the law of entropy!?) to the point where it eventually formed humans—who then spend their entire lives obsessively questioning why they even exist and treating that question like the most important thing ever—kind of a sign that existence might actually have a purpose?
Just a tiny bit?
Where does that drive in us even come from?
We call ourselves "randomly high-organized matter" (aka humans) , yet when faced with this desperate need to find meaning, we’re capable of totally ignoring our basic biological needs just to stay true to that search; we starve, we suffer, we sacrifice our own lives, basically going against every single instinctual process dictated by our chemistry, hormones, and everything else inside us.

If nothing else, just because of that one fact alone, you shouldn't just toss the idea of purpose out the window.

Anyway; what even made the universe (space-time and all that baggage) in the first place, and how can you say you know?
Can anyone actually explain or wrap their head around what space-time is truly contained within... where it actually comes from?
Oh, so quantum physicists explained that, you say!?
And what exactly is their "knowledge" based on? How do they prove it?
Theories and hypotheses?
And why are those hypotheses somehow better than saying the source of creation is intelligent or meaningful?
Just because Hawking or Dawkins are the ones backing them up?
Give me a break.

When we hit that wall (the moment before space-time even existed), we all just go silent... we're all purely, strictly hypothetical.
Whether you're looking for meaning or arguing there is none.

Only someone incredibly stubborn would try to deny that reality.

So, I’m just gonna stick with my gut feeling.
I'm betting on meaning.
Even if it's just a hunch, I feel just as qualified to hypothesize about this as any big-shot quantum physicist.
Doesn't matter what their credentials are.

Facing something that exists outside the boundaries of our own existence, we’re all equally speechless.

The only difference between us is how arrogant or cocky we act while defending our own mental constructs (which, let's face it, can't be proven using space-time or material methods anyway).

Given everything I just said; meaning has an equal shot.

50:50

That's enough for me.

We really ought to pin down a precise definition of God. But regardless of what God actually is, the facts suggest we're dealing with an entity that has a massive obsession with large numbers. The more our understanding of the universe expands, the more these astronomical numbers come into play in how God operates.
And huge numbers have a way of making the "impossible" happen: if you have an infinite number of monkeys typing for an infinite amount of time, they’ll eventually type out a masterpiece like *War and Peace*. I actually touched on this once here:
If God were the Great Architect described by traditional Christianity, we'd probably have just one Earth and one single Sun. Instead, we see billions of galaxies and billions of stars with potential planets scattered everywhere. From what we can observe, it seems God prefers working with massive numbers. It looks like creation happens through sheer scale rather than through some grand, singular love.

Which is exactly why so many people are terrified: http://www.amazon.com/Whos-Afraid-Mu.../dp/1886653461

Daniel Castillo11 said:There aren't any choices to be made here because there is no such thing as choice. If an individual possesses a trait that others lack, it’s no different from one animal species having a biological capability that another simply doesn't; it isn't a matter of merit, but rather a stroke of blind chance. One can see the same logic applied to social standing. Some people are born with the temperament of a fighter, while others are naturally passive or possess entirely different dispositions—none of this is earned or selected through will.

If we were actually making conscious choices, we would essentially be breaking the natural chain of cause and effect. Think about it: could you truly make a decision right this second that would retroactively alter the conditions and consequences of the past moments that led you to this very instant? To do so, one would have to exist above nature and act from a position outside of the natural order, which just isn't possible. Things simply unfold; they don't require some grand reason or inherent purpose to happen.

Even those self-proclaimed enlightened gurus are really just individuals who happen to possess a certain subtle narcissism, a silver tongue, and just enough charisma to stand out and convince people of their uniqueness. Their "specialness" is nothing more than their capacity to influence others, and even that isn't a divine gift—it's just a specific part of their psychological makeup.

"It doesn't exist because I can't see it" — Rhetoric #1.

Daniel Castillo11 said:There aren't any choices to be made here because there is no such thing as choice. If an individual possesses a trait that others lack, it’s no different from one animal species having a biological capability that another simply doesn't; it isn't a matter of merit, but rather a stroke of blind chance. One can see the same logic applied to social standing. Some people are born with the temperament of a fighter, while others are naturally passive or possess entirely different dispositions—none of this is earned or selected through will.

If we were actually making conscious choices, we would essentially be breaking the natural chain of cause and effect. Think about it: could you truly make a decision right this second that would retroactively alter the conditions and consequences of the past moments that led you to this very instant? To do so, one would have to exist above nature and act from a position outside of the natural order, which just isn't possible. Things simply unfold; they don't require some grand reason or inherent purpose to happen.

Even those self-proclaimed enlightened gurus are really just individuals who happen to possess a certain subtle narcissism, a silver tongue, and just enough charisma to stand out and convince people of their uniqueness. Their "specialness" is nothing more than their capacity to influence others, and even that isn't a divine gift—it's just a specific part of their psychological makeup.

So, we're comparing humans to animals now? Fine.

Daniel Castillo11 said:There aren't any choices to be made here because there is no such thing as choice. If an individual possesses a trait that others lack, it’s no different from one animal species having a biological capability that another simply doesn't; it isn't a matter of merit, but rather a stroke of blind chance. One can see the same logic applied to social standing. Some people are born with the temperament of a fighter, while others are naturally passive or possess entirely different dispositions—none of this is earned or selected through will.

If we were actually making conscious choices, we would essentially be breaking the natural chain of cause and effect. Think about it: could you truly make a decision right this second that would retroactively alter the conditions and consequences of the past moments that led you to this very instant? To do so, one would have to exist above nature and act from a position outside of the natural order, which just isn't possible. Things simply unfold; they don't require some grand reason or inherent purpose to happen.

Even those self-proclaimed enlightened gurus are really just individuals who happen to possess a certain subtle narcissism, a silver tongue, and just enough charisma to stand out and convince people of their uniqueness. Their "specialness" is nothing more than their capacity to influence others, and even that isn't a divine gift—it's just a specific part of their psychological makeup.

"It doesn't exist because I can't see it" — Rhetoric #2.

Chance is just a human invention—a convenient placeholder for "my brain cannot compute this."

Daniel Castillo11 said:There aren't any choices to be made here because there is no such thing as choice. If an individual possesses a trait that others lack, it’s no different from one animal species having a biological capability that another simply doesn't; it isn't a matter of merit, but rather a stroke of blind chance. One can see the same logic applied to social standing. Some people are born with the temperament of a fighter, while others are naturally passive or possess entirely different dispositions—none of this is earned or selected through will.

If we were actually making conscious choices, we would essentially be breaking the natural chain of cause and effect. Think about it: could you truly make a decision right this second that would retroactively alter the conditions and consequences of the past moments that led you to this very instant? To do so, one would have to exist above nature and act from a position outside of the natural order, which just isn't possible. Things simply unfold; they don't require some grand reason or inherent purpose to happen.

Even those self-proclaimed enlightened gurus are really just individuals who happen to possess a certain subtle narcissism, a silver tongue, and just enough charisma to stand out and convince people of their uniqueness. Their "specialness" is nothing more than their capacity to influence others, and even that isn't a divine gift—it's just a specific part of their psychological makeup.

"It doesn't exist because I can't see it" — Rhetoric #3.

Daniel Castillo11 said:There aren't any choices to be made here because there is no such thing as choice. If an individual possesses a trait that others lack, it’s no different from one animal species having a biological capability that another simply doesn't; it isn't a matter of merit, but rather a stroke of blind chance. One can see the same logic applied to social standing. Some people are born with the temperament of a fighter, while others are naturally passive or possess entirely different dispositions—none of this is earned or selected through will.

If we were actually making conscious choices, we would essentially be breaking the natural chain of cause and effect. Think about it: could you truly make a decision right this second that would retroactively alter the conditions and consequences of the past moments that led you to this very instant? To do so, one would have to exist above nature and act from a position outside of the natural order, which just isn't possible. Things simply unfold; they don't require some grand reason or inherent purpose to happen.

Even those self-proclaimed enlightened gurus are really just individuals who happen to possess a certain subtle narcissism, a silver tongue, and just enough charisma to stand out and convince people of their uniqueness. Their "specialness" is nothing more than their capacity to influence others, and even that isn't a divine gift—it's just a specific part of their psychological makeup.

Consciousness = Cause
Choice = Effect

The natural principle of causality remains intact.

"Blind chance" + "chain of cause and effect" = a total contradiction.

Daniel Castillo11 said:There aren't any choices to be made here because there is no such thing as choice. If an individual possesses a trait that others lack, it’s no different from one animal species having a biological capability that another simply doesn't; it isn't a matter of merit, but rather a stroke of blind chance. One can see the same logic applied to social standing. Some people are born with the temperament of a fighter, while others are naturally passive or possess entirely different dispositions—none of this is earned or selected through will.

If we were actually making conscious choices, we would essentially be breaking the natural chain of cause and effect. Think about it: could you truly make a decision right this second that would retroactively alter the conditions and consequences of the past moments that led you to this very instant? To do so, one would have to exist above nature and act from a position outside of the natural order, which just isn't possible. Things simply unfold; they don't require some grand reason or inherent purpose to happen.

Even those self-proclaimed enlightened gurus are really just individuals who happen to possess a certain subtle narcissism, a silver tongue, and just enough charisma to stand out and convince people of their uniqueness. Their "specialness" is nothing more than their capacity to influence others, and even that isn't a divine gift—it's just a specific part of their psychological makeup.

Look, conditions are one thing, consequences are another, and then there’s the choice—which influences those consequences—making it a third thing entirely.

The question itself doesn't really hold water because it implies acting in defiance of the laws of physics, whereas the whole process of thought > choice > action is perfectly in line with them.

Daniel Castillo11 said:There aren't any choices to be made here because there is no such thing as choice. If an individual possesses a trait that others lack, it’s no different from one animal species having a biological capability that another simply doesn't; it isn't a matter of merit, but rather a stroke of blind chance. One can see the same logic applied to social standing. Some people are born with the temperament of a fighter, while others are naturally passive or possess entirely different dispositions—none of this is earned or selected through will.

If we were actually making conscious choices, we would essentially be breaking the natural chain of cause and effect. Think about it: could you truly make a decision right this second that would retroactively alter the conditions and consequences of the past moments that led you to this very instant? To do so, one would have to exist above nature and act from a position outside of the natural order, which just isn't possible. Things simply unfold; they don't require some grand reason or inherent purpose to happen.

Even those self-proclaimed enlightened gurus are really just individuals who happen to possess a certain subtle narcissism, a silver tongue, and just enough charisma to stand out and convince people of their uniqueness. Their "specialness" is nothing more than their capacity to influence others, and even that isn't a divine gift—it's just a specific part of their psychological makeup.

Not necessarily.

The power of conscious choice is just part of being part of nature, once a living form reaches a certain level of consciousness.

Daniel Castillo11 said:There aren't any choices to be made here because there is no such thing as choice. If an individual possesses a trait that others lack, it’s no different from one animal species having a biological capability that another simply doesn't; it isn't a matter of merit, but rather a stroke of blind chance. One can see the same logic applied to social standing. Some people are born with the temperament of a fighter, while others are naturally passive or possess entirely different dispositions—none of this is earned or selected through will.

If we were actually making conscious choices, we would essentially be breaking the natural chain of cause and effect. Think about it: could you truly make a decision right this second that would retroactively alter the conditions and consequences of the past moments that led you to this very instant? To do so, one would have to exist above nature and act from a position outside of the natural order, which just isn't possible. Things simply unfold; they don't require some grand reason or inherent purpose to happen.

Even those self-proclaimed enlightened gurus are really just individuals who happen to possess a certain subtle narcissism, a silver tongue, and just enough charisma to stand out and convince people of their uniqueness. Their "specialness" is nothing more than their capacity to influence others, and even that isn't a divine gift—it's just a specific part of their psychological makeup.

"Meaning" is a pretty subjective concept, if you ask me.

Every single event has both a cause and a purpose.

He was chosen solely by the sheer force of his own intellect
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknap...snt-the-devil/
And no, it isn't just that Tesla is underrated...

hollowpuma762 said:"It doesn't exist because I can't see it" — Rhetoric #1.

So, we're comparing humans to animals now? Fine.

"It doesn't exist because I can't see it" — Rhetoric #2.

Chance is just a human invention—a convenient placeholder for "my brain cannot compute this."

"It doesn't exist because I can't see it" — Rhetoric #3.

Consciousness = Cause
Choice = Effect

The natural principle of causality remains intact.

"Blind chance" + "chain of cause and effect" = a total contradiction.

Look, conditions are one thing, consequences are another, and then there’s the choice—which influences those consequences—making it a third thing entirely.

The question itself doesn't really hold water because it implies acting in defiance of the laws of physics, whereas the whole process of thought > choice > action is perfectly in line with them.

Not necessarily.

The power of conscious choice is just part of being part of nature, once a living form reaches a certain level of consciousness.

"Meaning" is a pretty subjective concept, if you ask me.

Every single event has both a cause and a purpose.

If a person fails to recognize the actual cause and purpose, they’ll just make one up on the spot—and then convince themselves it’s the truth, which is quite a way to soothe the ego, isn't it?
😲😁

David Gray9 said:He was chosen solely by the sheer force of his own intellect
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknap...snt-the-devil/
And no, it isn't just that Tesla is underrated...

Where did such an intellect come from for Tesla? Was it from God? Or was it simply a matter of being born that way by pure chance?

Benjamin Taylor6 said:If a person fails to recognize the actual cause and purpose, they’ll just make one up on the spot—and then convince themselves it’s the truth, which is quite a way to soothe the ego, isn't it?
😲😁

Where did such an intellect come from for Tesla? Was it from God? Or was it simply a matter of being born that way by pure chance?

Do you really think someone could reach the massive heights Tesla reached—way ahead of his era—just by sheer luck?

Even if we call it "luck"—meaning it happened by accident—the real question is HOW chance itself DECIDES which person gets certain talents while others don't.

It’s pretty obvious that this "chance" is actually MAKING decisions about who receives what. And that's exactly what intelligence does! So, we definitely shouldn't try to phase out intelligence—in fact, we need MORE power from those who were gifted far more than the average person.🍿

Your interpretation basically just drags in that whole Platonic, aristocratic chauvinism thing;

What "thing" exactly?

The one you just made up in your head?

there are certain people who are simply better than others, people who have a legitimate claim to a privileged status within society.

Calling someone "better" is just a value judgment that falls apart depending on a) what you're actually comparing them to; b) the frame of reference; and c) whether the person doing the comparing even understands the context of those first two points.

A professional chef is "better" at cooking than the President is.

A heavy machinery operator on a highway construction site has more "status" regarding sheer responsibility, stress, pressure, environmental awareness, dealing with special interest groups, and pure mental exhaustion compared to some mid-level cabinet minister.

And as for "rights"—man, you’re really getting bogged down in archaic terminology that lost its original meaning a long time ago.

Some people are just going to let their brains rot on autopilot, while others are going to grind every single day to make them work.
Some will settle for mediocrity just to avoid the effort, while others will sweat through days, weeks, months, and years until they actually achieve something. Some choose inertia and consumption; others choose action and creation.

If you use any kind of basic logic, it shouldn't be hard to reach the right conclusion: it's the principle and the choices a person makes that pull them out of the cave and into the light, allowing them to actually impact the society they live in based on their developed potential.

Abuse of power is a whole other mess.

Daniel Castillo11 said:I certainly didn't walk into this forum under the impression that I was going to come in here and bend the truth or reshape reality to suit my whims. I don't possess that kind of arrogance, nor, if I'm being perfectly honest, do I have any particular interest in playing such games.

I never actually suggested that there is such a thing as "special people" who possess more inherent value than the rest of us, nor did I ever imply that anyone should be viewed as less worthy because of any perceived shortcomings—be they physical or otherwise. It seems we’ve simply had a bit of a misunderstanding in how my words were interpreted.

You’ve certainly laid out a compelling argument there. If we follow your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, an individual being "chosen" implies a conscious selection process—an intentional act carved out from among countless billions of life forms. Just try to wrap your head around the sheer magnitude of that decision; imagine the staggering complexity and the cosmic scale of the criteria required to make such a choice. Can one even begin to fathom a level of processing power or authority that vast? If we accept that something or someone has been selected, then it follows that the universe—or perhaps some conscious entity steering the ship—must possess a distinct preference. It suggests that at the very beginning, everything was placed within a specific metaphysical context or position. If geniuses are essentially gifted their brilliance by God, and if they are indeed "the chosen ones," then how exactly does that selection occur? What is the metric? Why wouldn't that same spark have been bestowed upon someone else instead? By your logic, if a person is truly chosen, they are stepping into a role akin to a messiah, tasked with steering the evolution of human society. And if that is the case, they would inherently hold a more significant, privileged station within the cosmos. But this leaves us with a profound question: among all the famous creators, inventors, and scientists we know, how could anyone possibly discern which ones were actually selected and which were simply lucky?

What should we make of those anonymous geniuses—those brilliant minds who simply never had the opportunity to step into the spotlight, or perhaps just couldn't fight the uphill battle to ensure their voices were actually heard? Because of that silence, we remain entirely unaware of them, and naturally, we don't go around labeling them as "special" or legendary. But if there truly exist individuals who have been hand-picked by God, yet they possess absolutely no influence over the trajectory of society, then one has to wonder: what exactly is their purpose? Since we are already drifting into the deep waters of discussing the concept of purpose itself, I find myself questioning why such greatness would exist without an audience.

Now, I don't mean to imply that there was any malice behind your reasoning—I truly believe you were just following a thread of thought—but if we were to strictly adhere to the logic you’re presenting, we run into a rather heavy philosophical dilemma. It suggests that every single human existence must possess an inherent purpose or a specific design, implying that people essentially "earn" the hand they are dealt in life. If we follow that path, one has to ask: what kind of merit could a child born with severe cognitive disabilities possibly have earned to justify such a struggle? Is that individual somehow responsible for their own condition, or is there a higher consciousness, perhaps even God, who holds the ultimate responsibility for how life is distributed? If we accept your premise, then we are forced to conclude that every instance of human suffering, along with every social injustice we witness, is ultimately the direct responsibility of a higher power from above.

There are certain individuals among us who possess truly extraordinary capabilities. Take, for instance, those on the autism spectrum—specifically those with Asperger's—who often demonstrate such remarkable cognitive prowess. Throughout history, we have seen many recorded as true geniuses, serving as a profound source of inspiration for much of humanity. One might wonder, how are such people "chosen"? Is there some higher design at play? In my view, the answer lies not in a preordained selection by some divine supervisor, but rather in a highly unique confluence of social and genetic factors. For a person to develop such a specific psychological profile, allowing them to dedicate themselves so intensely to their pursuits, there must be a precise foundation in place. It isn't something that simply falls from the sky; instead, it is the cumulative result of various circumstances, shaped by the interplay of natural and social forces, as well as the slow, steady hand of natural evolutionary selection.

Technically speaking, we stand at a threshold where we could potentially engineer a genius through genetic manipulation and eugenics. If that becomes our reality, it raises a rather profound question: can we still say a genius is someone chosen by God? It’s a heavy thought, isn't it? Imagine if we could essentially manufacture a figure like Nikola Tesla within the controlled environment of a laboratory, carefully selecting and stitching together specific genes to ensure they possess the exact cognitive traits and personality predispositions required for greatness. If we can bypass the slow, winding path of natural evolution to achieve such results, one has to wonder where the divine intention fits into the equation. Where does the hand of God reside when we start playing architect with the very blueprint of human brilliance?

Moving forward... look, I am certainly not suggesting that extraordinary or brilliant individuals don't exist. It is simply that I find myself at odds with your specific interpretation of what makes someone "special." Your entire perspective seems to hinge on the idea of purpose and intent. My contention, however, is that the cosmos and the natural world remain entirely indifferent to our frantic human attempts to manufacture meaning. The universe doesn't operate according to some pre-ordained master plan; rather, it functions through the fundamental laws of cause and effect—or, if you prefer the language of spiritualists, karma. This implies there is no need for a supernatural catalyst behind nature. Nature is perfectly sufficient unto itself; it is an ultra-complex, self-correcting, and self-regulating system that requires no external intervention to maintain its course.

How can you be so certain that this indifferent universe possesses any inherent meaning, purpose, or grand design specifically for humanity? What is a human being, truly, within this vast, unending expanse? I suspect you might be conflating a subjective sense of personal meaning—those individual reasons why one chooses to live—with a belief in an objective, absolute, and supernatural purpose.

This is how you see it:

View on imgur

Your assertion that God does not exist—and frankly, since you don't even know who my God actually is, your claim is moot—is merely your own opinion. Since you lack any empirical evidence to support it, your viewpoint holds very little weight in a serious intellectual discussion.

I seem to recall you rambling about extraterrestrials elsewhere, for which you also possess zero proof, so... at the end of the day, we are simply never going to see eye to eye.

And since you insist that there are no "chosen" people, tell me: do we not have figures today like Buddha, Mozart, Einstein, Nikola Tesla, or Jesus Christ?

We certainly do. However, they aren't significant to the universe or to nature itself; they are significant only to human beings, who are perpetually searching for someone onto whom they can project their desires, needs, and comforts. Humans are, by their very nature, slaves to their impulses and social hierarchies. We are particularly prone to becoming subordinates to spiritual or religious authorities. Just because certain individuals stand out within human society does not mean they are indispensable or hold any greater importance within the natural order of things. In many cases, some of them were simply well-marketed. If it hadn't been for the aggressive evangelists and the religious fanatics tearing through the Roman Empire, no one would even know about Jesus. He would have remained a local story—something that, had newspapers existed back then, might have barely made it into two lines of some mediocre tabloid. Similarly, if corporations hadn't pushed and pressured Tesla to collaborate with businessmen and sociopaths, we wouldn't even recognize his name today. Everything ultimately depends on who you know, your social circle, how stubborn you are, and your ability to navigate the complexities of human society. But all of this happens through natural means—biological and social evolution—without any hint of magic involved.

Does Jesus Christ really have NO influence on this world? Just what kind of world are you living in? There are BILLIONS of people for whom He is the very meaning of life, and His words are read daily, not just in churches, if you must know.

Even Harry Potter has positively influenced millions of people. Should we build cathedrals and establish religions in his name too? Don't you see the absurdity in that logic? Furthermore, you are talking about a subjective sense of meaning—an individual's reason for existing. I am speaking about objective meaning. There is no objective meaning or purpose to life, nor is there any requirement for one to exist.

No, they weren't "chosen." It’s just a massive coincidence that they happened to possess exactly what none of us sitting here today have, and apparently, this just fell into their laps like some sort of cosmic accident without any underlying cause. Honestly, it's a rather "brilliant" bit of logic if you think about it. Best, 🙂

Of course it's a coincidence. You see, without the human mind to interpret things, there are no gods, no inherent meanings, and certainly no grand intentions. If you strip humanity out of the equation, it becomes quite clear that nature itself possesses neither a personality nor a consciousness; we are simply the ones projecting those qualities onto it. Even in our everyday American vernacular, we often say things like "nature intended it this way," as if the wilderness actually harbors a conscious will. In reality, that's just a linguistic shorthand—a convention of speech—that shouldn't be taken as a literal truth.

Then just leave us alone and let us wander through our own theories—don't feel the need to tear down our concepts or dismantle our views. Let ideas fall apart on their own, naturally. If you can't see the purpose or the point in them, that's on you—but why does that drive you to constantly jump into threads to lecture us with things we didn't ask to hear? Just let it go. Let us find our own sense of meaning and satisfaction in our own way. 😁

Maybe meaning exists, maybe it doesn't—who's really to say? Or maybe you're convinced you have the answer, which leads you to wake up the whole board just to "correct" people by pushing "your" truth—which is really just a product of your own imagination because it aligns with what modern science says, or what scientists claim, or what *you* claim, etc.

Still, you seem to be subtly trying to push your own agenda, and there's a bit of a patronizing tone to it—you tend to look down on others and toss out these "truths" as if they're absolute facts.

@tehuti

...
Of course it's chance.

Benjamin Taylor6 said:If a person fails to recognize the actual cause and purpose, they’ll just make one up on the spot—and then convince themselves it’s the truth, which is quite a way to soothe the ego, isn't it?
😲😁

Where did such an intellect come from for Tesla? Was it from God? Or was it simply a matter of being born that way by pure chance?

Chance is nothing more than just another law of the universe that we haven't figured out yet. 😲 🙂

Chance is nothing more than a little fantasy we cook up in our own heads.
A system built on pure fantasy is just more fantasy.

Law = A structured system of cause and effect, clear and defined.
"Chance" = Just a label we slap onto things when we’re too incapable of perceiving or rationalizing the actual cause and effect at play.

The "law of chance" is a total oxymoron.

"Random selection" is a complete logical, physical, biological, and philosophical joke.

Once people stop slapping these convenient labels on inexplicable events and quit trying to nihilistically dismiss everything outside the immediate scope of their own consciousness, maybe—just maybe—the human mind can actually move forward.

steelmarlin19 said:Do you really think someone could reach the massive heights Tesla reached—way ahead of his era—just by sheer luck?

Even if we call it "luck"—meaning it happened by accident—the real question is HOW chance itself DECIDES which person gets certain talents while others don't.

It’s pretty obvious that this "chance" is actually MAKING decisions about who receives what. And that's exactly what intelligence does! So, we definitely shouldn't try to phase out intelligence—in fact, we need MORE power from those who were gifted far more than the average person.🍿

It appears this intelligence possesses a rather wicked sense of humor and irony: for those it grants wisdom, it also hands out a healthy dose of madness:
😲😁😲
http://www.nytimes.com/science/tech/eccentric-genius
Tesla: scientist – genius – eccentric – oddball

hollowpuma762 said:Chance is nothing more than a little fantasy we cook up in our own heads.
A system built on pure fantasy is just more fantasy.

Law = A structured system of cause and effect, clear and defined.
"Chance" = Just a label we slap onto things when we’re too incapable of perceiving or rationalizing the actual cause and effect at play.

The "law of chance" is a total oxymoron.

"Random selection" is a complete logical, physical, biological, and philosophical joke.

Once people stop slapping these convenient labels on inexplicable events and quit trying to nihilistically dismiss everything outside the immediate scope of their own consciousness, maybe—just maybe—the human mind can actually move forward.

The big thinkers say otherwise: http://www.washingtonpost.com/science/physics-randomness

God plays dice, my dear Einstein!
“In other words, the fact that God plays dice means that the most fundamental events in the universe happen completely by chance, without any prior cause,” explains Professor Vlatko Vedral, one of the world's leading physicists in quantum information, during an interview with the Washington Post. How does this fit with our own Ivo Andrić?

So, here’s this wild theory from some quantum physicist who basically argues that because our measuring tools have limits, we're making huge assumptions about everything beyond their reach. It’s a bold move, too—throwing shade at Einstein just to get everyone talking.

🍿

Benjamin Taylor6 said:It appears this intelligence possesses a rather wicked sense of humor and irony: for those it grants wisdom, it also hands out a healthy dose of madness:
😲😁😲
http://www.nytimes.com/science/tech/eccentric-genius
Tesla: scientist – genius – eccentric – oddball

The big thinkers say otherwise: http://www.washingtonpost.com/science/physics-randomness

God plays dice, my dear Einstein!
“In other words, the fact that God plays dice means that the most fundamental events in the universe happen completely by chance, without any prior cause,” explains Professor Vlatko Vedral, one of the world's leading physicists in quantum information, during an interview with the Washington Post. How does this fit with our own Ivo Andrić?

When you talk about humor and irony😵...just look at the life of the genius Alan Turing. On top of dealing with Asperberg syndrome, he was living as a gay man during an era when that was completely misunderstood;

talk about a heavy dose of madness and social stigma.
He ended up taking his own life at just 41 years old (how he could have lived longer remains a mystery known only to God).

I suppose you could say some people get a handful of brilliance, but it comes from two very different bags altogether...😉

frozengull2 said:man;

...God doesn't exist... There’s no choice, there’s no universal objective meaning.

Everything in nature—how things behave and grow—is just driven by these insanely complex math algorithms.

Honestly, anything people claim about nature that isn't backed up by actual, hard observation is just guesswork at best, or just humans being full of themselves and projecting our own traits onto the world at worst.

But look, isn't the mere fact that matter in the universe "just organized itself" (like, randomly fell into place... despite the law of entropy!?) to the point where it eventually formed humans—who then spend their entire lives obsessively questioning why they even exist and treating that question like the most important thing ever—kind of a sign that existence might actually have a purpose?
Just a tiny bit?
Where does that drive in us even come from?
We call ourselves "randomly high-organized matter" (aka humans) , yet when faced with this desperate need to find meaning, we’re capable of totally ignoring our basic biological needs just to stay true to that search; we starve, we suffer, we sacrifice our own lives, basically going against every single instinctual process dictated by our chemistry, hormones, and everything else inside us.

If nothing else, just because of that one fact alone, you shouldn't just toss the idea of purpose out the window.

Anyway; what even made the universe (space-time and all that baggage) in the first place, and how can you say you know?
Can anyone actually explain or wrap their head around what space-time is truly contained within... where it actually comes from?
Oh, so quantum physicists explained that, you say!?
And what exactly is their "knowledge" based on? How do they prove it?
Theories and hypotheses?
And why are those hypotheses somehow better than saying the source of creation is intelligent or meaningful?
Just because Hawking or Dawkins are the ones backing them up?
Give me a break.

When we hit that wall (the moment before space-time even existed), we all just go silent... we're all purely, strictly hypothetical.
Whether you're looking for meaning or arguing there is none.

Only someone incredibly stubborn would try to deny that reality.

So, I’m just gonna stick with my gut feeling.
I'm betting on meaning.
Even if it's just a hunch, I feel just as qualified to hypothesize about this as any big-shot quantum physicist.
Doesn't matter what their credentials are.

Facing something that exists outside the boundaries of our own existence, we’re all equally speechless.

The only difference between us is how arrogant or cocky we act while defending our own mental constructs (which, let's face it, can't be proven using space-time or material methods anyway).

Given everything I just said; meaning has an equal shot.

50:50

That's enough for me.

For me, 50:50 is plenty. 👍👎
All I've realized is that looking at the essence suggests that essence is a matter of perspective—and I certainly don't intend to lose my mind trying to stare directly into the sun of that essence, do I?!
🤷

Pick yourself and you'll be the chosen one 😛
Listen to your own damn voice.

darkcanyon10 said:Pick yourself and you'll be the chosen one 😛
Listen to your own damn voice.

Say that again!
I didn't quite catch your voice over mine.
It’s all just too loud.
😁

darkcanyon10 said:Pick yourself and you'll be the chosen one 😛
Listen to your own damn voice.

👍